NYT Removes ebook bestseller lists from print editions

[fjtorres]

From Good eReader:
http://goodereader.com/blog/e-book-n...o-online-only/

The New York Times started to include ebooks in print and online editions back in 2011. The company announced today that it is suspending the inclusion of ebook titles in the newspaper and only posting them on the website. The prices of the ebooks will also not be included going forward, due to the shifting economic landscape of online sellers.

Pamela Paul is the current editor of the Book Review section of the New York Times, a post she only attained in April. She said in a statement, “The ebook list has migrated online, the digital world being its natural habitat. Given the fluid variety of pricing in today’s marketplace, we have also stopped including cover prices on the lists.”

Snark comes to mind but I'm sure folks around here can translate from PR-speak to the common venacular given the context.

I do wish her well in pandering to the book sniffers.

[rkomar]

Originally Posted by fjtorres

I do wish her well in pandering to the book sniffers.

I would guess that most people who buy paper editions of newspapers are partial to paper books. I don't see any snobbishness in this decision, just tailoring the content to their market.

[fjtorres]

Originally Posted by rkomar

I would guess that most people who buy paper editions of newspapers are partial to paper books. I don't see any snobbishness in this decision, just tailoring the content to their market.

Right.
Because people who buy ebooks don't buy pbooks.
Or read the NYT book reviews.

And it makes no sense to let the "old foggies" in the audience be tempted by popular and "fluidly-priced" (that is, not-illegally-price-fixed) ebooks.

[SteveEisenberg]

"All the news that's fit to print" eventually comes up against financial realities. Given the likely limited number of print column inches, I would rather read book reviews.

[DiapDealer]

So what's that mean for the Combined Best-Seller List? Will both lists (ebook AND combined) be removed from the print version? I assume they'll eventually get rid of the print bestsellers from the online version for similar "natural habitat" reasons, no? I'm just seeing nothing but a big, bag of dumb, here.

[tubemonkey]

Try as they might, ebooks are here to stay.

[tubemonkey]

Originally Posted by DiapDealer

I'm just seeing nothing but a big, bag of dumb, here.

[rkw]

Originally Posted by fjtorres

From Good eReader:
http://goodereader.com/blog/e-book-n...o-online-only/



Snark comes to mind but I'm sure folks around here can translate from PR-speak to the common venacular given the context.

I do wish her well in pandering to the book sniffers.

One wonders how many aPpLE products and shares the new "editor" possesses [note the use of possess over the now rendered impotent "ownership" term as courts seem to have decided EULA's rule the day and not even life is anything more than a licensed copy, just ask any Hindu if life is nothing more than a revocable use permit...of course the religious right will likely be offended by using any variation of 'possession' as that must only mean in league with the devil].

Hopefully I managed to offend all the major players in a single run-on sentence...or wait that now will drag the grammar Nazis....sigh there I go again...

Oh, btw, excellent way to work in the long ago ill fated Scratch-n-Sniff centerfold...book sniffers indeed must all be still trying to recreate that original exposure to THAT edition of THAT magazine it's the only logical explanation for that sniffing fetish...oh, wait, bicycle seats are everywhere...hmmm, the mind wobbles.

[forsooth]

Originally Posted by rkw

Hopefully I managed to offend all the major players in a single run-on sentence...or wait that now will drag the grammar Nazis....sigh there I go again...

somewhere is 47,000 foot hole (akin movie) to drop you in

[rkw]

Originally Posted by forsooth

somewhere is 47,000 foot hole (akin movie) to drop you in

Mel's Hole? B-) PERFECT!

[wizwor]

Originally Posted by fjtorres

Right.
Because people who buy ebooks don't buy pbooks.
Or read the NYT book reviews.

You're half right...

from http://beta.fool.com/leokornsun/2013...-stocks/33423/

Originally Posted by Leo Sun

During its first quarter, The New York Times earned a meager $3.1 million, a 93% plunge from the $42.1 million it reported in the prior year quarter...Revenue at The New York Times declined 2% year-on-year to $465.9 million...Print circulation of the daily New York Times declined 6.2% to 731,400, and its Sunday edition slid 0.9% to 1,254,500 copies.

If anyone cares what is being left out of the NYT, they will not for long.

[fjtorres]

Those aren't bad numbers.
They're still in the black and the sunday edition circulation losses are probably due to death rather than readers canceling.
And 1.2M subscribers out of a metro area of 25M+ is about forty percent penetration among the target audience.

[wizwor]

It's just a matter of time...

Originally Posted by same source

If both these companies continue their steep declines, then I believe that both companies will be deep in the red by the first quarter of 2014. There simply isn’t a market for print advertising in newspapers.

The New York Times and its other two brands, The Boston Globe and The International Herald Tribune, reported a combined average 13.3% decline in print advertising, which contributed to a total advertising revenue decline of 11.2% to $191.2 million. Meanwhile, The Post reported an 8% decline in print advertising revenue to $48.6 million.