$8 a month for the "insider"translates to 96$ per year. I spend 3 $ more and guarantee 2 years subscription (with educators discounrt) to "The New Yorker" magazine, which is a perfect pairing for NYT addicts (and people like me who desire the biggest bang for their ever shrinking buck).
How can one know that Times Insider is an insult to those who pay extra?
http://www.nytimes.com/2015/10/23/insider/writing-about-and-rooting-for-...
I commented on Michael Powell's article five days ago, a day after its dateline. As of now, ZERO comments have been moderated and posted. Zero, nil, null set, void. I know for a fact that I submitted a comment, and it's hard to imagine that some version of Mets fans didn't join me (in paraphrasing Dean Truthiness Baquet). Articles are opened up to comments, but are hardly moderated. Once again, the Times offers the back of its hand.
http://www.nytimes.com/2015/10/23/insider/writing-about-and-rooting-for-...
I commented on Michael Powell's article five days ago, a day after its dateline. As of now, ZERO comments have been moderated and posted. Zero, nil, null set, void. I know for a fact that I submitted a comment, and it's hard to imagine that some version of Mets fans didn't join me (in paraphrasing Dean Truthiness Baquet). Articles are opened up to comments, but are hardly moderated. Once again, the Times offers the back of its hand.
1
I agree with the comment that Insider, and especially its continual promotion, is “distracting and wrongheaded.” Give it up.
2
Ms. Sulllivan, from reading the comments it looks like Insider falls in the second category. Failure.
1
Times Insider is just more over-sharing. I'm really not interested in the inner lives of reporters or how the sausage is made. It leads to a loss of objectivity and a, probably unconscious, desire on the part of the reporters to be accepted and liked by readers. Which only leads to a breezy, trivializing newspaper.
It's exhausting enough getting through all the lengthy anecdotal leads and analysis to finally find what a story is actually about much less be encouraged to read the backstory on the story. How about just some straight news?
It's exhausting enough getting through all the lengthy anecdotal leads and analysis to finally find what a story is actually about much less be encouraged to read the backstory on the story. How about just some straight news?
4
Put another way, all attention to this new gimmick comes at the expense of real news. One person cannot be doing two things at once. Oversharing, as you so aptly call this, takes away from the core mission.
I am an ardent reader. The Times has been part of my life since I was four years old (more than 50 years ago), when reading its front page was a test that would allow me, if passed, to stop my reading lessons. I pay almost $200 a year for my digital subscription. But that's not enough, you're telling me. No, I won't pay more for Insider, and count me among those who find it irritating that you'd do this to the readers who have championed and supported you for decades.
4
Ditto and I pay about $850 a year for delivery! It's unbelievably insulting to suggest I should pay more.
All of NYT should be called Insider when you look at the pundit class's unanimous proclamation of Hillary's victory in the debate, despite a clear majority of the people who actually watched it calling Sanders the victor.
5
Val in Brooklyn, NY to Micheal in L.A.
I am very hard pressed to disagree with you and I am really sick of it.
Submitted 11-8-15@5:17 p.m. EST
I am very hard pressed to disagree with you and I am really sick of it.
Submitted 11-8-15@5:17 p.m. EST
As I said on my blog a year ago, The Times' paywall is obviously leaving money on the table from loyal, engaged readers who would pay more for Times' journalism and extras. Premier, and now Insider, attempt to capture that value, but, like the old "Godfather"-inspired joke, they have made me an offer I cannot understand.
I cancelled after the trial. The value of offers was very episodic, and a constant subscription price makes no sense when my usage and value varied widely from week to week (mostly low). The features at the time were not of great interest to me. The free e-books were titles that were not the ones I was interested in. If I could have run-of-the-house access, and pay in line with what I actually found interest in, I would have been very willing to be a patron.
My point was to propose a more flexible and dynamic approach to pricing this premium service, called FairPay, that prices with my participation, based on what I actually use and how I value it (in a way that offers volume discounts and a soft form of metering) -- a cooperative process that encourages me to pay voluntarily as a patron. It was presented to managers at the Times (and is described on the HBR Blog).
Trying a radical approach like FairPay has risks, and takes effort, but I suggest that a FairPay version of Insider offers far more profit potential and far better relationships with the Times' patrons than the current version. Time will tell. (My full post is at http://bit.ly/1p2yhNF.)
I cancelled after the trial. The value of offers was very episodic, and a constant subscription price makes no sense when my usage and value varied widely from week to week (mostly low). The features at the time were not of great interest to me. The free e-books were titles that were not the ones I was interested in. If I could have run-of-the-house access, and pay in line with what I actually found interest in, I would have been very willing to be a patron.
My point was to propose a more flexible and dynamic approach to pricing this premium service, called FairPay, that prices with my participation, based on what I actually use and how I value it (in a way that offers volume discounts and a soft form of metering) -- a cooperative process that encourages me to pay voluntarily as a patron. It was presented to managers at the Times (and is described on the HBR Blog).
Trying a radical approach like FairPay has risks, and takes effort, but I suggest that a FairPay version of Insider offers far more profit potential and far better relationships with the Times' patrons than the current version. Time will tell. (My full post is at http://bit.ly/1p2yhNF.)
1
The Comments facilities accompanying many (but not enough) news/opinion items should be a prime source of new revenue for the NYT.
I understand many digital subscribers’ distaste for “access surcharges” – i.e. additional payments for the ability to read, watch, and/or listen to certain types of Times content.
However, what objections can they have against “publication surcharges” – i.e. extra fees charged to what I term “Priority Commenters” in return for benefits including the ability to ensure that they and their comments receive exceptional great visibility?
Creation of Priority Commentators should be part of a major overhaul of the NYT's Comments facilities that includes total abolition of moderators (and their big costs) so that all comments and replies are posted immediately without the waits that now can last 8 hours and more - BUT with truly objectionable material removed if sufficient readers click on the ‘objectional’ button to be added next to the existing ‘reply’ and 'recommend' buttons.
The most valuable Priority Commentator benefit is that they – and only they – receive email, Twitter, and/or Facebook the moment the NYT makes a new piece of content available on-line. If they are logged in to the Times at the time, they also receive alerts via on-screen pop-ups.
This will give the many commenters who clearly live for it (e.g. Regas, Moses, Eisenberg) a huge edge in terms of being published first and adored the most.
I understand many digital subscribers’ distaste for “access surcharges” – i.e. additional payments for the ability to read, watch, and/or listen to certain types of Times content.
However, what objections can they have against “publication surcharges” – i.e. extra fees charged to what I term “Priority Commenters” in return for benefits including the ability to ensure that they and their comments receive exceptional great visibility?
Creation of Priority Commentators should be part of a major overhaul of the NYT's Comments facilities that includes total abolition of moderators (and their big costs) so that all comments and replies are posted immediately without the waits that now can last 8 hours and more - BUT with truly objectionable material removed if sufficient readers click on the ‘objectional’ button to be added next to the existing ‘reply’ and 'recommend' buttons.
The most valuable Priority Commentator benefit is that they – and only they – receive email, Twitter, and/or Facebook the moment the NYT makes a new piece of content available on-line. If they are logged in to the Times at the time, they also receive alerts via on-screen pop-ups.
This will give the many commenters who clearly live for it (e.g. Regas, Moses, Eisenberg) a huge edge in terms of being published first and adored the most.
1
One word: Yuck.
Who but the idle have time to read the backstory? Just making time for the front story is hard enough. I'm sure I am not alone in being completely uninterested in "how it was done"—NYT's version of the "bonus" "Director's Cut" DVD, something else I've never been tempted to view.
We know how it's done. Hours, days, or weeks of dogged asking, note-taking, checking, questioning; hours more reading, re-reading, questioning, changing, editing, rewriting. Yes, the process is interesting—the first time. But it's a process that goes on behind the scenes of every story—it's crucial, painstaking, and ultimately, for participants and readers, tedious, until it emerges on the page in print, at which point it becomes glorious.
Except for journalism students or new media bloggers, I can't imagine anyone reading "Insider" more than once. It won't be around much longer.
We know how it's done. Hours, days, or weeks of dogged asking, note-taking, checking, questioning; hours more reading, re-reading, questioning, changing, editing, rewriting. Yes, the process is interesting—the first time. But it's a process that goes on behind the scenes of every story—it's crucial, painstaking, and ultimately, for participants and readers, tedious, until it emerges on the page in print, at which point it becomes glorious.
