We consumers of digital information have long been spoiled. We have come to expect access to all the world's media at no cost, and we get very persnickety when someone suggests that maybe, just perhaps, we ought to be compensating someone for producing all that content.
This is especially true of the online versions of "traditional" media sources. It's amazing that right now, I can fire up the computer and have access to just about every media story published by media outlets that actually pay professional journalists for their work. Whether it is the New York Times or the Washington Post, almost all first tier media outlets provide access to their products for free online. Finally, some of them are starting to realize this might be a bad business decision.
The original thinking, naturally, was that advertising would pay for the content. I don't know about the rest of you, but I have never once clicked on an add on the NYT site. I'm just not a big ad clicker. Sure, once in a while there will be a convergence of something I want to look up and an ad, and then I will click it, but to be honest, that almost never happens.
So the NYT is venturing into the world of paid online subscriptions. I've long thought that this was the way to go. As a big consumer of online news, I would happily pay a $20-40 monthly fee for access to a bundle of premium news services. Say, all the major news papers and a few magazines like the Economist. I would expect the content to be ad-free of course.
Unfortunately, as the Times ventures to dip it's toe in the subscription pool to test the water, it seems like it is determined in advance to fail miserably. If you had gathered a band of the world's leading experts on failure, and asked them to come up with a plan so incredibly stupid as to guarantee not only that you would fail, but that your failure would light up the sky like a flaming space station crashing to earth, you could not have expected any better of a plan than the one the NYT is putting in place.
To start with, using my old address in Dallas as an example, I could have the paper edition delivered to my door for about $32 a month (which includes online access). If you live in Brooklyn, it's more like $25 a month.
So how, in the glorious and holy name of Buckzilla - Sumerian god of corporate greed, - does the NYT come up with this pricing structure for digital access:
- Access to NYTimes.com plus smart phone app: $15/month
- Access to NYTimes.com plus tablet app: $20/month
- Access to NYTimes.com plus both phone and tablet app: $35/month
Wait... do what now? They're charging different amounts for their smart phone and tablet apps? And they're charging MORE for access to both?
Hello? Operator? I have a call for Dr. Clue. Dr. Clue, please pick up the phone.
Needless to say, at these grossly inflated prices and with this complete disregard for how people actually expect to use their mobile devices (seamlessly - without paying extra to switch from one to the other) I predict that New York Times subscription plan to fail gloriously. Not even the damaged Japanese nuclear reactors are melting down as fast at this stupid scheme.
I will miss reading the NYT on line, but I won't miss it that much. Call me once reality sets in and we can talk.