How the Kindle could save the New York Times

[Alexander Turcic]

We have no way to verify these numbers, but Nicholas Carlson of the Silicon Alley Insider argues that the New York Times could save half of their costs by abandoning the print medium and donating an Amazon Kindle to each of their ~830k subscribers - free of charge that is.

Beside the fact that it would probably save a few happy trees, do you think such a drastic change of direction would be feasible? How many of those 830k subscribers do you think would stop reading the NYT simply because they don't like using electronic devices?

For an ongoing discussion, visit this thread.

[pilotbob]

This is a great idea, except for the fact that they would loose all their advertisers... since there are no ads on the Kindle delivered versions.

Then again, if printing and distribution expenses went away would the subscription revenue be enough to replace the add revenue? I have no idea, but I suspect that it would not.

BOb

[Kris777]

All media get main profit from ads not from subscription cost

[pilotbob]

Originally Posted by Kris777

All media get main profit from ads not from subscription cost

Hence the point of my post.

BOb

[kovidgoyal]

Originally Posted by pilotbob

This is a great idea, except for the fact that they would loose all their advertisers... since there are no ads on the Kindle delivered versions.

Then again, if printing and distribution expenses went away would the subscription revenue be enough to replace the add revenue? I have no idea, but I suspect that it would not.

BOb

Not even close. They've got what a million subscribers, that's $10 million a month. Probably wont even pay for the utility bills for their offices. But there is no reason the digital version can't have adds, the Times just has to use a different kind of ad.

[Boston]

I still get the Boston Globe in paper because I like scanning through the ads...specifically shows that are going on-sale and occasionally the sales. I once tried canceling all but my Sunday subscription thinking I could just get the daily news on the internet, but I missed my paper.

I don't like reading newspapers (or magazines) on the Kindle. I find it too time consuming because the navigation is more linear and having to keep going back to the TOC is a pain. Whereas, I flip back/forth and scan a lot between headlines/sections. I probably actually read only about a half-dozen or so articles in full each day.

I do like getting the New York Times - Latest Updates...because its just a handful of top stories to supplement my local paper. I still find the navigation is less than ideal if I want to move back/forth, but its small enough to go through without doing that.

[Phogg]

I prefer online information. there is just so much more depth available, plus clarification and debate like we do here.

I left the paper for the internet in 1998.

[HarryT]

This is an absolutely ridiculous statement to make.

The New York Times is read world-wide. Are they going to simply abandon their readers outside the USA for whom the Kindle is not available, and wireless delivery will not work?

[TheJohnNewton]

I love reading my paper on the Kindle but... I live far from New York and don't care about the ads. People will also go nuts at the loss of things like the crossword, box scores, comics, etc.

[rhadin]

Originally Posted by kovidgoyal

Not even close. They've got what a million subscribers, that's $10 million a month.

Kovid, FWIW, a monthly home-delivered 7-day subscription to the New York Times in the metropolitan New York area (it is more outside the area) runs about $45 per month, so a million subscribers probably brings in $50 million a month (allowing for the various subscription schemes and area costs).

If the Times offered me a 3-year subscription at $40 per month which included a Plastic Logic Reader (or similar device) with electronic delivery, I'd gladly take it rather than the paper version, even though it would be a 3-year commitment. I think a lot of subscribers would, especially if there were two offerings included: (2) the e version of the daily print edition and (2) the ability to get updates during the day, perhaps to selected articles or topics.

This could result in less costs to the paper yet maintain subscription revenues.

[coolcat1901]

People worldwide read the NY Times? I guess I learn something new every day.

[rhadin]

Originally Posted by HarryT

This is an absolutely ridiculous statement to make.

The New York Times is read world-wide. Are they going to simply abandon their readers outside the USA for whom the Kindle is not available, and wireless delivery will not work?

Harry, I think the idea is to make it an option, especially for U.S. readers, not to abandon readers anywhere. OTOH, while I agree that using the Kindle is absurd because it is a closed system (and I personally wouldn't want to read anything on a Kindle because I do not want to support Amazon), using a device like the Plastic Logic Reader, especially if it is open to more networks around the world, could work.

Ideally, the New York Times and The Economist will offer joint subscriptions that include a device that is like the Plastic Logic supposedly will be at a reasonable monthly rate along the lines of cell phone plans here in the U.S. I can only hope!

[kovidgoyal]

Originally Posted by rhadin

Kovid, FWIW, a monthly home-delivered 7-day subscription to the New York Times in the metropolitan New York area (it is more outside the area) runs about $45 per month, so a million subscribers probably brings in $50 million a month (allowing for the various subscription schemes and area costs).

If the Times offered me a 3-year subscription at $40 per month which included a Plastic Logic Reader (or similar device) with electronic delivery, I'd gladly take it rather than the paper version, even though it would be a 3-year commitment. I think a lot of subscribers would, especially if there were two offerings included: (2) the e version of the daily print edition and (2) the ability to get updates during the day, perhaps to selected articles or topics.

This could result in less costs to the paper yet maintain subscription revenues.

I was talking about the Kindle subscription which is $10 IIRC

[Alisa]

Originally Posted by rhadin

Kovid, FWIW, a monthly home-delivered 7-day subscription to the New York Times in the metropolitan New York area (it is more outside the area) runs about $45 per month, so a million subscribers probably brings in $50 million a month (allowing for the various subscription schemes and area costs).

If the Times offered me a 3-year subscription at $40 per month which included a Plastic Logic Reader (or similar device) with electronic delivery, I'd gladly take it rather than the paper version, even though it would be a 3-year commitment. I think a lot of subscribers would, especially if there were two offerings included: (2) the e version of the daily print edition and (2) the ability to get updates during the day, perhaps to selected articles or topics.

This could result in less costs to the paper yet maintain subscription revenues.

However if only some, but not all, of the subscribers took the electronic distribution that still means they would have to maintain the printing and distribution infrastructure. Paper is probably one of the smaller costs in that.

[HarryT]

Originally Posted by Alisa

However if only some, but not all, of the subscribers took the electronic distribution that still means they would have to maintain the printing and distribution infrastructure. Paper is probably one of the smaller costs in that.

Hi Alisa,

Yes, that was the point I was making about the overseas readers too. They'd have to maintain the printing plant, and for a smaller number of copies printed the overhead per copy would be a lot higher than it is now.