Personal

To the New York Times: You’re too expensive

I get most of my news on my phone. Over the years it’s edged out the more traditional news sources I used to rely on. I gave up on my local paper almost a decade ago. I never watch cable news and almost never watch network or local TV news. I catch an occasional NPR newscast during my commute. Other than that, it’s my phone all the way.

nytI started to rely on The New York Times back when I had my Palm Pre. It’s easy to say that theirs was the best Pre news app; there were few apps for that forlorn platform. When The Times erected its paywall in 2010, they never got around to updating their Pre app to require paid login. At last, an advantage to being on an abandoned mobile operating system! For two years I had free run of The Times while everybody else could read only so many free articles before the paywall insisted they pony up.

In those years I came to really value The Times’ reporting. I felt better informed than I had with any of the sources I followed before – achieved just by scanning the headlines and reading maybe five articles each day.

About a year ago The Times finally got wise to us freeloading Pre users and killed the app. I went through withdrawal! Shortly afterward I upgraded to a shiny new iPhone 5, and the first thing I did was download The Times app. I could read only stories among the day’s top headlines – limited access, to be sure, but it was surprisingly satisfying. I could only have wished for greater access to their business and technology coverage. But they changed the rules a few weeks ago. Now I can read articles from any section, not just the day’s top headlines – but I’m limited to just three articles a day. I found this to be crippling. Every day I burned through my three articles in no time and was left hungry for more.

The New York Times’ reporting has value and deserves customers who pay. I’d be happy to pay in line with the value I think I get from The Times. But given how few articles I read each day, their entry-level digital subscription is too expensive at $195 each year. If they offered a limited-access subscription for $50 or $75 a year, I’d bite. I would probably even bite at $100 a year, though I’d grumble a little.

reutersIn frustration, I deleted The Times’ app from my phone last week and downloaded the Thomson Reuters app, which gives free access to a huge number of articles. The app is slick and easy to use; it’s better designed than The Times’ app. Reuters brings good coverage of national and world stories, and their technology and business beats are pretty good. Content is updated continuously, often while I’m in the app, so there’s always something new to read.

But I miss The Times’ voice, and keep hoping they’ll offer a less-expensive entry-level subscription. I’d come right back.

readmore2

Advertisements
Standard

15 thoughts on “To the New York Times: You’re too expensive

  1. I’m not much of a news hound. For several decades I subscribed to the local newspaper, The Press-Enterprise, a company I worked for in the early 1970s. But the paper was increasingly less satisfying and I read it progressively less often. At the end, I found myself doing two things with it; bringing it in the house every day, then carting the unread papers out to the recycling bin at the end of the week. I realized how much less than useful it was about the time that the subscription fee was raised yet again, again, again. That was the end of it, a few years ago.
    If I feel the need to read the news now, I go online, usually to the BBC.

    Like

  2. I still get the local paper because it does a pretty good job covering local news. And I hate to say it, but at my age I look at the obits. I’m not the news junkie that I once was so for national news I just check the headlines on Yahoo or a place like that once in a while. I do see why sites need to charge to do news. Its not fair to expect people to do that work for nothing.

    Like

    • I quit the local paper when my ex and I split because for a time I couldn’t afford it! Then when I could again, I realized I hadn’t missed it. I’ve never been a huge news junkie but the one thing I do miss is good local coverage. I still have within me somewhere a screed against local TV news, which I almost never watch anymore because it is so useless.

      I agree: news organizations deserve to be paid for their work. I just want my cost to be in line with the value I get.

      Like

  3. Lone Primate says:

    I’ve been feeling exactly the same way about The Globe and Mail here in Toronto. They email me headlines every day, but you’re limited to ten free articles a month. And it’s $20 a month, plus tax (13% provincial and federal here in Ontario). Do the math. That’s about $270 a year. YOW. Just for electrons?? I could ask some rude questions about “does that come with a…?” but this is a family site so I won’t. :)

    Like

    • yeah. That’s almost as much as it would cost to buy the physical paper every day. That’s what I don’t understand — paper is massively expensive, the major cost of publishing a newspaper, yet when you go paperless the cost to us stays the same? What?

      Like

Share your comment

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in:

WordPress.com Logo

You are commenting using your WordPress.com account. Log Out /  Change )

Google+ photo

You are commenting using your Google+ account. Log Out /  Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out /  Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out /  Change )

Connecting to %s

This site uses Akismet to reduce spam. Learn how your comment data is processed.