Except for journalism students or new media bloggers, I can't imagine anyone reading "Insider" more than once. It won't be around much longer.
4
The Times effort to monetize every digital bit is getting close to going the fatal way of Mad Magazine, which began to produce content and ads that were superficially indistinguishable.
The new section on the Home Page called "Stories from our Advertisers" is quite misleading and of that genre. These are simply paid ads, and with the Time description as "stories" they could easily be construed as stories that haven been written by Times journalists and vetted by its editorial staff.
As to Times Premier/Insider to which I have subscribed: I am about at the point where I will have decided the cost will produce as much enlightenment and provide more pleasure if I use it to get a nice, hot mushroom pizza.
The new section on the Home Page called "Stories from our Advertisers" is quite misleading and of that genre. These are simply paid ads, and with the Time description as "stories" they could easily be construed as stories that haven been written by Times journalists and vetted by its editorial staff.
As to Times Premier/Insider to which I have subscribed: I am about at the point where I will have decided the cost will produce as much enlightenment and provide more pleasure if I use it to get a nice, hot mushroom pizza.
5
In a day and age when the Times is constantly cutting newsroom staff, do they really have time the manpower to do self-congratulatory pieces about how they assemble a story? I'd much rather they stick to reporting the news, not trying to make it.
3
I am happy with NYT, plain vanilla. Times Insider? More like Times Solipsistic.
2
Two observations:
1. Those running ad blockers don't even know these promotional ads are occurring. They work!
2. This is for the hand-held news-reading subset of readers And I guess there are a bunch, though I can't understand wanting to read more than a headline and paragraph on a tiny device -- assuming there is even the need to read news while out in public.
1. Those running ad blockers don't even know these promotional ads are occurring. They work!
2. This is for the hand-held news-reading subset of readers And I guess there are a bunch, though I can't understand wanting to read more than a headline and paragraph on a tiny device -- assuming there is even the need to read news while out in public.
1
I I have often thought that the way the Times could expand in this upcoming generation is to offer more commentary on more articles. For me it is the total package of reporting and on line commentary where we as readers get something approaching the truth... Thanks.
1
.
@ Bob Van Noy:
1. Agreed. In fact, a while back I believe we were told that the number of articles that would be open for Comments would double by the end of August; I wonder if that has happened. Of course, doubling would not be enough, but sometimes things happen incrementally.
2. I once left a Comment on a Public Editor column that drew a complimentary Reply from you. It was very touching and I tried to get word to you of my appreciation; I hope it reached you.
3. Your photographs are sublime!
@ Bob Van Noy:
1. Agreed. In fact, a while back I believe we were told that the number of articles that would be open for Comments would double by the end of August; I wonder if that has happened. Of course, doubling would not be enough, but sometimes things happen incrementally.
2. I once left a Comment on a Public Editor column that drew a complimentary Reply from you. It was very touching and I tried to get word to you of my appreciation; I hope it reached you.
3. Your photographs are sublime!
The Times ought to spent more time and money on journalism instead of bragging about itself. I am a Times digital subscriber who finds the pay wall is doing a lousy job of limiting front-page ads. Someone at the Times even manages to approve, without embarrassment, "Stories from our advertisers." Now I am asked to pay a surcharge so I can see the wonders of the Times newsgathering process. Sorry, no. I do wish I could go back and read your Insider piece bragging about your Amazon workplace reporting, but I just now discovered that my digital archives access does not include Insider archives. Pretty soon the slogan should be "All the News That's Full of Itself."
9
It's always the squeaky wheels....
Put me down as someone who will pay a fair price for a good product. You can also put me down as a long time subscriber who is forever interested in how the Times gets put out every single day. I know that errors will be made [hey, bet some of the critics here have made their share] but it is part of life and of producing a quality product on a daily, never ending deadline. For those who don't like it or are simply impatient or too cheap, go elsewhere.
For me, I want to know how the sausage is made. I want a peek behind the curtain.
Put me down as someone who will pay a fair price for a good product. You can also put me down as a long time subscriber who is forever interested in how the Times gets put out every single day. I know that errors will be made [hey, bet some of the critics here have made their share] but it is part of life and of producing a quality product on a daily, never ending deadline. For those who don't like it or are simply impatient or too cheap, go elsewhere.
For me, I want to know how the sausage is made. I want a peek behind the curtain.
"Both Ms. Lehman and Ms. Donner were quick to say that Insider is not news, but is rather, in Ms. Donner’s terms, “'a peek behind the curtain...'”
Well --
To paraphrase the famous character actor Frank Morgan (aka The Wizard of Oz) -- "Pay no attention to that journalist behind the curtain!" --
There are those who can recall the days when The New York Times was published in two simple sections for Monday through Saturday editions...at a cost of 10¢ --
For most of us - those editions were more enough to to provide us with a daily dose of critical "hard news" about what was going on in the world - along with a few stories from the Metro Desk covering local events - along with New York State and City politics...
In fact - riding home on The New Haven Rail Road during the evening commute, one would see many of the original "Mad Men" sitting with their tattered copies of the Times - trying to catch up on the lengthy and important stories which they hadn't time to read earlier in their busy day...
And - (pardon me if this sounds "politically incorrect") - back then, if one mentioned "Fashion & Style" - most people would assume one was referring to a glossy women's magazine --
Well --
To paraphrase the famous character actor Frank Morgan (aka The Wizard of Oz) -- "Pay no attention to that journalist behind the curtain!" --
There are those who can recall the days when The New York Times was published in two simple sections for Monday through Saturday editions...at a cost of 10¢ --
For most of us - those editions were more enough to to provide us with a daily dose of critical "hard news" about what was going on in the world - along with a few stories from the Metro Desk covering local events - along with New York State and City politics...
In fact - riding home on The New Haven Rail Road during the evening commute, one would see many of the original "Mad Men" sitting with their tattered copies of the Times - trying to catch up on the lengthy and important stories which they hadn't time to read earlier in their busy day...
And - (pardon me if this sounds "politically incorrect") - back then, if one mentioned "Fashion & Style" - most people would assume one was referring to a glossy women's magazine --
1
I feel some discomfort with the term 'insider.' It is kind of elitist. I do not want to be an insider, someone who has privileged information, someone closer to the seat of power, of decision making. I do not want to be premier. Neither do I want to be a outsider, although there may be some more honor there. It is fine that the NYT produces these probing accounts of how stories are reached and written. Should we not all be able to read them if we wish, rather than just a few who pay more for them? Should not a newspaper be a newspaper? When it arrives on my driveway, we all read the same newspaper.
3
[[Success will be judged partly on reader engagement: how many post comments.]]
To that end, please don't close the comments section on an opinion piece until after you've moved the story off the home page. I just hit two or three enticing stories in a row where the comments were closed.
If you value reader engagement, you should allow readers to engage themselves with stories, opinion pieces, and op-eds.
To that end, please don't close the comments section on an opinion piece until after you've moved the story off the home page. I just hit two or three enticing stories in a row where the comments were closed.
If you value reader engagement, you should allow readers to engage themselves with stories, opinion pieces, and op-eds.
4
Good lord. It's as if some people go looking for things to complain or be offended about.
I got the Times Premiere when it was first offered. Then I realized I wasn't getting anything extra worth reading for the money. Buh-bye. What I find very annoying if clicking on a section or article & getting a promo for different types of Times accesses. Attention please, NYT: I do NOT own a tablet of any kind. I cannot read much of anything on my Android. I am very happy with the access I have. If I want to Crossword, e.g. I'll go to the Library & copy it from the Magazine--cost to me 20 cents. ENOUGH. Stop hiding things behind expensive paywalls. Stop urging me to get different accesses of the Times. Let me enjoy the access I have sans additional cost. Does the Times not make enough money now w/the incessant ADVERTISING? (Is no one buying cars?)? The popup ads that I have to click on "close" to get to my article don't make me any happier. ENOUGH, NY Times. Stop gouging people. Perhaps if corporate execs would trim their own salaries...
.
@ PK Miller,
There is some sort of copyright exemption for public libraries. They are permitted to make photocopies of pages from newspapers available to patrons at no cost.
You, or anyone else who may be interested in the NYT Crossword, may wish to check with area libraries about such photocopies. The Baldwin Public Library on Long Island, NY, keeps piles of puzzles available for patrons, just as an example: 2 per weekday (Newsday and New York Times Crosswords) and multiple ones per weekend days (when Newsday and NYT each run puzzles in addition to their Crosswords).
