NY Times Passes 1M Digital Subscribers 92
HughPickens.com writes: Many news organizations, facing competition from digital outlets, have sharply reduced the size of their newsrooms and their investment in news gathering but less than four-and-a-half years after launching its pay model the NY Times has increased coverage as it announced that the Times has passed one million digital-only subscribers, giving them far more than any other news organization in the world. The Times still employs as many reporters as it did 15 years ago — and its ranks now include graphics editors, developers, video journalists and other digital innovators. "It's a tribute to the hard work and innovation of our marketing, product and technology teams and the continued excellence of our journalism," says CEO Mark Thompson.
According to Ken Doctor the takeaway from the Times success is that readers reward elite global journalism. The Wall Street Journal is close behind the Times, at 900,000, while the FT's digital subscription number stands at 520,000. "These solid numbers form bedrock for the future. For news companies, being national now means being global, and being global means enjoying unprecedented reach," says Doctor. "These audiences of a half-million and more portend more reader revenue to come."
According to Ken Doctor the takeaway from the Times success is that readers reward elite global journalism. The Wall Street Journal is close behind the Times, at 900,000, while the FT's digital subscription number stands at 520,000. "These solid numbers form bedrock for the future. For news companies, being national now means being global, and being global means enjoying unprecedented reach," says Doctor. "These audiences of a half-million and more portend more reader revenue to come."
Wow! (Score:1, Insightful)
A million people online who don't understand that deleting your cookies enables you to read as many articles as you want for free.
Re: (Score:1)
Re: (Score:3)
or mangle the url
when i get back a nytimes.com page that is paywalled i go to the url and i
1. chop off the nytimes.com domain upfront
2. chop off the trailing querystring
3. hit enter, you get a google result, the first link always being the story you want
4. follow that link
the referer is now sanitized
so you get the article. you even stay logged in
Re: (Score:2)
i actually did subscribe to the dead tree service, and will be doing so again. i have no problem with accessing my existing account through the paywall in the interim. if nytimes has a problem with that, they can contact me. i believe you don't have any authority on this matter, as much as it pains your trollish heart
Re:Wow! (Score:4, Insightful)
IMO, if you trust any of the old media enough to pay for a subscription, and you spend enough time on one website to get your money's worth, you're probably getting too much of your information from a single source.
Re: (Score:2)
IMO, if you trust any of the old media enough to pay for a subscription, and you spend enough time on one website to get your money's worth, you're probably getting too much of your information from a single source.
I think this is an excellent point, especially for general news and information. The more sources the better.
Re: (Score:2)
No, it's a lousy point. More sources doesn't equal free sources. Mayhaps you might want to pay for information from whatever varied sources you use. Unfortunately, the way that websites are going, that's not an option. Micropayments went out of style before they were even adopted. So you have to pay for the full ride.
And, unfortunately for NYT, the benefit from being a subscriber are pretty slim. Same annoying, intrusive adds. Same klunk of an interface. Same annoying emails. Most (but certainly no
Re: (Score:2)
Then there are others of us. I sometimes spend a couple hundred dollars a day donating to sites that have helped me or given me a service that I appreciate. Then there are groups like the EFF who get a goodly sum. Go ahead, put your 'please donate' button on there and I just might. I actually sometimes contact web site authors just to see how I can send them a donation because they've not given me an easy way to do so.
I kind of feel it's my social obligation to give back to those who give to me or others.
Re: (Score:3)
And, unfortunately for NYT, the benefit from being a subscriber are pretty slim. Same annoying, intrusive adds. Same klunk of an interface. Same annoying emails. Most (but certainly not all) sites that have a subscription either drop adverts or markedly tone them down. The NYT team seems a bit clueless.
Adverts for subscribers are way less than non-subscribers, and are basically the ideal static well behaved ads that we want to encourage. More emails, but they are news summaries and alerts and you can opt out. I think nyt does the subscription model pretty well. Source: personal experience.
Re: (Score:2)
And I would argue that one million subscribers to the best known newspaper on the planet...
Because if it's popular in America, it has to popular in the other 95% of the world right?
