By Matt Purdue
The dictionary describes hubris as overbearing pride or presumption. The word should be inscribed on the New York Times’ 1.5-million-square-foot, 52-floor tower in New York.
It seems the New York Times is, once again, ready to make readers pay for content. New York Magazine recently ran an excellent article on the company’s plans. While we’re waiting for details, it appears the Times will move to some sort of metered system in 2011, under which readers will be able to view a set number of articles for free, then be forced to pay for anything extra.
What world are New York Times’ executives living in where they actually believe the average reader will pay for their content? Journalism pundits have suggested the NY Times’ model will work because the Wall Street Journal and Financial Times have gotten away with it. But they’re missing the big picture: Most of the business world must read the Wall Street Journal and Financial Times. It’s simply the cost of doing business.
But the NY Times’ business section runs a distant third to these outlets. And as for the rest of the NY Times, there’s simply nothing in it today that cannot be found on any number of free websites and blogs. World news? You should be reading BBC.com if you want a truly global view of events. Intellectual (elitist) commentary on the issues of day? Try Slate.com or Salon.com. National politics as seen from the center, and not the far wing of the left on which the NY Times sits? Politico.com.
Look, the world needs the NY Times; I want them to succeed. But if they really want to improve their bottom line, I’m not sure why they are blind to the simplest option: Stop printing so many papers, and co-market the Times’ digital edition to every, single e-reader out there: the Kindle, the Nook and the upcoming Apple Tablet. The costs involved in printing and delivery newspapers are enormous--and the damage to the environment untold. Yes, the NY Times would lose some ad revenue if their print rate base declines. But by making the print edition more scarce, they’d drive readers to their online edition—and be able to increase advertising rates.
The 21st century is not such a bad place to be. The NY Times should try it sometime.
Comments