Naturally, I think schools should use their copyright exemption for the purpose of distributing Gail Collins's column to each student. What could be more educational?
@ PK Miller,
There is some sort of copyright exemption for public libraries. They are permitted to make photocopies of pages from newspapers available to patrons at no cost.
You, or anyone else who may be interested in the NYT Crossword, may wish to check with area libraries about such photocopies. The Baldwin Public Library on Long Island, NY, keeps piles of puzzles available for patrons, just as an example: 2 per weekday (Newsday and New York Times Crosswords) and multiple ones per weekend days (when Newsday and NYT each run puzzles in addition to their Crosswords).
Naturally, I think schools should use their copyright exemption for the purpose of distributing Gail Collins's column to each student. What could be more educational?
Our library does the same. Nice service.
1
Dear NY Times, for the collective sanity of all online subscribers, PLEASE adopt the KISS principle (Keep It Simple, Stupid). Many of the comments here touch on aspects of this... Please curate better, focus on quality writing and editing, even if that means fewer articles, and cut way back on self-promotion (ok, we get it, we're your readers after all). Tiered subscriptions seem more like a non-profit asking for donations. And many of us subscribe to multiple online newspapers, magazines, and other media - and it costs a LOT every month.... Rather than trying to upsell your million online subscribers, focus on the basics and improve quality before these readers decide it's not worth the money. Thank you.
5
Well said. Nice and succinct. I wish/hope the powers that be listen to you; but I doubt they will. Almost every change in recent history has been to clutter the website and hardcopy and make it less useful on a daily basis. And despite near-unanimous agreement on things like pop-ups, auto-play videos, etc., no changes are made.
3
This seems as if it might be the time and the place to mention (complain really) that too many of the stories I see on the news feed for my internet subscription are repeated many days on end. One on nanotechnology (from "Time") was there for nine days! What gives?
1
Val in Brooklyn, NY to Harley Bartllett
1. Justifiable complaint.
2. I've read it from at least one other person.
3. You definitely speak for me too.
4. Yes, NYT: What gives; what will you do about it: and when?
Submitted 11-8-15@5:28 p.m. EST
1. Justifiable complaint.
2. I've read it from at least one other person.
3. You definitely speak for me too.
4. Yes, NYT: What gives; what will you do about it: and when?
Submitted 11-8-15@5:28 p.m. EST
The Times would be doing the plebeian readership a great favor by putting all the "added value" behind this new paywall and offering mere subscribers nothing but the news. Save the editorial intrusions, the chatty asides and the reportorial mind-reading of presidential candidates for the $8/month crowd.
"The company’s leaders have made clear that the future depends primarily on finding ever-growing numbers of people willing to pay substantially for high-quality journalism."
A euphemism for the ostracisation of those who are not able to pay.
The NYT will become increasingly a reflection of a middle class, introspective, elite. A metaphor for those very "company leaders" and the narrow world view they inhabit.
Instead of leading debate, the NYT will simply bump around in its own little box.
A euphemism for the ostracisation of those who are not able to pay.
The NYT will become increasingly a reflection of a middle class, introspective, elite. A metaphor for those very "company leaders" and the narrow world view they inhabit.
Instead of leading debate, the NYT will simply bump around in its own little box.
1
well it just might be pricey to folks living on a fixed income Your grandparents need the times too, and they don't spend on cocktails but contributions to your children's educaton
1
I am happy that there exists a "core group of loyalists" to The Times who apparently can be exploited for their willingness to spend an extra $8/month for what have been to date rather dull articles. Since the NYT is just one of many publications I read, I doubt I will ever be part of this group.
Please spend the resources on improving what the NYT does best and selling it to us in formats which suit the way we access information and analysis.
Please spend the resources on improving what the NYT does best and selling it to us in formats which suit the way we access information and analysis.
3
Reading the comments, it appears people are paying different rates for online subscriptions, from $15 to $35. I'd like to lower my online subscription rate to $15. Who do I talk to for that?
3
The NYT is in the business of providing information and entertainment to those who read its various forms. In the current "tablet era" the NYT competes with a host of other information sources world wide as well and the "News" button on my iPad. These information sources have various editorial policies and business models. A number are government or group supported.
The "News" button is an "expert system" that finds news and information that is offered in English world wide. In does not yet offer translation services but surely will in the future. Going forward "expert systems" will gather more and more of the information interested readers view. I think that this is the future and the NYT should be a part of it.
That said how does the NYT monetize this widely dispersed readership? How does anyone monetize it? Presently the "playing field is tilted towards those who don't need to monetize their offerings but only count the number of readers that they attract. This places all "fee for information" outlets at a disadvantage.
It is in no ones best interest to abandon the supplying of online information to those who are financed by other means or is it? To date it has been "notoriously difficult" to monetize internet offerings. As the Internet is currently configured this will remain the case in the future. This fact speaks poorly for a "continued free and independent press" which is a "corner stone" of our form of free government. This is a problem that must be addressed!
The "News" button is an "expert system" that finds news and information that is offered in English world wide. In does not yet offer translation services but surely will in the future. Going forward "expert systems" will gather more and more of the information interested readers view. I think that this is the future and the NYT should be a part of it.
That said how does the NYT monetize this widely dispersed readership? How does anyone monetize it? Presently the "playing field is tilted towards those who don't need to monetize their offerings but only count the number of readers that they attract. This places all "fee for information" outlets at a disadvantage.
It is in no ones best interest to abandon the supplying of online information to those who are financed by other means or is it? To date it has been "notoriously difficult" to monetize internet offerings. As the Internet is currently configured this will remain the case in the future. This fact speaks poorly for a "continued free and independent press" which is a "corner stone" of our form of free government. This is a problem that must be addressed!
There is an awful lot of hand wringing in these Public Editor articles about the supposedly new world of digital news, and how the New York Times is faring in this world. I've already said most of what I have to say about in previous comments in this space. The "new" digital news format is now 22 years old, at least. The Internet went big in America in 1993. I dug up an ancient screen image of AOL running a short NY Times article on their website in 1994, or 1995. If the NY Times hasn't figured out how to survive in the not-very-new digital news world by now, they aren't going to. These are the smartest people in the media room.
But we will never know anyway because nobody outside of the Times family knows the actual revenue figures. We know there is less money now in the newspaper business than there used to be. That means that like any business, adjustments have to be made. Get rid of the expensive employees and have an overall smaller outfit. A lot of this has been done already. Enough with the hand wringing over this issue. If the Times can't make it on digital pennies, they aren't very good business people.
As for the Times Insider, I never even get through with Times "outsider" stuff. A premium version of the Times is probably a waste of time. I know I'm not paying more for it. Just charge more to everybody, and give everybody the same stuff. Can we move on from this issue, please?
1
.
"But we will never know anyway because nobody outside of the Times family knows the actual revenue figures."
This is true. It also flies in the face of remarks from the Executive Editor about how essential the readership is to the future of The Times. If we are so essential, so valued, so smart and full of ideas, we can be given the relevant info on revenue over time.
All of us who Comment on pieces about the finances of NYT are merely guessing as to whether our Comments are relevant. Without knowing how much the NYT earns, and what factors seem to affect earnings, we are not really participating in any discussion that the Executive Editor cares about.
When we purchase cars, plane tickets, and numerous other items, we can easily find information online letting us know, e.g., the seller's costs or the range of prices being charged by different sellers for the same product. In other words, we can be knowledgeable consumers.
The New York Times seems to think that information -- even private information, such as a Secretary of State's emails about her exercise regimen -- should be more freely available. The news organization hails those who would steal data (Manning, Snowden, et al.) and distribute it to the public. The Times gives the appearance, in these ways, of wanting its readership to be knowledgeable.
So when shall The Times officially inform its paying subscribers about the subscribership and revenue associated with its various digital offerings?
"But we will never know anyway because nobody outside of the Times family knows the actual revenue figures."
This is true. It also flies in the face of remarks from the Executive Editor about how essential the readership is to the future of The Times. If we are so essential, so valued, so smart and full of ideas, we can be given the relevant info on revenue over time.
All of us who Comment on pieces about the finances of NYT are merely guessing as to whether our Comments are relevant. Without knowing how much the NYT earns, and what factors seem to affect earnings, we are not really participating in any discussion that the Executive Editor cares about.
When we purchase cars, plane tickets, and numerous other items, we can easily find information online letting us know, e.g., the seller's costs or the range of prices being charged by different sellers for the same product. In other words, we can be knowledgeable consumers.