Re:Wow! (Score:5, Insightful)
Re: (Score:2)
But how many of those sources are actually doing investigative journalism?
I don't know; all I'm saying is that in general it's better to get your information from multiple sources than just one.
Not in every case, but for general news and world events I think it's a reasonable way to go.
Re: (Score:2)
Most news sources just copy pasta others. There are very few direct sources of news. Nyt, wsj, wapo, a couple others.
Re: (Score:2)
Wonder how many of the subscriptions are by businesses & libraries.
I was wondering about that as I watched a guy in the library put a copy of the NYT in his backpack and walk out.
Re: (Score:2)
Well, the rate is officially $3.75 per week (more if you want to be able to access it on all devices). But the NYT gives 50% off discounts for "educators and students", and any subscription given as a gift comes at 30% off. There's also a special corporate rate, and it's possible to subscribe to the Opinion section only. So, I'm guessing they count all these subscriptions at any level toward the total number.
When you compare the $3.75 per week to the $12+ a week (current prices) that people used to pay for
Re: (Score:2)
Re:Wow! (Score:5, Insightful)
Re: (Score:2)
Perhaps a subset of that million just believes in "paying it back" to the journalistic institutions of their communities. Just saying.
That's what convinced me to subscribe. I signed up when I realized I was paying about the same per year to my local public radio station, and that it was a quite reasonable price to support the times.
I was probably one of their earliest digital only subscribers - way back I used to get the sunday times and sit around all morning with coffee and a baguette to read it. I stopped getting LA times delivered to my door because I didn't want the paper accumulating.
Re: (Score:2)
I used to get the sunday times and sit around all morning with coffee and a baguette to read it. I stopped getting LA times delivered to my door because I didn't want the paper accumulating.
I've been trying for the past 2 months to find a decent baguette in LA. It's just not a bread town. Suggestions?
Re:Wow! (Score:5, Insightful)
I suspect it's more like supporting their own view of the world. People who subscribe to NYT or WSJ want news with the editorial spin from those sources to be widely distributed. Same with people who donate to and support congressional funding for NPR.
Re: (Score:3)
Of course. I don't much listen to Rush Limbaugh because he never says anything remotely sensible. We all pick and choose. The NYT has a distinct and disturbing liberal bias at times but they do manage to actually create news by good reporting. That's rather rare these days.
Spin (Score:2)
Not just the editorial spin. News outlets -- almost all news outlets,as well as places like Facebook -- spin content (at least) five additional ways.
First, simply by the choice of what they cover. I think that's fairly obvious, but I'll elaborate if it turns out not to be.
Second, by how they cover it. Some examples:
o Giving "equal consideration" to the ridiculous and absurd, such as anti-vaxxing, often anecdote-driven
o The opposite: Ignoring valid viewpoints (presuming the viewpoint of the paper/author is p
Wow what an ahole (Score:4, Interesting)
Just because you can sneak into the theater doesn't mean you should. Sure if you need a quick peak inside the tent I would imagine NY times is happy to have you interested in their added value news products. They do have a fairly reasonable policy of 10 free articles per month. And in doing that they leave themselves open to the work around you suggest. Would you recommend they discontinue that nice porous paywall because of cretons like you? The good news for them is you are not really their customer and you still get to see their advertisements while you gloat over your cleverness.
Re: (Score:2)
Do you honestly think the sort of person who is playing the system this way *isn't* running an adblocker/Noscript?
Re: (Score:3)
Or who don't mind paying $3/week for unlimited access and to support quality journalism..
Adapt or die (Score:2)
Then they go away.
Re: (Score:1)
Re: (Score:2)
I sympathize 100%, but I suspect your search is futile. :(
Wow! (Score:2)
Overblown (Score:4, Interesting)
I am one of one million, and a long-time reader of NY Times. Frankly, I think this is a little over blown and I sure hope they don't hurt themselves patting themselves on the back. I read the NYT mobile edition daily, enabled by my subscription to the Sunday paper home delivery. The Business and Technology sections have the same content listed for weeks on end. They suffered greatly when David Pogue left. Much of the "paid" subscription content is just blog postings. Better than most blogs, written by intelligent journalists, but blog postings none-the-less.
