Today, both Jean-Louis and I struggle with the same topic: last week’s announcement of the New York Time’s strange paywall structure.
For a digital newspaper, there is no such thing as a fair price. Too many questionable assumptions, too many variables, too many ways to play with data. The Monday Note and my day job as the head of the French digital press consortium both gave me opportunities to work on such numbers for weeks. Intellectually stimulating as the exercise might be, when analyzing readers’ migration to digital, you can’t reach useable conclusions through a mere extrapolation of the eroding print model. Nor can you reliably model price elasticity in an electronic medium where “free” is the rule, “freemium” the minority, and paid-for the exception.
Let’s start with the basic problem: the free model (read: advertising supported) cannot provide the financial support for an ambitious, in-depth, global information enterprise. This type of organization is inherently expensive. The depletion of print readership (expect a real 5-8% drop every year), and the corresponding loss in advertising revenue create an urgent need for new financial models. Otherwise, the likes of the Huffington Post will find nothing to aggregate other than the vast echo chamber they built their ephemeral value on.
As the past fails to provide a solid foundation, the most prudent way of building a new business model starts with basic building blocks. For instance, the cost of a high-volume digital transaction platform for news products (all sorts of products, not just dumb PDF shovelware) should be around 8% to 10% of revenue, all included. Then, covering the news should require x hundreds of editorial staff, y dozens of support positions, all costing z. In addition, the news organization’s value proposition need to be factored in these numbers. That value proposition, in turn, translates into who and how many would be willing to pay for such (perceived) qualities. All this leads to the most important task: rethinking the organization in order to achieve these goals — in a context where the print’s old money flow now looks like a dried-up creek in Summer.
Trial and error is the only way to find answers to all these questions. Experimenting requires humility, agility, ability to learn from mistakes. Let’s admit it: such traits are in short supply in century-old news organizations that – until recently – thrived on their unchallenged confidence. In contrast, an ability to adjust quickly is a dominant feature of the most successful digital companies. Another characteristic of the best tech companies being a relentless quest for simplicity. As an example, think of Apple’s fixation on removing unnecessary buttons and dials, or just look at Google’s main search page.
Unsurprisingly, the New York Times chose the opposite path. One possibility entailed weighing how much its large audience of faithful readers would be willing to pay for its content and shooting for a single subscription price aimed at generating volume. Instead, the NYT went for a convoluted pricing structure.
In a nutshell: after reading 20 articles over 4 weeks, you hit the wall. Then you must choose your plan: $15/month for web viewing + smartphone; $20/month for web access + app on a tablet; or $35/month for accessing the NYTimes on all devices (something the most valuable regulars do), details here. It took 14 months, and according to the Times digital czar Martin Nisenholtz, reams of market research to come up with this. I also involved a serious investment : $40m-$50m (!!) according to this Bloomberg story.
The New York Times paywall is like the French tax system: expensive, utterly complicated, disconnected from the reality and designed to be bypassed.
Loopholes abound. To avoid hitting the wall, take your pick:
- Use different email accounts. If, like me, you own or operate several different domain names, bingo!
- Easier: use three browsers as the cookies placed by the NYTimes on each are not interconnected; if you have Internet Explorer, Chrome, Firefox and Safari, that’s 80 stories a month! The paywall is fading away.
- Delete your cookies. Many paranoid users do it every day, sometimes automatically. Deleting cookies introduces several drawbacks for those who want to navigate quickly, but penny-pinchers will like it.
- Visit the NYTimes from other sites, such as Twitter or Facebook, but in fact from any site, including Google (see Jean-Louis’ view on this below).
This list goes on an on.
Whom is this paywall aiming at? According to the Times itself, about 15% of their current readership will hit the wall. The bet is that segment – affluent, busy, non-nerdy – won’t bother tricking the system and will instead pay up. Let’s accept that assumption and run the numbers (and notice the level of uncertainty):
Global audience for NYTimes.com: in February, according to Comscore, 48.5 million unique visitors worldwide. (Note that no one uses Nielsen numbers any longer.) Should we focus the analysis solely on the domestic market and reduce the UV number to 32m? Advertisers would agree: foreign audiences carry little value. But, when looking at those potentially willing to pay for the NYTimes, the answer is the opposite: let’s stick to the 48.5m.