The New York Times seems to think that information -- even private information, such as a Secretary of State's emails about her exercise regimen -- should be more freely available. The news organization hails those who would steal data (Manning, Snowden, et al.) and distribute it to the public. The Times gives the appearance, in these ways, of wanting its readership to be knowledgeable.
So when shall The Times officially inform its paying subscribers about the subscribership and revenue associated with its various digital offerings?
1
The extraordinary, relentless promotion that was devoted to Times Premier gave me the uncomfortable feeling that it was the revenue brainchild of a management exec who was too high and too influential to fail. Nevertheless, the effort was apparently a bust, as evidenced by its rebirth as Times Insider, with a new, weighty promotional push. Seems like good money after bad. My take is that if a backstory is worth publishing at all, it should be a sidebar of interest to the paying subscriber that does not hide behind an artificial secondary paywall. Otherwise it cheats the subscriber. Still, I'd pay to read a Times Insider, as a fly on the wall, about the meetings that went into the decision to try, try again.
Many years ago a legendary Daily News reporter named Theo Wilson would file stories from her coverage of salacious trials that were invariably followed by "first add for desk." The first add related testimony that was, in those days, too hot to be published, at any price. I view the Times Insider as the modern-day equivalent of "first add for desk."
Many years ago a legendary Daily News reporter named Theo Wilson would file stories from her coverage of salacious trials that were invariably followed by "first add for desk." The first add related testimony that was, in those days, too hot to be published, at any price. I view the Times Insider as the modern-day equivalent of "first add for desk."
4
The articles Ms Sullivan mentions (how subjects for obituaries are chosen, Times recipes, etc) are worthy enough for the Times proper. The Times does not deal only in "news" now, so it is disingenuous to try to distinguish the Insider content from the paper. We who pay for "hard" subscriptions deserve better.
21
Back before they took away my credit cards I would get, included with my bill, with remarkable frequency, the latest update to my account, i.e., changes made overnight, yet another way someone had dreamed up to take my money; and I'd think: there are really people who sit around dreaming this stuff up?
And here again a column on yet more ways for the NY Times to make money. The explanations for them about as convincing, and easy to read, as my old banks' explanation on the necessity for their latest fees.
And here again a column on yet more ways for the NY Times to make money. The explanations for them about as convincing, and easy to read, as my old banks' explanation on the necessity for their latest fees.
7
I find myself agreeing with the velvet rope analogy. The incessant promotion of Insider makes me feel as though my mere basic digital subscription isn't really appreciated.
26
Not even a velvet rope. Think of it as a barricade at the concert, with big guys in yellow shirts with SECURITY on the backs arms folded on the other side.
By the way, Mx Sullivan, a page that I had not touched in some time just loudly began playing audio. Is this the future for us?
By the way, Mx Sullivan, a page that I had not touched in some time just loudly began playing audio. Is this the future for us?
Val in Brooklyn, NY to Tim Arsenault in Nova Scotia
Thank you and very well said.
Submitted 11-8-15@5:19 p.m. EST
Thank you and very well said.
Submitted 11-8-15@5:19 p.m. EST
"But Insider rubs some readers the wrong way, making them feel more like outsiders for offering something that their basic subscription — already pricey — won’t allow access to."
Already PRICEY??
At $15 a month, the price of a cocktail in a city restaurant, how could anyone not think that a Times subscription to the most reliable, impartial, and intelligent news on the planet is a stellar bargain?
Already PRICEY??
At $15 a month, the price of a cocktail in a city restaurant, how could anyone not think that a Times subscription to the most reliable, impartial, and intelligent news on the planet is a stellar bargain?
14
"the most reliable, impartial, and intelligent news on the planet." If this description is true, it may speak more to the dearth of quality elsewhere than to the NYT's virtues. In the land of the blind ... but let that pass.
The expression 'let them eat cake' is frequently misunderstood. The apocryphal tale attributed to Marie Antoinette (she never said it) does not illustrate her callousness, but her cluelessness. Similarly, I don't suppose it has occurred to you that not everyone can shell out $15 for 'a cocktail in a city restaurant'. (And of those plebs, some can actually read -- travelling missionaries passed through our shantytowns.) However, the NYT is increasingly making it clear that this is its target audience - to the exclusion of others.
There's a great moment in the movie The Aviator, in which Howard Hughes is having lunch with the family of his current flame, Katharine Hepburn. The Hepburns are, well, exactly what I envision the typical NYT aficionado to be. At one point the matriarch says dismissively, 'we don't care about money,' to which Hughes - who's had more than enough - snaps, 'that's because you've always had it.'
The expression 'let them eat cake' is frequently misunderstood. The apocryphal tale attributed to Marie Antoinette (she never said it) does not illustrate her callousness, but her cluelessness. Similarly, I don't suppose it has occurred to you that not everyone can shell out $15 for 'a cocktail in a city restaurant'. (And of those plebs, some can actually read -- travelling missionaries passed through our shantytowns.) However, the NYT is increasingly making it clear that this is its target audience - to the exclusion of others.
There's a great moment in the movie The Aviator, in which Howard Hughes is having lunch with the family of his current flame, Katharine Hepburn. The Hepburns are, well, exactly what I envision the typical NYT aficionado to be. At one point the matriarch says dismissively, 'we don't care about money,' to which Hughes - who's had more than enough - snaps, 'that's because you've always had it.'
Because even if you grant the "reliable" etc. bit, free is a lot better than $180 a year. And many do not grant that. If you feel so strongly, feel free to mail some cash to the times compound on 42nd st.
Another perspective. For print delivery I pay $17.80 a week ($925.60 a year), and consider it well worthwhile -- digital access included. I would even say "stellar bargain." But NYT says "all the news that's fit to print" with no asterisk about interesting add-ons for just a little more money.
2
Given the extreme financial pressures on newspapers, it would be interesting to learn more about how the revenue from the digital edition subscriptions fares in relation to revenue from the print edition. Do the cost savings from not printing and distributing the print edition bring more revenue or less? Given the new digital subscription milestone, has the transition to digital helped or hurt financially?
2
Given that the times is a for-profit (very much so) major corporation that is publicly traded and followed by analysts, many of your questions can be answered with google searches.
I couldn't care less about the add-ons like Times Premier and Insider, which seem like they're trying to make readers feel special (smarter? more discerning? more privileged?). What I do care about is hard news and a forceful editorial policy that tries to get it right. Since your editorship changed that seems harder to come by. I was surprised this morning that the front page looked almost exactly like yesterday's. The editorials were basically "soft." This week's editorial on Afghanistan was so weak and conclusory, with no hard or honest analysis of the real issues, you should be embarrassed. And Lonnie Odom--as sad as his life is, I can turn to AOL if I need a reality TV fix--no need to waste NYT front page space on the story. As a Times reader for many decades, I would suggest you quit trying to be all things to all people, do what you used to do best (hint: hard news and news analysis), and redefine your wishy-washy editorial policy (face it--Republicans, even though they have most of the money, will never like you). And quit interrupting my reading with recommendations for other stories I should look at. Maddening!
30
Wish to agree with you regarding the new interruptions with recommendations for other stories. "Maddening," to put it mildly!
2
Another good example of a subject blown way out of proportion in the paper (crowding out a lot of other actually newsworthy sports information). I have no problem covering the facts; but not that huge article. I just don't get decisions like that.
1
The idea of the 'Insider' doesnt' bother me, although I hold little hope that it will appeal to enough to be profitable. As MS says, cable has distinct tiers of service, additional pay channels, etc. (I think people understand that Comcast and Discovery and HBO are different entrprises. I also think people would not respond well if Disney charged extra for some rides once you paid the general admission ticket - but they have no problem paying extra for food or souvenirs because they are so obviously different. In restaurants people buy appetizers or not, or desserts or not, but that's been conditioned over years and likewise doesn't engender the "hey, I'm already paying, why are you trying to charge me twice?"
(All of that said, I would think special interests like sports or business (perhaps real estate, maybe books) would have a better chance of garnering additional revenues, the 'peek behind the curtain' seems thin for a long-term subscription.)
(All of that said, I would think special interests like sports or business (perhaps real estate, maybe books) would have a better chance of garnering additional revenues, the 'peek behind the curtain' seems thin for a long-term subscription.)
5
The difficulty is, the times is not as good at sports as ESPN nor at business as the WSJ. No one would pay.
First, Disney DOES charge extra for things like skipping to the front of the line, and other enhancements. But I don't think that or cable is the model.