And about once a week (at least), you get a nasty full screen popover. Their recent coverage about the cost/benefit of ad blocking shows their pages are heavy, which gets annoying and uses bandwidth if you don't hit reader view really fast or use an ad blocker.
I love the New York Times, but have never been happy with their IT department. Will never, ever, ever use the mobile app they keep trying to get me to download. Burned too many times on that one.
Re: (Score:2)
And this is why I dropped my subscription. NYT digital is totally clueless. I can have a better experience with the shields up.
I have written to them a number of times suggesting that they lighten up, give their subscribers some actual benefit. Nobody ever listens to me except my dog and he's just waiting for a walk.
Re: (Score:2)
I'm guessing your dog is cold and wet. :)
One of the last real news outlets remaining (Score:4, Insightful)
I'm an NY Times digital subscriber, for two reasons. First, subscription costs are dirt cheap for people in academia. Second, the NY Times is one of the few remaining news services in the USA that practices investigative journalism any more. I may not always agree with the NY Times' "slant" on a particular story, but at least there is some real content to what they publish.
Our local newspaper is your typical Gannett mess, with the only real "news" being the USA Today insert. The local news is little more than thinly-disguised opinion pieces, local crime reports with minimal information, and articles that rightfully belong on a Gawker site or in People magazine. My wife and I dropped our remaining weekend subscription to the local paper months ago, and we haven't missed it since.
Re: (Score:1)
NYT is also one of the few organizations left who have an ombudsman, Margaret Sullivan (called their "Public Editor") to keep them honest and hold the editor's feet to the fire (and she does!).
Re: (Score:2)
Different Job Descriptions (Score:2)
In addition we are not particularly skilled at writin
Re: (Score:2)
What's amusing to me about therealnews.com is the banner at the top that says "no advertising" and the (at present, I just looked) seven huge banner ads on the front page.
They have other problems too, for instance, issues they simply ignore.
Not that this is any worse than other places, it's just that I wouldn't call them a paragon of excellence by any stretch of the imagination.
Re: (Score:2)
Personally I think that the Washington Post is the best mainstream investigative journalism in the USA. I gave up on NYT a long time ago. Maybe now they aren't as bad as I remember.
Re:One of the last real news outlets remaining (Score:5, Funny)
The New York Times is read by people who think they should run the country.
The Washington Post is read by people who think they run the country.
The Wall Street Journal is read by the people who actually run the country.
Re: (Score:2)
At any rating less than +5, this is underrated. C'mon mods. Stone truth.
Re: (Score:2)
with the only real "news" being the USA Today insert.
You're kidding, right? USAToday is among the most biased out there.
Re:One of the last real news outlets remaining (Score:4, Interesting)
with the only real "news" being the USA Today insert.
USAToday is the "Egg McMuffin" of newspapers: it looks way better than it tastes.
Seriously, If there's any actual news printed in USAToday, I sure as never never found it.
Good for them! (Score:5, Insightful)
Re: (Score:1)
Hmm, 1M digital subscribers...New York's population in north of 8M. So maybe 12.5% of New York's population has signed up. At most. Assuming every digital subscriber is in NYC.
Now, assuming that every one of those digital subscribers is an out-of-towner who had never subscribed before, they've probably added a good 20% to their subscriber base in, oh, 20 years or so. Hardly an example of massive success....
Re:Good for them! (Score:4, Informative)
Hmm, 1M digital subscribers...New York's population in north of 8M. So maybe 12.5% of New York's population has signed up. At most. Assuming every digital subscriber is in NYC.
The locals buy a paper copy at the bodega on their block.
Digital is for those of us outside the local area who want a comprehensive news source that they have reasonably well calibrated. All news sources are biased, but the big ones are at least reasonably consistent about it.
Pith on them, then. (Score:2)
That is a significant insight. Pulls quite a few truths, and implied consequences of those truths, together in one pithy remark. Kudos, sir. :)
Re: (Score:2)
I live in Manhattan, digital here. Why waste paper and pay for a slower, less interactive medium?