Now, let’s remove those who just fly-by, i.e. people coming from search engine or social medias: they will look at one story and jump elsewhere. Google accounts for 15% of the NYTimes traffic; Facebook, 4%. Add others such as Twitter and round it up to 25% of the global audience. This leaves about 36m monthly regular users to play with, of which 15% (5.4m), according to the Times’ estimates, are heavy users likely to hit the wall. How many would take the jump and pay? And how much money would they contribute to the Times revenue line?
Here are the numbers for an average monthly spending of $20.00 :
Transformation rate => number of subscribers => annual revenue
5% => 270,000 => $65m
10% => 540,000 => $130m
15% => 810,000 => $194m
20% => 1.08m => $259m
OK. Let’s stick to a reasonable 10%. How does the extra $130m compare to the current Times revenue structure? In 2010, The NYT Media Group (print + digital) made $1.55 billion all together. $780m came from advertising revenues, of which about $160m from NYTimes.com. Interestingly, 44% of the total ($683m) came from circulation — at $2.00/day in newsstands, the NYTimes is expensive.
In this case, the Grey Lady’s digital operation would total: $130m+$160m = $290m. This is enough to support the huge 1000+ editorial staff (the newsroom expense line is said to be in the $200m range).
Let’s stop here. The New York Times’ pricing structure, the fact that it is also designed to protect the paper’s physical circulation, the paywall’s porosity all complicate projections. One thing is sure: $35 a month ($420/year — $455 year for 52wks) to view the online paper on three devices is ridiculous, not matter how elitist the target group is fantasized to be. You simply don’t charge such an amount in a (US) market where services like Hulu or Netflix cost $7.99 per month. The Times would have been better inspired to go for a simple $15 a month on all devices. Such a price would allow to shoot for a goal of 2 or 3 million digital subscribers worldwide within three years. This would yield $360m-$540m in extra revenue, corresponding to between 5% and 8% of the regular digital readers mentioned above. For a global brand of the NY Times’ stature, such numbers are not unattainable.
—frederic.filloux@mondaynote.com
Related columns:
- You Cheat. We Cut Prices TweetSurprise: To boost its circulation, Rupert Murdoch’s Wall Street Journal Europe engaged in massive channel stuffing. No kidding. It sounds like everyone discovers, all of a sudden, how medias (old and new) actually work. Granted, when it comes to cheating, News Corp is in a class all by itself. The phone hacking scandal pushed the [...]...
- NYT Digital Lessons TweetThe New York Times Company’s latest quarterly numbers contain a rich trove of data regarding the health of the digital news industry. Today, we’ll focus on the transition from traditional advertising to paywall strategies being implemented across the world. Paywall appear as a credible way to offset — alas too partially — the declining revenue [...]...
- Decoding Share Prices: Amazon, Apple and Facebook TweetThere are many religions when it comes to calculating the “right” price for the shares of a publicly traded company. At a basic level, buying a share is an act of faith in the company’s future earnings. The strength of this belief manifests itself in the company’s P/E (Price/Earnings) ratio. The stronger the faith, the [...]...
- The NY Times: Un-Free At Last! Tweet On March 28th, after much handwringing, the New York Times will finally deploy a paywall. NYT fans, your author included, rejoice: We see this as a necessary condition for the newspaper’s survival. Necessary…but not sufficient. A “small matter of implementation’’ remains an obstacle on the paper’s path to greatness in the digital era. A [...]...
36 Comments
Yet another loophole–one that fell unexpectedly into my lap. I was one of the 2141 responders to the nyt article announcing the paywall. I said, “Ta ta. Let me know if the price doesn’t stick.”
The next day I received an offer for a free subscription to nyt.com for the rest of this year, courtesy of Lincoln Motors! Why me? Perhaps something about my reading profile made me look good to Lincoln. (I drive a somewhat less elegant Ford product.) I took it.
While I was reading the paywall article, I asked myself how much I would pay. The number “$99 a year” popped into mind. I gladly pay wsj.com a bit more than that, but I don’t like nyt as much. Wsj has a much superior structure for its forums and reader comments, and I engage in these a lot.
How important to readers is the ability to engage in interactive forums, blogs, etc. of the publication? It’s important to me. What if they would say, “Only subscribers can engage in the forums.” I might well pay for that, if the forum structure was improved. If subscribers only, it would hopefully keep out the riffraff–spammers, flamers, and illiterates.
Maybe they need to rethink what they are actually selling. Community, interaction. Access to like minded people.
mvh
Hi mvh,
what an excellent idea!