Insider doesn't bother me as much as most here (I don't see at 'the cool kids' or whatever); but it holds zero appeal for me.
As for your final point, that would be the WORST thing possible. The whole point of the Times ought to be to cover important things and business/economy is one very important area. I'm not a huge sports fan; but it is a large part of our culture so sequestering that behind an additional pay-wall seems to be a mistake.
Again, if you saw the survey, they did in fact test those other options like business, TV, entertainment, food, science, style, etc. as likely candidates for other 'premium' options. If they 'channelize' the Times like that, it totally abdicates its mission to be a platform for generalist information.
Insider doesn't bother me as much as most here (I don't see at 'the cool kids' or whatever); but it holds zero appeal for me.
As for your final point, that would be the WORST thing possible. The whole point of the Times ought to be to cover important things and business/economy is one very important area. I'm not a huge sports fan; but it is a large part of our culture so sequestering that behind an additional pay-wall seems to be a mistake.
Again, if you saw the survey, they did in fact test those other options like business, TV, entertainment, food, science, style, etc. as likely candidates for other 'premium' options. If they 'channelize' the Times like that, it totally abdicates its mission to be a platform for generalist information.
1
.
Here's an example of a story that I think should have been made generally available to all readers.
http://www.nytimes.com/2015/10/10/insider/flooding-threatens-the-timess-...
It seems to me that if any other privately-held photograph collection of such size and utility had been inundated, it would have made the news of The Times (or The News of The World?) easily. Heck, if even one painting or piece of sculpture in a major private collection is harmed, it's a news story. True, the flood damaged the photo collection of The Times, but that does not in and of itself mean the story is of interest only to people who pay extra to read additional NYT content online.
Here's an example of a story that I think should have been made generally available to all readers.
http://www.nytimes.com/2015/10/10/insider/flooding-threatens-the-timess-...
It seems to me that if any other privately-held photograph collection of such size and utility had been inundated, it would have made the news of The Times (or The News of The World?) easily. Heck, if even one painting or piece of sculpture in a major private collection is harmed, it's a news story. True, the flood damaged the photo collection of The Times, but that does not in and of itself mean the story is of interest only to people who pay extra to read additional NYT content online.
1
One of the Public Editor’s best and most important columns. Well worth the several print columns in today’s Sunday Review. It deserved to be on the front page rather than on page 9.
I have complaints similar to those of the readers quoted by the Public Editor. The New York Times sells things at the New York Times Store. I don’t buy things from the New York Times Store. The New York Times Store rubs me the wrong way and makes me feel more like an outsider. The New York Times has a wine club to sell wine. I don’t drink wine or buy it. That to me is cannibalizing. The New York Times has a T Magazine which I don’t read, and sometimes has supplements, which I also don’t read. In fact, I almost never read the columns on all the technical stuff and I have no interest in the love stories, always written by novelists or other professional writers. All the stuff I don’t read I find distracting and wrongheaded.
I have often written to the Public Editor. All I ever get is automated replies. I was on the wrong train. The next time I see something that makes me feel more like an outsider or that I find cannibalizing or distracting and wrongheaded, the Public Editor will hear from me. Then I’ll be in one of her columns. She had better make it in print as well as digital.
By the way, I own New York Times shares. Any of these side ventures that makes money, I am for.
I have complaints similar to those of the readers quoted by the Public Editor. The New York Times sells things at the New York Times Store. I don’t buy things from the New York Times Store. The New York Times Store rubs me the wrong way and makes me feel more like an outsider. The New York Times has a wine club to sell wine. I don’t drink wine or buy it. That to me is cannibalizing. The New York Times has a T Magazine which I don’t read, and sometimes has supplements, which I also don’t read. In fact, I almost never read the columns on all the technical stuff and I have no interest in the love stories, always written by novelists or other professional writers. All the stuff I don’t read I find distracting and wrongheaded.
I have often written to the Public Editor. All I ever get is automated replies. I was on the wrong train. The next time I see something that makes me feel more like an outsider or that I find cannibalizing or distracting and wrongheaded, the Public Editor will hear from me. Then I’ll be in one of her columns. She had better make it in print as well as digital.
By the way, I own New York Times shares. Any of these side ventures that makes money, I am for.
4
.
Good point about the page 9 placement.
Whether online or in print, Public Editor pieces have not received the "billing" they richly deserve. This has been my opinion since Dec. 2012, if not earlier.
What received the largest publicity effort: The false story by Michael Schmidt several months ago about Hillary Clinton being the "target" of a "criminal" referral recommended by 2 Inspectors General; the numerous Corrections to that story; or the Public Editor's post explaining and assessing the whole mess?
In my opinion, the first was overplayed (as well as overblown, breathless, and poorly-written -- with terms such as "serious breach"). But once that mistake was made, the other 2 should have gotten the same degree of play.
(Along those lines, has any "criminal" behavior been detected? Is there even a hint that a "serious breach [of regulations]" occurred? Has the former Secy of State been the "target" of anything besides the ill-advised puppet theatre of Rep. Trey Gowdy's committee?)
Good point about the page 9 placement.
Whether online or in print, Public Editor pieces have not received the "billing" they richly deserve. This has been my opinion since Dec. 2012, if not earlier.
What received the largest publicity effort: The false story by Michael Schmidt several months ago about Hillary Clinton being the "target" of a "criminal" referral recommended by 2 Inspectors General; the numerous Corrections to that story; or the Public Editor's post explaining and assessing the whole mess?
In my opinion, the first was overplayed (as well as overblown, breathless, and poorly-written -- with terms such as "serious breach"). But once that mistake was made, the other 2 should have gotten the same degree of play.
(Along those lines, has any "criminal" behavior been detected? Is there even a hint that a "serious breach [of regulations]" occurred? Has the former Secy of State been the "target" of anything besides the ill-advised puppet theatre of Rep. Trey Gowdy's committee?)
There definitely has been inappropriate handling of information. Whether it's criminal is up to due process.
1
This newspaper has always had an off-putting aura of narcissism of the Chosen. The "Times Insider" thing only reinforces it.
12
I wonder if those obnoxious and annoying "Recommended Articles" pop-ups are part of a plot to extort additional revenue from Times readers. Will readers only be able to "opt-out" of those at an additional premium? I just had to delete one in the course of typing this comment. When is the times going to start showing respect for the intelligence of its readers?
As an alternative to these distractions, why not incorporate a "search feature" in each online issue allowing readers to look for articles on any particular topic of their choice? That may be too much individual choice for readers to find what interests them, rather than what the editors want them to read. The Times should not model itself on China's "Peoples Daily," in which the editors determine what is fit for public consumption and what isn't!
As an alternative to these distractions, why not incorporate a "search feature" in each online issue allowing readers to look for articles on any particular topic of their choice? That may be too much individual choice for readers to find what interests them, rather than what the editors want them to read. The Times should not model itself on China's "Peoples Daily," in which the editors determine what is fit for public consumption and what isn't!
9
One of those popups started to blare audio and I think a video was trying to start before I closed that tab. I imagine the future and the revenue that Mx Sullivan so loudly extolled to us two columns ago is there. Obviously, the Reader is king.
1
BINGO!
I loathe the 'recommended for you' pop-ups. Why in the name of all that is (journalistically) holy would the Times DELIBERATELY interrupt me when I am reading an article just to tell me there are other articles I might like?
Seriously? If I'm reading your bloody paper (and paying to do so), can I not be assumed to be interested enough in its content to look to see on my own whether there are other articles I might want to read?
I don't mind the links at the bottom of the page suggesting other articles but please GET RID OF THE POP-UPS!
I loathe the 'recommended for you' pop-ups. Why in the name of all that is (journalistically) holy would the Times DELIBERATELY interrupt me when I am reading an article just to tell me there are other articles I might like?
Seriously? If I'm reading your bloody paper (and paying to do so), can I not be assumed to be interested enough in its content to look to see on my own whether there are other articles I might want to read?
I don't mind the links at the bottom of the page suggesting other articles but please GET RID OF THE POP-UPS!
2
The timer is broken. That pop-up existed for a long time; but now it pops up AS I'M SCROLLING through an article! This was mentioned more than a week ago and nothing has been done to fix it.
3
As a news junkie I have subscribed to the NY Times for years and was surprised and repelled that the paper would try to manipulate me into paying more money.
19
I subscribed to the online Times for a few years, because it is an excellent paper, then stopped. I'm a conservative and just couldn't take the relentlessly liberal editorializing anymore (in all its forms). Over time that becomes grating.
