

Leaked NYT memo on paper's future on the web (hint: it won't be free) - eli
http://www.poynter.org/column.asp?id=45&aid=158210

======
jacquesm
Conclusion: the NYT is about to die. I can't read it any other way, there
simply are too many competitors in the general space that a newspaper operates
in that people will continue to subscribe in large enough numbers.

It's a simple problem really: In the past - before network news came along -
the newspapers had a near monopoly on news coverage. With the coming of the
networks that changed, the newspapers focused more on giving the background
and the in depth version of the networks based 'sound bytes' and flashy
presentation.

Then the web came along, a disruptive technology if there ever was one. So,
now both the networks _and_ the newspapers are manning the pumps. A nice
example is the plane recently downed in the Hudson, within minutes there were
photographs on Flickr and facebook, from the eye witnesses themselves.

Newspapers would be a day old at a minimum when they landed in your mailbox,
but it was news to _you_. Now they feel like something that you might as well
put under the cats litter box right away, you've already had plenty of
opportunity to read everything in there except for the background & opinion
pieces online 10 times over by the time you get the paper version.

And it's not like there is a shortage of background and opinion pieces on the
web either. Maybe not from salaried journalists, but interesting and often
informative just the same.

To quote Nicholas Negroponte: If your business is shipping atoms carrying
information you have a problem.

~~~
eli
I disagree. I think there is absolutely still a need for quality newspaper
reporting. You may get pictures of plane crashes on Flickr, but nobody besides
a professional news organization is going to uncover secret CIA prison camps.
A blogger can't just figure that out surfing the web.

The problem isn't so much competition from Flick and facebook as it is
Craigslist stealing all the classified ad revenue. And the fact that people
don't like paying to read things on the web.

~~~
jacquesm
There is a need for the reporting, no dispute about that. But if your
newspaper dies it isn't going to be the one to employ those reporters.

First one to crack a business model where they can send out reporters a-la the
NYT but without the overhead of running a full fledged newspaper is going to
hit it big time.

Oh, and about that secret CIA prisons thing, that was actually leaked by
someone inside to a reporter, it could have been leaked on the web just the
same.

~~~
hernan7
Maybe we will get more investigative reporting from nonprofits like Amnesty or
Greenpeace.

~~~
eli
You want reporters with a clearly stated bias towards a certain opinion?

------
shizcakes
I'm not certain that this is an internal (or leaked) memo - this reads like
someone publishing advice to the NYT, especially considering some of the more
fantastical suggestions that are not as much based in reality (merge with
cnn.com!).

[EDIT] Some more light research on Steve Brill leads me to believe that he
does not work for the Times Company.

~~~
volida
Thanks to comments like this, I think HN is a time saver after all.

------
sounddust
I would gladly pay $55/year for access to the NYT online. I read at least 15
NYT articles per day on my iPhone ad-free every day. The quality of the
articles is top-notch. The UI (of the iPhone version) is perfect and
intuitive, and I'm surprised it's been free for so long. I'm guessing they
make almost zero from online advertising in relation to print, so they don't
have much to lose by going pay-only.

~~~
lliiffee
I think it is very shrewd how they emphasize making it EASY to pay for each
article. I would absolutely click a little 'pay $0.10' button. The trouble of
pulling my credit card out of my wallet, typing everything in, worrying how
the website is storing my info, etc. is a much higher cost than the $0.10.
Eventually someone _is_ going to figure out how to do easy large-scale
micropayments, and it will be huge. Maybe iTunes will just expand scope
forever.

------
jackowayed
_There is simply no example, not one – in print, on line, in television – of
quality content offered for free ever resulting in a viable business._

What about broadcast TV stations? Anyone with an antenna can receive them and
has been able to for decades, and I think they're a "viable business."

~~~
briansmith
It is happening in TV too.

TV producers have been slowly moving their expensive content to pay TV and
producing new low-cost shows ("reality TV" and gameshows) for broadcast. Plus,
they use their broadcast channels as the stick to beat cable/satellite
operators' into paying more for their cable channel bundles.

For example, Disney moved Monday Night Football from ABC (free) to ESPN (the
most expensive non-premium channel). Larry David effectively moved "Seinfeld"
from NBC to HBO. Dance and singing contests, primetime gameshows, and hours
and hours of news broadcasts (5:30-11:00am, 12:00am, 4:00-6:30pm,
10:00-11:00pm where I live) have replaced dramas and comedies. The dramas and
comedies that are left are whatever ones that HBO didn't want.

~~~
jackowayed
Very true, and I'm not disputing that free has issues.

But saying that no solid business has ever been based on free is just plain
wrong.

------
eli
Some of the math on potential earnings is wonky, but on the whole I think
they're right.

Bottom line is that there just isn't enough money in online ads to support the
Times' journalism.

~~~
krschultz
A more accurate formula would be, if 5% of the people who currently come to
our site for free pay $5 a month we would have X amount of dollars. His
assumption that 100% of the people viewing now paying subscribers is obviously
false.

~~~
mattmaroon
Given his pricing, he doesn't seem to be assuming that at all. He's assuming
that some fraction of them will pay $7.50 per mo or 40 cents per day, etc.

This also has the bonus effect of greatly reducing delivery costs. More
revenue and less overhead.

------
joshwa
Not 'leaked'. But still a good idea, especially when you look at his numbers
on average revenue per visitor and compare it to current print+web revenues.

Incidentally, my thought was to make articles 25c on the day it's published,
free from 7-21 days, and then $1 for articles older than 21 days.

Pay for things that are newsworthy, or that are 'archive', but still let the
web spread the info for free. The folks who depend on being early to the
party, or the folks who are late to the party, pay for that privilege.

------
danw
"Leaked NYT Memo" seems false. More like a speculative post by someone
external to NYT?

------
bpyne
I would only be willing to pay if there is a "no advertisements" option.

~~~
akd
When you pay for a real newspaper, you don't get a "no advertisements"
option...

~~~
bpyne
My assumption is that the cost of producing a digital copy is significantly
less expensive than the paper version. (I'd appreciate any links to studies on
this.) If it's true, then advertising should not be necessary to defray cost.

------
rivo
I believe that the only way to make customers pay for articles again is in
conjunction with hardware (such as the Kindle) and an online store (such as
iTunes). I hate reading long articles on my monitor. (I do it because there's
no other option than buying the paper - but for one article?.) I'd be happy to
pay in order to be able to read a good article on the subway. Not $1/article,
mind you, but even a few cents per article would turn into a nice sum of money
for the newspapers.

------
patrickg-zill
The NYT will die because they are not a must-have source of news or views.

I find cringe-making purple prose on the front page of the NYT every time I
pick one up.

The writing is entirely too "precious", in spite of the many good writers they
have.

Further, their recent strategy of hiring alt-weekly writers to try and give
them an "edge" to their reporting has only accelerated the decay - people can
tell when you are posing.

------
rms
Didn't they already try this?

------
mainsequence
"These subscribers might even be issued a share of stock in the first year."

I wonder, could this work? NYT is trading below $5 today, so that's like ~10%
discount on a year's subscription.

------
gabrielroth
Steven Brill is a media critic who doesn't work for the NYT. Flagged for
deceptive headline.