Mike points out an angle that Frederic did not address: added value.
I’m totally within the NYT’s sweetspot, the site has been my homepage for over 10 years now. Yet I found through all their different pricing models nothing more than prices, and zero added value to me. No features, no community, no engagement, no special access, nothing I’d like to buy.
Nothing that would connect this fan with their business and give me a reason to buy.
And yes, trying to shame me into supporting world class journalism just because Mr. Sulzberger believes I should is a dead-end.
For these reasons, it’s my HO that Frederic’s conversion calculations are a bit of a fantasy. Even 5% is on the high-end of possibilities for general news.
Are they really betting the farm on a target market of affluent, guilt-ridden and web-challenged?
(oh, and add javascript blocking to the list of wall avoiding loopholes.)
Good points all – probably also worth pointing out that unique visitors do not equal real world readers. Visits from different browsers, visits after clearing cookies – visits from different computers (home & work notably) all count as ‘unique’
To get from reported to uniques to a real world estimate of potential subscribers I think you need to discount by ~ 33%, driving down revenue expectations accordingly
Many modern browsers have an incognito mode that does not keep cookies. If the NYT is readable beyond the 20-article limit because of this, I’ll just get in the habit of launching a new window to read it.
Great article as usual, and shows the complexity of selling news subscriptions to anyone.
I concur with you view that a straight $15 for all devices would be A LOT better. Then the 5% subscription target is achievable. Ideally, it should be complemented by a pay-per-article model that could then be of benefit to the remaining 95% of the people. For this to work though, only in-page paywall could work so to still generate advertising revenue.
This way, NYT readers would have a simple choice:
- Either take it all for a small monthly price, easy to understand
- Or pay-as-you go, when you truly like an article
And M.V Horn point, forum could still be accessible for all visitors, seeing and sharing the thoughts of those who read and buy.
Btw, talking about loop holes. I saw yesterday on Twitter a browser script already available that tunes the CSS of the page, and make the paywall disappear. Not sure how they spent the $40M…They might want to try our solution too!
Fat chance the ad revenues would stay the same. Why should they if the NYT website’s audience lowers down with the paywall in place?
@Domartini
I’ve been to numerous forums where you could review and read without subscribing, but to comment you had to sign up. Would people be willing to pay to participate plus have unrestricted access to published pieces? I might.
A group of us consultants was discussing this today. We asked, which are the world-class online news orgs? First mentioned: nyt, wsj, BBC, Al Jazeera. Notice that the latter two have never been newspapers: they are descended from broadcast. (Also note, nobody mentioned CNN.) (We also neglected non-English media.)
I get 90% of my news from these online sources, which all combine text, live video commentators, canned video, editorial text and video, live blog and listener forums, archived material. AJE, of necessity, has recently been relying on viewer uploads.
This is the competition for nyt.com. Much broader than newspapers.
The price is $455/year NOT $420.
The NYT pricing is based on 4 weeks not a month. That means they sneak an extra billing cycle in every year.
It is a cynical but effective tactic. Most of the stories about the paywall that discuss annual costs manage to miss that little tidbit.
To make matters worse, it’s “$35/month” whereby month they really mean four weeks, making it $455/year. If you live in a big enough city they’ll deliver to your doorstep every weekday for only $384.80/year, which comes with the digital access as well.
Complete insanity…
I can’t imagine this convoluted plan has much of a chance of succeeding. Why are there even “tiers” of payment/access plans at all – especially *by device*?? That’s completely against the nature of digital devices (the whole advantage being that the same content can be displayed everywhere in different forms).
I’d say leave the website free and ad-supported, then have ONE subscription plan that gives you exclusive content and no ads for one simple price ($10/month? $15?). Accessible from any device.
I am simply not going to pay any person,organization, or corporation for online text based content. I will pay for video content, however, if netflick were to raise its rate to $25 a month I would probably pass. There is more than enough free content in one form or another to keep me amused and informed.
Leave it to a bunch of Harvard grads to come up with such a ludicrous plan. As much as I love the Gray Old Lady, and would pay something to get access to their website, I will not pay that much. Maybe $10 a month for web access and $5 more for my iPad. But that’s it.
Great article. I have been wondering how the NYT came up with its subscription prices since they announced their decisions, and you shedding some light on the numbers behind their accounting. However, something that is still fuzzy is how the NYT took into account the reduction of page views.