I would like an insider's peek at how the paper calculates the cost represented by readers like me. Anybody at the paper feel candid enough to do that?
I would like an insider's peek at how the paper calculates the cost represented by readers like me. Anybody at the paper feel candid enough to do that?
6
We are expendable, as we will soon die off and leave the field for the hard left millennials to which the times caters.
Actually, the Millennials might be very socially liberal; but they are more conservative in other respects.
1
I'm interested in some Times Insider articles, but I already pay a subscription fee. If that's not enough to cover what you write, up the fee. Otherwise, enough with this multi-tiered paywall.
13
Don't give them any ideas.
1
Funny how access to the editorial cartoons has been eliminated just as the Insider hype escalated. Putting expected features being a paywall is not how to grow a business and retain loyal subscribers. This all sounds like a lot of hooey for $8 a month.
13
When 'Times Insider' first began (at which point I was still a paid subscriber), I declined to join in because I felt it had a creepy, cult-like feeling, another brick in the wall of the echo chamber that has become the NYT readership. I feel even more that way now. Moreover, I felt - have persistently felt - as if I was being invited to congratulate myself on being a member of a select cognoscenti simply because I read the NYT (which I read less of than I did, largely because of my distaste). Thanks, but I think I'll decline the invite to join the 'cool kids' hanging out behind the bleachers.
Maybe I'm wrong or in the minority on this, but if I feel I need to know anything about the person behind the byline, my reasons will not be positive - that is, I suspect untruthfulness or bias. And I am bothered by the suspicion that the cultivation of this 'echo chamber' - that 'core group of loyalists' with a very pronounced and distinct set of political views - is increasingly swaying the hard news coverage.
Maybe I'm wrong or in the minority on this, but if I feel I need to know anything about the person behind the byline, my reasons will not be positive - that is, I suspect untruthfulness or bias. And I am bothered by the suspicion that the cultivation of this 'echo chamber' - that 'core group of loyalists' with a very pronounced and distinct set of political views - is increasingly swaying the hard news coverage.
11
Sharing your excellent columns with friends is an important part of my reading of the Times. Equally important to me are the comments which frequently make the columns sing. I would caution you not to complicate the process to the point it become unmanageable. Too many iron in the fire, so to speak.
I am happy paying $35 a month to read the Times and I hope you can leave it there.
As a retiree, I not only have the time to read, but take it and it constitutes an important part of each day. I see the paper as a whole product and a good one at that.
I am happy paying $35 a month to read the Times and I hope you can leave it there.
As a retiree, I not only have the time to read, but take it and it constitutes an important part of each day. I see the paper as a whole product and a good one at that.
4
If you pay $420 a year as a retiree for a website most of the content is reused or accessible for free, one way or the other, you are not a reader. You are a fanboy.
1
I'm an ardent NY Times reader, but I think the Insider is a poor investment. It seems to make the reporters the story and I believe that's a bad idea. I also think it's naive to think that reading the Insider will provide genuine insight into how a story develops. To me, it smacks of self-promotion and I wonder why I should pay extra for that.
16
If you really want to allow a "Peek Behind the Curtain," why not set up a few webcams in your editorial offices and charge by the hour? I've always been curious about what goes on in that environment and what gets published and what gets spiked.
5
Too close to the NY Post sausage making division.
.
Great idea, spintech.
I would also pay for a real-time glimpse of the Page One meeting which is no longer called the Page One meeting (and is now conducted at a different time of day). How the heck do they rationalize what story gets the prime "real estate" and what angle that story is approached from? I know more about who really composed the plays of "Shakespeare" than I do about the questions I pose here; and while I am a big fan of The Bard, I do think knowing how the sausage is made would help tremendously in comprehending how/why it comes out the way it does.
Great idea, spintech.
I would also pay for a real-time glimpse of the Page One meeting which is no longer called the Page One meeting (and is now conducted at a different time of day). How the heck do they rationalize what story gets the prime "real estate" and what angle that story is approached from? I know more about who really composed the plays of "Shakespeare" than I do about the questions I pose here; and while I am a big fan of The Bard, I do think knowing how the sausage is made would help tremendously in comprehending how/why it comes out the way it does.
You'll never truly get that. If they did televise it, the mere observation factor would heavily distort what you saw. Better they should keep that private. It would be fascinating to see; but worse to disturb.
1
The next subscription dollar I spend will be for the Manchester Guardian. I find they cover many stories days sooner than the Times and many stories the Times never, ever reports upon at all.
I want the all the news, not just all the news that fits the Times' predefined narrative.
I want the all the news, not just all the news that fits the Times' predefined narrative.
14
Unfortunately, the "Manchester Guardian" is no longer based in Manchester. The Guardian is, like so much in England, London based and London biased.
The Guardian, welcome to the small world of the Islington dinner party set.
The Guardian, welcome to the small world of the Islington dinner party set.
Well, I am already a Times ”insider” since I submit comments almost every day and these days the Review system is working pretty well so there are my thoughts ”inside” the Times. My Green Check friends are even more so, since apparently they are Verified for Life.
As for the Times Insider and the ads that keep me from getting to the Times, it is just an annoyance. As Ann-Marie Hislop, a Green Check Insider, notes we do not have time even to read OpEds and comments, well worth reading as compared with samples I have seen of insider.
Now, if you want to give me something I will pay for, do this: Give commenters a blog or forum or a place where the Times gives us an inside view of the Comment Control Room and where we can occasionally have substantial discussions of comments on a particular article, perhaps give the best of the commenters a chance to do an OpEd, and perhaps give us a chance to point to things the Times won’t touch and touch them.
One example of many I can offer. We read 1000s of words every week about situations affecting various ethnic groups and in these 1000s the most common word is”race”. Since few Americans or Times columnists could give us useful definition of “race” I have been asking for a series. Not a chance.
So give me something serious for commenters and I will pay.
Only-NeverInSweden.blogspot.com
Dual citizen-USA-SE crossing Sweden headed for Göteborg in a bus (Bus4You) the likes of which I never see in my USA (New York State-New England)
As for the Times Insider and the ads that keep me from getting to the Times, it is just an annoyance. As Ann-Marie Hislop, a Green Check Insider, notes we do not have time even to read OpEds and comments, well worth reading as compared with samples I have seen of insider.
Now, if you want to give me something I will pay for, do this: Give commenters a blog or forum or a place where the Times gives us an inside view of the Comment Control Room and where we can occasionally have substantial discussions of comments on a particular article, perhaps give the best of the commenters a chance to do an OpEd, and perhaps give us a chance to point to things the Times won’t touch and touch them.
One example of many I can offer. We read 1000s of words every week about situations affecting various ethnic groups and in these 1000s the most common word is”race”. Since few Americans or Times columnists could give us useful definition of “race” I have been asking for a series. Not a chance.
So give me something serious for commenters and I will pay.
Only-NeverInSweden.blogspot.com
Dual citizen-USA-SE crossing Sweden headed for Göteborg in a bus (Bus4You) the likes of which I never see in my USA (New York State-New England)
5
How about $20 a month for a green checkmark? Open to everyone, and those who currently have it for free can have a "free trial run of several weeks before charging its subscribers $8 a month."
Love the NYT but ENOUGH, already.... The Insider could/should be a cable TV show or some such. But if I subscribe now, I want all you got....
Find another way to raise revenue please...
Find another way to raise revenue please...
6
The Times has more than a few problems with its marketing.
First, it's in-your-face trying too hard, which has quite the opposite effect from the one sought. One wonders, why are these guys so badly wanting more of my business? If they really liked me, they would invite me to be part of their editorial board. Here's the letter I dream of " Dear TMK, We have noticed your positions on pro guns, anti-abortion, pro death penalty, pro tobacco etc., and believe you would be a refreshing addition to our editorial board". Instead, I get Insider pop-ups on every page.
Second, and most important, if I had an additional $8 to spend, I would spend it on of one or more of other online offerings: TWP, SFGate, WSJ, and, err, Playboy (just for the articles), to name a few. This the NYT marketers don't seem to get. Tap and mine all you want, but the existing base of subscribers are not gonna drive revenue growth. But then, who/what will? That's what you need to figure out. All the best.
First, it's in-your-face trying too hard, which has quite the opposite effect from the one sought. One wonders, why are these guys so badly wanting more of my business? If they really liked me, they would invite me to be part of their editorial board. Here's the letter I dream of " Dear TMK, We have noticed your positions on pro guns, anti-abortion, pro death penalty, pro tobacco etc., and believe you would be a refreshing addition to our editorial board". Instead, I get Insider pop-ups on every page.