Re: (Score:2)
Pulling ahead of their competition in paid digital subscribers? Yes, yes they are. Keep up cupcake.
Re: (Score:2)
Most 21st century newspapers would kill for a circulation of 12.5% of their population. Los Angeles Times, for example, is about 5%.
Nobody's saying that the New York Times is a massive success, but it is turning a profit [nytimes.com].
Re: (Score:1)
But for the NYT, it's not just the New York population. It's the population of the English speaking upper crust. Lot's more than 12 million. That's why the one million number is pretty weak.
Re: (Score:2)
But for the NYT, it's not just the New York population. It's the population of the English speaking upper crust. Lot's more than 12 million. That's why the one million number is pretty weak.
This is digital ONLY subscriptions.
You do realize the NYT is also available in regular deadtree format, right? And it's extremely popular in that format, well exceeding digital.
Personally, I prefer the deadtree. I don't need up to the minute coverage, and the deadtree means when I sit down to read it (on my commute), I g
Re: (Score:2)
Looks like deadtree circulation for the Times is about a million, roughly equal to online-only subscriptions.
http://www.nytimes.com/2009/10... [nytimes.com]
Re: (Score:2)
"why would someone pay when Google News is free?"
Why indeed, when /. readers rather discuss about semantics of piracy and theft, than financially reward someone's hard work.
Not competitive (Score:2)
Between CNN and Flipboard, I can read lots of news for free, then subscribe to both HBO and Netflix for same money to get much more varied entertainment. These must be loyal long term subscribers who switched from paper to digital. A healthy price point is around $99/year, where people can view subscription is a reasonable infrequent expense.
Re: (Score:1)
CNN is NOT news. It is entertainment. That is a significant difference.
Re: (Score:2)
Between CNN and Flipboard, I can read lots of news for free
People don't go to the NY Times for the same news they can read on CNN etc. (I say this as one of the million digital NYT customers referenced in the article). CNN and free news aggregators tend to just republish stories they licensed from the Associated Press or UPI. (True fact: you can be a "news site" without having a single reporter, just pay your AP license and publish recycled content all day long! viz. Breitbart)
"Premium" news outlets like NY Times, Wall Street Journal, FT, Economist, Washington Post
Secret Weapon: The Times Crossword (Score:4, Interesting)
Inferior solution (Score:2)
Sure they must be happy...is it anywhere near what their paper figures use to be?
Once upon a time someone would buy a paper, read it and leave it on the train and someone else would have a glimpse of what the fuss is about...maybe they'd pay too if they wanted.
Before this slashdot article I had forgotten the NYT existed...
BBC (Score:1)
(Re:BBC) 40 million unique visitors/week (Score:3)
So? McDonalds has sold billions of hamburgers. (Score:2)
What's the point of comparing the magnitude of completely different quantities? Why not compare NYT's paid subscriptions to BBC News paid subscriptions? Or compare NYT unique users per week to BBC.
Re: (Score:2)
I'm sure the BBC is just as good at lying.
You need to pay for news. (Score:5, Insightful)
You should pay for some sort of news outlet. New York Times, Washington Post, NPR, I don't care which: you need to make sure that the place you're getting your information from is beholden to its readers, not just to its advertisers and owners. You know the old saying: if you're not paying for it, you're not the customer, you're the product.
Re: (Score:2)
Yup, paying for stuff is necessary, but not sufficient. The NY Times gets about 1/4 of its revenue from subscriptions, which is hopefully enough.
Don't know if I believe it (Score:2)
1M Digital (Score:2)
So thats 1048576 in decimal
No wonder people are clueless (Score:1)
NYT and other mainstream USA news sources are the propaganda arm of the USA government. Noam Chomsky documented their excessive pro-government nonsense in "Manufacturing Consent" and nothing has changed in the decades since. They're more than happy to publish article after article citing anonymous "high ranking" officials in the government and treating the info as the gospel. They simply publish the stories based on info they get from their unnamed sources in government without the slightest hint of skep
Re: (Score:2)
They're more than happy to publish article after article citing anonymous "high ranking" officials...
And yet here you are posting as AC. You're probably too stupid to realise how ridiculous your post is...