By putting a paywall, you will reduce the number of page views, which should decrease your advertisement revenue (that I would assume is based on numbers of readers viewing a page w/ advertisement). I, myself, must go through 20 articles of the NYT in 3-4 days, but if it was not for the digital version online, I would not buy it. I already decided that I will just read up to 20 articles, and move on to other sources when the paywall is up. By doing so, the NYT will lose basically almost 86% of my page views (140 articles for 4 weeks vs. 20), and each page has several ads.
Basically, how much does the NYT get from advertisement for each page view in average, and how many views correspond to $15?
This paywall model keeps reader from reading, and advertisement money away. Should the model be completely the opposite? I mean make people have incentives to read more by making them pay until they reach a threshold of N page views i.e. ad revenue. For instance, We charge you $5 dollars on the 1st of each month, and if at the end of the month you get to the goal of N pages, then you get your $5 (or some of it) back, while the threshold of N pages garantees a revenue greater than $5 to the NYT. That way, NYT has a garanteed revenue for low page view readers and give incentive to read more, not less.
WSJ Online is $12/month. For the first year it’s $8/month. Web, iPhone and iPad. Murdoch may be evil, but the pricing here is quite reasonable.
My absolute first reaction to the NYT’s announcement re: the paywall wuz, “Uhhhh… who cares.” There was a time that I was an avid NYT print fan and then really dug the email “push” everyday, but for a solid two years I haven’t bought one inked copy and have been routinely skimming their email subject lines and deleting them unread. Only David Pogue and a selected few NYT others command my consistent attention. Why? Time and relevance. NOTHING to do with the paywall.
If it’s good enough, and compelling enough, and relevant to me, I will gladly pay for it. I pay for Vanity Fair. I pay for WIRED. I pay for Esquire. However, there are so many easier, customizable, better crafted places than the NYT to get the info I seek, and for FREE (even Pogue is available elsewhere) that I find there is no urge to spend my time with the Gray Lady.
I will comfortably fit into the 20 articles per freebie account, as I suspect a huge percentage of my peers will do. This pay plan will turn out to be a usage/circulation killer. They will wind up scrapping it and returning to good old free access and ramping up their ad sales efforts. This is the (right now) only formula to beat!
i reckon they will _not_ do complicated things with cookies, but will require all readers to login and do the accounting on the server side. (the suggestion of using multiple browsers with a different login on each would defeat this by multiplying the monthly free views accordingly …)
The fair price of any product is simply a function of what consumers are willing to pay.
@Caleb: the reasoning behind the higher price for online is very probably Apple — if they gain a new reader (who pays the 385 to get the newspaper delivered to their door AND online access) themself, they don’t have to pay Apples 30% cut.
Even thought the prices are absolutely ridicoulous, I have to admire the cleverness behind this structure.
.and there is always the Guardian , the Independent and the BBC to fall back on.
I recommend signing up for Sunday physical paper delivery, which is just $390 per year at full price (but you get half off for the first six months). Full digital access is included, plus you get the Sunday Magazine to hold in your hand.
http://alignedleft.com/blog/2011/03/why-you-should-pay-money-for-journalism/
I guess the Portuguese newspaper “Publico” is doing the right thing:
http://static.publico.pt/assinaturas/
2.30/week for all digital forms
5.74/week for digital + tree form
I would not pay anything for an online newspaper. I will make an assumption by saying that I tend to believe that the advertisements would provide the profits the newspaper needs to post an online version of the newspaper. The bottom line is this, “I want to buy a printed newspaper when I want it and enjoy the comfort of the sofa as I read it”. I can’t do this online so I wouldn’t buy it!!!
The $20/$35 fee for the iPad app is just price discrimination to capture the top few percent of high income readers. You can still read nytimes.com on the iPad web browser on the $15 plan, just not on the app. In any case the fact you have an iPad at all suggests that you are a high income reader because lower income folks wouldn’t be willing to pay $499+ for an iPad and would use a regular computer instead.
CANCOM LIMITED
Registered No:02867254
Incorporation Date:1998/1999
Status: Active
Email: sales_cancom@hotmail.co.uk
Yahoo chat : cancomlimited@yahoo.com
Phone Contacts: +447024092298
Specializes in the distributions of Mobile phones , Laptops , Games , Mobile accessories e.t.c. Our objective is to develop long-term relationships with our customers. To do so, we continuously provide our existing customers new products, advanced designs, and patented innovations so that they can stay on the top of their markets.