Second, and most important, if I had an additional $8 to spend, I would spend it on of one or more of other online offerings: TWP, SFGate, WSJ, and, err, Playboy (just for the articles), to name a few. This the NYT marketers don't seem to get. Tap and mine all you want, but the existing base of subscribers are not gonna drive revenue growth. But then, who/what will? That's what you need to figure out. All the best.
6
I take the same positions. All it gets me is my comments not passed by Mx Sullivan's personal censor.
1
The Times promotes itself in many ways. If an investigation has a concrete effect, news of the effect gets more play than it deserves. If a Times reporter runs up against the government, we'll read about that ad nauseum and read why the reporter is always in the right. In what seems to me to be unnecessary dependent clauses and highlighted entries, today's Times article will refer to yesterday's and more. On rare occasions. like Watergate, credit is given to the Washington Post. The Daily News and the New York Post never do anything right, nor does the Washington Times. And the notion that the Times is the newspaper of record is particularly intrusive in the sports section, where all records, even for most consecutive wins in games initially rained out, have to be stated. The Times, in some ways, is just a fancy sausage, and those who want to know how the sausage is made should probably be medicated rather than catered to.
6
Yes, the Risen case. Mx Sullivan never clearly stated the truth in her columns: that it had to do not with Mx Risen's status at the New York times, but it was his night job as a book author that got him into trouble with the government. Why should book authors who happen to have day jobs with news-ads websites have some sort of a privilege that authors who are not affiliated with such corporations do not get? Does Mr. Risen get a pass on traffic laws too?
.
I read somewhere that The Washington Times finally had a profitable year.
Kudos to its ownership for being patient through the decades of losses. Maybe NYT's leaders can find out how they turned loss into profit, and then adapt the methodology to the NYT market.
Or, they could ask the NYT Public Editor, who oversaw the News side of a profitable news organization in Buffalo -- one of the nation's poorest cities by some measures -- for a decade or more.
I read somewhere that The Washington Times finally had a profitable year.
Kudos to its ownership for being patient through the decades of losses. Maybe NYT's leaders can find out how they turned loss into profit, and then adapt the methodology to the NYT market.
Or, they could ask the NYT Public Editor, who oversaw the News side of a profitable news organization in Buffalo -- one of the nation's poorest cities by some measures -- for a decade or more.
I pay, gladly, the $15 every 4 weeks for full access to the NYT online. Now I find that I am being asked for an additional $8 for this full access. I am not happy about this not so well disguised increase.
17
The Times should focus on increasing the number of digital subscribers rather than honing in on us a source of additional revenues.
3
Movies about making movies, novels about writing a novel, and now journalism about journalism. I'm sticking to the news.
11
I am a longtime Times reader. In fact, my father was an employee of the Times for a while as a young man. Am also a retired professor of statistics, an Ivy League grad (Columbia) and an author.
These credentials are relevant to my comment here. I am mystified by the intent of some of the Times' special groups. Specifically, I do not understand what The Upshot is supposed to be. Is it just anything that Mr Leonhardt wants to print? The Stone seems to be philosophical items.
My mystification about the purpose of the Upshot has led me to reject interest in other special interest parts of the reporting. I am a successful business owner and would like to spend more with NYT and other liberal, fact oriented publications.
To see topics that I think should be addressed by a NYT special interest group, go to YouTube and watch Comedy Party Platform (2 min 9 sec). I would love to see serious analysis of the critical political issues discussed there. Krugman and Stiglitz come closest, and Nate Silver was great. Some of the Upshot pieces (e.g. some by Firestone and one by Leonhardt) have been informative.
Thanks -- I hope these comments are helpful to you in formulating products within NYT reporting and commentary. I look forward to spending lots more money on things whose intent I can comprehend. Thanks for what I think you are trying to do. If I can contribute topics in the political statistical area please let me know.
These credentials are relevant to my comment here. I am mystified by the intent of some of the Times' special groups. Specifically, I do not understand what The Upshot is supposed to be. Is it just anything that Mr Leonhardt wants to print? The Stone seems to be philosophical items.
My mystification about the purpose of the Upshot has led me to reject interest in other special interest parts of the reporting. I am a successful business owner and would like to spend more with NYT and other liberal, fact oriented publications.
To see topics that I think should be addressed by a NYT special interest group, go to YouTube and watch Comedy Party Platform (2 min 9 sec). I would love to see serious analysis of the critical political issues discussed there. Krugman and Stiglitz come closest, and Nate Silver was great. Some of the Upshot pieces (e.g. some by Firestone and one by Leonhardt) have been informative.
Thanks -- I hope these comments are helpful to you in formulating products within NYT reporting and commentary. I look forward to spending lots more money on things whose intent I can comprehend. Thanks for what I think you are trying to do. If I can contribute topics in the political statistical area please let me know.
2
If one really wants to know what goes on behind the scenes at the NYT, then read something about the NYT that is not the NYT.
11
To better evaluate the value (monetarily) of a Times online subscription I'm very curious to know what the basic subscription rate for current online subscribers would have to be to make up for the lost income from print advertising—given both the present amount of online advertising (overt and covert), and if there were to be no online advertising (overt and covert).
I like helping people, I like reading the Times and I appreciate the opportunity to submit comments, I dislike engaging in activities that feel to me like feeding egos or being used, and I dislike free introductory offers that turn into monthly charges (which can also then increase -- my regional paper increased subscription rates not long ago, and because the billing is done in advance, we actually got charged more before we even received notification of the increase).
I would say the "insider" idea reinforces a particular conceptualization of the readers' relationship to the paper. It seems to me to de-emphasize service from the paper and emphasize its branding, to be more of a fan model than a mutual respect model. It's my belief that we can recognize the differences between journalists and readers without fostering artificial barriers. But I would not argue that my point of view would necessarily make for a successful business model or is the majority point of view. And, of course, I have no idea how things -- including we readers -- look from the point of view of the paper.
I would say the "insider" idea reinforces a particular conceptualization of the readers' relationship to the paper. It seems to me to de-emphasize service from the paper and emphasize its branding, to be more of a fan model than a mutual respect model. It's my belief that we can recognize the differences between journalists and readers without fostering artificial barriers. But I would not argue that my point of view would necessarily make for a successful business model or is the majority point of view. And, of course, I have no idea how things -- including we readers -- look from the point of view of the paper.
8
I actually wonder how anyone who has a life can find time to read Insider in addition to the regular paper. I retired this summer. One of my joys is time to make a second cup of coffee and fully read not only op-ed pieces, but news stories commenting on even those as I chose. That said, I can give only about 2 (ok, sometime 2.5) hours in the morning (with a briefer return visit in the evening) to the NYT as I do actually have other things to do. While Insider might be tempting, I simply don't have more time.
I'm a bit surprised to her the subscription (online anyway) described as "expensive." I think it's one of the best financial values I get. Although I suppose there is a limit somewhere, I'd pay more and still figure it a bargain. I get information which is well written and from top notch journalists, intellectual stimulation, entertainment, and a chance to express my thoughts and engage in dialogue with bright, thoughtful people from around the world - yes, quite a bargain.
I'm a bit surprised to her the subscription (online anyway) described as "expensive." I think it's one of the best financial values I get. Although I suppose there is a limit somewhere, I'd pay more and still figure it a bargain. I get information which is well written and from top notch journalists, intellectual stimulation, entertainment, and a chance to express my thoughts and engage in dialogue with bright, thoughtful people from around the world - yes, quite a bargain.
28
When your choice is between keeping the lights on and paying for the NYT, yes, it's expensive. I suppose it's value for money, but so is a Rolls Royce - if you can afford it, it will be the last car you will ever need to buy. This is the dilemma of the poor, shopping at the dollar store: you need a mop; the hardware store has a good mop for $15; the dollar store has a $1 mop that will fall apart after one or two uses; you have only $1. You can spend the next four months with a filthy floor, saving for a good mop, or you can buy what you can afford.
Me, I read NYT articles through Google (having signed out so I am less likely to be booted out of the article). I can sometimes read as many as four before the NYT website recognizes me and cuts me off.
You are surprised to hear the subscription described as 'expensive'? Nothing is 'expensive' if you have money. If you don't, nothing is not 'expensive'.
Me, I read NYT articles through Google (having signed out so I am less likely to be booted out of the article). I can sometimes read as many as four before the NYT website recognizes me and cuts me off.