This is a well know and standard company in USA,UK and Malaysia.
* Your privacy is guaranteed
* Our prices are second to none
* Insurance Secured Transactions
* We ship Monday through Saturday.
* Free shipping on qualified orders
* We offer a reasonable discount on bulk purchase
* We ship the same day after confirmation of payment.
* We offer a 30 day return policy and a 100% money back guarantee.
1. Complete accessories(Well packed and sealed in original company box)
2. Unlocked / sim free.
3. Brand new (original manufacturer) box – no copies
4. All phones have English language as default
5. All material (software, manual) – car chargers – home chargers – usb data cables -holsters/belt clips – wireless headsets(bluetooth) -leather and non-leather carrying cases – batteries.
Our best Offer is as below.
BUY 2 GET 1 FREE
BUY 3 GET 1 FREE PLUS SHIPPING INCLUDED
BUY 10 GET 3FREE PLUS SHIPPING INCLUDED
SPECIFICATION:
(ARAB/EUROPEANS/US SPECIFICATIONS) GENERAL NETWORK GSM 900/GSM 1800/GSM 1900PLATFORM – TRI BAND (GSM900 + 1800 + 1900 MHZ.ANY OF THE PHONES THAT IS NOTIN GOOD CONDITION SHOULD BE RETURN IMMEDIATELY TO US AND WE WILL BEAR THERETURN CHARGES AND REPLACEMENTS FOR THEPHONES
Return Policy:
1. Please notify us within 14 days (according to the posting date).
2. Please complete the RMA form for any return items.
3. Return items MUST have all ORIGINAL packaging and accessories.
4. Return postage and insurance charge is non-refundable for return items.
5. Returne/exhange shipment of quality, we will supply free after service
………………………………………….. . ……………..
Shipping Company :FedEx,UPS & DHL
Delivery Time:2Days
Minimum Order:1-100Unit
Delivery to any location
We work in 24Hrs
If you wish for any product not listed here please email us the product Brand Name and Model and we shall source it from our warehouse Our product are brand new, you can book your order at our Sales Manager Company Email Below….
iPhone packaging (In the box)
1 Apple iPhone 3G S 32gb Phone or Apple iPhone 4G ,1 Standard Battery Battery ,1 Charger ,1 USb Data Cable ,1 Stereo Handsfree ,1 Wired Headset / Ear Piece,1 User’s Guide,1 USB Power Adapter,1 Documentation,1 Cleaning/polishing cloth,1 SIM eject tool, FREE Screen Protector, FREE Silcone Case, FREE Crystal Hard Case,1 User Manual.
Brand new original Genuine,Authentic Apple iPhone ( Black or White) in a box, the latest firmware, The phone is officially unlocked/ legally unlocked. (this means you can upgrade your firmware in the future) and also you can use the iPhone with any sim cards, It works with any sim cards in overseas too as it is unlocked.
Shipping fees : Free shipping for bulk purchase : FedEx, DHL or UPS
Delivery Time : 2 days maximum.
All Product Factory Unlocked (Ready to use )
WARRANTY
All our products comes with 1 year full international warranty for every product sold out,our products are 100% Brand new with full boxed accessories,sealed box and original package.
Languages support (32):
English (U.S/U.K),France, German, Estonian, Hungarian,Malay, Icelandic, Latvian, Flemish, Traditional Chinese, Simplified Chinese, Dutch, Italian, Spanish, Portuguese (Brazil/Portugal), Danish, Swedish, Finnish, Lithuanian, Norwegian, Korean, Japanese, Russian, Polish, Turkish, Ukrainian, Arabic, Czech, Greek, Hebrew, Romanian, Slovak,Croatian and lots more.
Real journalism is expensive, but part of the problem is their entire business model was built for print, and does not fit a modern electronic format. They need to run very very lean, basically a bunch of highly skilled reporters and a handful of IT to push it out. This would allow them to charge a modest fee that more are willing to pay, pay real reporters well, and hopefully even turn a small profit. Just my opinion, as the article states there is not enough real data to make real decisions about specific targets.
I read the times daily. Today (I just inherited an iPad) was the first day I was told to subscribe.
It’s intensely silly- most people who are computer literate enough to read the times online will bypass it. And while I would love to support the times I’m not about to pay hundreds of dollars a year on one news source. Make reasonably affordable (more like $35 a year) and actually lock us out of much of the site if we don’t pay up, and it might work.
Top-notch share it is definitely. My friend has been waiting for this info.
Thanks for revealing your ideas. I would also like to convey that video games have been at any time evolving. Technology advances and revolutions have made it simpler to create reasonable and interactive games. These kinds of entertainment games were not really sensible when the concept was first of all being tried. Just like other designs of know-how, video games also have had to grow by way of many decades. This itself is testimony to the fast development of video games.
In my eyes NYT is currently the best newspaper available in the digital world. I love it and sucscribed for the newest buzz on my iPhone. Combined with the new iOS5 app its more than smooth. Must have.
Howdy! I simply wishes to put in a giant thumbs together to the amazing tips you could have at this point with this publish. I am coming back to your blog to get more detailed in the near future.
[...]Chubb Collector Car Insurance introduced the Classic Car Guide app on March 8. The free program is compatible with the Apple iPad, iPhone and iPod touch, WHILE Blackberry and Android versions are in development. Leveraging Sports Car Market magazine’s database, which is searchable to 1886, the app culls valuations and model descriptions for about 4,000 different makes.[...]
Cher propriétaire du blog ! Je tiens à vous remercier pour fournir autant d’informations utiles. Merci 1000 fois ! Continuez !
consultant seo salaire http://hebergeurwebquebec.wordpress.com formation seo
The $99 a year price point makes sense for the New York Times but there is no evidence of creative thinking in the business side of the paper which is why it is showing signs of wear as a business.
The Times could easily experiment to see if the $99 price point, or a $49 or $149, price point increases volume to enhance revenues above today’s set point by simply running, say, a two week sale at the price point to be tested. If the test fails, renewals after the year would be full price. If the test succeeds, the Times will flourish and continue as a global force.
People, for sure, don’t want to be hassled with monthly renewals and they absolutely hate, speaking for those I know and talk with, having the print edition jammed down their throat as the only way to get a “fair”, i.e. mutually acceptable, entry deal.
Hey there, You have done a fantastic job. I’ll definitely digg it and personally recommend to my friends. I’m sure they’ll be benefited from this web site.
15 Trackbacks
[...] chorus of varied reactions. One of the more trenchant, possibly cogent, observations came from across the pond, though buttressed by a strong Silicon Valley [...]
[...] leads me to think that the speculation that the whole thing is an attempt to keep paper subscribers paying might be true. That’s the kind of boneheaded, backward-looking plan that I’d [...]
[...] Source: NYtimes’ Fair Price [...]
[...] via NYTimes’ “Fair” Prices | Monday Note. [...]
[...] revolved around the Times’ pricing system itself, which French media analyst Frederic Filloux described as “expensive, utterly complicated, disconnected from the reality and designed to be [...]
[...] so long as it’s simple to use, cheap, and easy to understand. As Frederic Filoux observes in his recent Monday Note piece: iTunes has taught us that customers are willing to pay for content if the process is simple, if [...]
[...] # What the NYT is requiring for its digital-only subscription has lead deGusta and others (such as Frédéric Filloux) to argue that the NYT scheme is a defensive strategy designed to stop existing customers from [...]
[...] Frédéric Filloux is considerably less sanguine, arguing that “The New York Times paywall is like the French [...]
[...] Piano is following the John Gruber rule of pricing: Keep it simple. It’s a flat rate, always billed monthly. Compare that to The New York Times’ tiered pay model, which has drawn criticism for its complexity. [...]
[...] NYT’s performance is truly amazing given its subscription system’s weird price structure. It is also surprising considering its iPad application isn’t the best in its [...]
[...] NYT’s performance is truly amazing given its subscription system’s weird price structure. It is also surprising considering its iPad application isn’t the best in its [...]
[...] of Newsstand.The NYT’s performance is truly amazing given its subscription system’s weird price structure. It is also surprising considering its iPad application isn’t the best in its [...]
[...] of Newsstand.The NYT’s performance is truly amazing given its subscription system’s weird price structure. It is also surprising considering its iPad application isn’t the best in its [...]
[...] NYT’s performance is truly amazing given its subscription system’s weird price structure. It is also surprising considering its iPad application isn’t the [...]
[...] http://www.mondaynote.com/2011/03/21/nytimes-%E2%80%9Cfair%E2%80%9D-prices/ [...]