You are surprised to hear the subscription described as 'expensive'? Nothing is 'expensive' if you have money. If you don't, nothing is not 'expensive'.
Maybe you would ... but the hard-left, interventionist slant of the website limits its appeal. There are limits to what I will pay when I know, for all intents and purposes, I am paying to support an advertising platform for candidates I do not care to see elected to office.
I'm with you. I cannot get through the paper any longer; and I used to pride myself on reading the whole thing. It has become a magazine, with ever more long pieces, that are so overly detailed (with mostly useless and irrelevant detail) that I just shake my head. Today's piece on Mr. Bell is a good example. Two plus pages of coverage instead of actual news coverage. While it was an interesting subject of some import; the level of detail and space devoted to it were way out of proportion.
1
Finding an ever-growing number people who will pay more for extra reading... Who are in either the 1% or maybe the 10%.
I just paid $19 to park at a major museum. The 47% are not able to pay these prices. You have to get the money out of people to whom the money doesn't matter.
I just paid $19 to park at a major museum. The 47% are not able to pay these prices. You have to get the money out of people to whom the money doesn't matter.
17
Neither do the 47% have the money to pay for the "donation" to the museum or the money to pay for either to private or public transportation to get there.
Does one really think that they are the ones that pay of subscriptions to the NY Times, let alone have the computer resources to access it on line?
Does one really think that they are the ones that pay of subscriptions to the NY Times, let alone have the computer resources to access it on line?
It's a difficult target to hit ... basically, they are trying to get people to pay who still believe in the times' leftist values while it is increasingly against their interest, as their income and assets increase, to do so. Unsurprisingly, the times seems to be trying to lock them up on long-term subscriptions.
"You have to get the money out of people to whom the money doesn't matter"
The danger is that the content will start to reflect the interests of "people to whom the money doesn't matter".
The danger is that the content will start to reflect the interests of "people to whom the money doesn't matter".
1
"And for those who just don’t care, it’s easy enough to look away "
it should be, but the insider pieces have not always been clearly marked. more than once i've clicked on something in one of the sections, only to find out it's an insider piece.
it should be, but the insider pieces have not always been clearly marked. more than once i've clicked on something in one of the sections, only to find out it's an insider piece.
41
.
I certainly wouldn't want this publicized, but lynn liccardo's experience illustrates that "Insider" pieces are accessible by digital subscribers and are not behind a separate paywall.
The same is true of the monthly Wordplay blog post about the Crosswords that are made available to Times Insider subscribers.
But don't tell this to the people who would pay extra for Times Insider. They might form a group called "Occupy All The Streets", manufacture signs and monocles emblazoned with their slogan ("I AM THE TOP 5%), and stage a protest outside one of the exclusive events they get invited to. Dean Baquet, in that situation, would have no choice but to join the protesters by carrying a "More Paywalls" sign.
I certainly wouldn't want this publicized, but lynn liccardo's experience illustrates that "Insider" pieces are accessible by digital subscribers and are not behind a separate paywall.
The same is true of the monthly Wordplay blog post about the Crosswords that are made available to Times Insider subscribers.
But don't tell this to the people who would pay extra for Times Insider. They might form a group called "Occupy All The Streets", manufacture signs and monocles emblazoned with their slogan ("I AM THE TOP 5%), and stage a protest outside one of the exclusive events they get invited to. Dean Baquet, in that situation, would have no choice but to join the protesters by carrying a "More Paywalls" sign.
I've been paying for Times Premier, now Times Insider, since the beginnning. I really can't give a good reason why I continue, other than inertia.
I have yet to find anything in it that merited being sequestered behind an additional paywall. If I was a crossword fanatic, as I was a while ago, I'd be pretty chapped that that segment was taken away and put behind yet another paywall, beyond the secondary one of Insider.
The only redeeming social value was the series of interviews with Andy Rosenthal, whose insistence of an absolute barrier between news and opinion is the funniest thing I've read in the Times since Russell Baker retired (with apologies to Gail Collins), though I am positive that my funny bone was tickled in an absolutely inadvertant fashion.
The paywalls are starting to resemble nesting Russian dolls, which brings us back to Andy Rosenthal and the old Russian saw that "there is no Pravda in Izvestia, and no Izvestia in Pravda."
I have yet to find anything in it that merited being sequestered behind an additional paywall. If I was a crossword fanatic, as I was a while ago, I'd be pretty chapped that that segment was taken away and put behind yet another paywall, beyond the secondary one of Insider.
The only redeeming social value was the series of interviews with Andy Rosenthal, whose insistence of an absolute barrier between news and opinion is the funniest thing I've read in the Times since Russell Baker retired (with apologies to Gail Collins), though I am positive that my funny bone was tickled in an absolutely inadvertant fashion.
The paywalls are starting to resemble nesting Russian dolls, which brings us back to Andy Rosenthal and the old Russian saw that "there is no Pravda in Izvestia, and no Izvestia in Pravda."
34
The trouble with Mx Collins is that she is not funny if you do not agree with her. Mr. Baker had the great talent of making you laugh a bit at your own views. Mx Collins does not have that ability.
Best take on it so far.
A while back I took the survey that led to these things (Cooking app, Times Insider, etc.). It was very obvious that the survey was more of a 'push' survey, with the intent of convincing people of the need for these 'value-added' services. The survey was touted as reader input; but it was mostly a series of choices between which sections/subject matter I'd be most willing to pay extra for. I did enjoy the $10 Amazon credit though.
A while back I took the survey that led to these things (Cooking app, Times Insider, etc.). It was very obvious that the survey was more of a 'push' survey, with the intent of convincing people of the need for these 'value-added' services. The survey was touted as reader input; but it was mostly a series of choices between which sections/subject matter I'd be most willing to pay extra for. I did enjoy the $10 Amazon credit though.
1
If The Times's self-regard were turned into a fuel, it could satisfy the energy needs of every power grid and vehicle on Earth for at least another few millenniums, and probably those of other planets that humankind may choose to inhabit, too. But as subbrands, Times Insider and Times Premier seem uncharacteristically humble. How about Times Perpetual or Times Eternal or Times Infinite or even Times Unbound? If you've got it, might as well flaunt it.
21
Personally, I buy nothing without the word Ultra in it. If it's not Ultra, they can't be serious, is my thinking.
2
There is an extent to which the times' self-regard reminds me of two mirrors, facing each other.
Dot, how about when Times reporters and editors "answer" Ms. Sullivan's reasonable queries. Might we call the result, "The Times Shrugged?"
2
I would be more interested in knowing what goes on in the heads of the editorial writers. This latest article on sanctuary cities blames the killing of the young woman on the pier on the federal government and on the pier. Don't believe me? Read it yourself.
10
@JimVanM in VA
"This latest article on sanctuary cities blames the killing of the young woman on the pier on the federal government and on the pier. Don't believe me? Read it yourself."
No. It simply says that the bullet ricocheted - simple fact. That particular man was a low-level criminal (not the outrageously violent one the right wing claims). The main point of the article is that you do not take a few isolated examples of criminal behavior by one undocumented individual, no matter how egregious, and extrapolate it to millions of others simply because they too lack papers. That's no different than saying that this Jew embezzled, so all Jews are embezzlers or this white teen sleeps around, so all white teens are sluts.
Y
"This latest article on sanctuary cities blames the killing of the young woman on the pier on the federal government and on the pier. Don't believe me? Read it yourself."
No. It simply says that the bullet ricocheted - simple fact. That particular man was a low-level criminal (not the outrageously violent one the right wing claims). The main point of the article is that you do not take a few isolated examples of criminal behavior by one undocumented individual, no matter how egregious, and extrapolate it to millions of others simply because they too lack papers. That's no different than saying that this Jew embezzled, so all Jews are embezzlers or this white teen sleeps around, so all white teens are sluts.
Y
9
I'm not interested in Times Insider because it seems narcissistic. Staff should be writing about the news, not about themselves.
62
Right... Journalist as rock star.
I use my subscription to do a fair amount of digging into the archives, as I am an active Wikipedia editor. Until the 1970s, even major news stories in The New York Times did not have a byline. I think that would be a worthwhile practice to the times to return that. And with that, I'll cease boring the censor and move on to the Mets.
"'I'm not interested in Times Insider because it seems narcissistic. Staff should be writing about the news, not about themselves."
...and they should be writing for, and about, as wider social economic demographic as possible.
...and they should be writing for, and about, as wider social economic demographic as possible.
1