I pay $1 / week for a NYT digital subscription

[ok_cpu]

and it's 100% because of Haberman, Stephens, and the other stupid shit they do over and over again.

Their product has to be devalued in order to keep subscribers. The vast majority of the paper is worth multiples of $52 per year, but I believe customers are punishing them for allowing this nonsense.

[Le Roi de Pot]

1. I pay $31 a month -- but that includes physical copy of Sunday Newspaper

[lagomorph777]

2. You pay them because they print garbage?

I don't get the logic.

[ok_cpu]

5. I can live with $1 for the parts of the paper that are good.

But a buck is the only way they keep me as a subscriber. If they didn't enable the nonsense, I'd pay much more than $1.

[awesomerwb1]

3. MAGA Maggie (Haberman)??

Last edited Wed Oct 14, 2020, 11:30 AM - Edit history (1)

I would have to get paid to read her stuff.

*Edit: to those who love her, you'll see what I mean soon. She never fails to disappoint.

[RainCaster]

4. I don't know who they are, but I gladly pay...

... to support good investigative journalism. I also support the Washington Post, and the Guardian.

[dalton99a]

6. Access to power is Job 1 at the NYT

Never forget Judith Miller

[awesomerwb1]

7. I just posted on this thread less than 30 minutes ago.

Last edited Wed Oct 14, 2020, 11:32 AM - Edit history (2)

#MAGAMAggie strikes again.

MAGA Maggie is tweeting some bullshit about.....Biden's emails.

*Edited

[ok_cpu]

8. That's what prompted my thread

My point was that the NYT has to offer subscriptions for $1 because they enable access journalism and both-sider columnists.

Because they allow it, the only way for them to keep subscribers is to devalue the rest of the paper.

[awesomerwb1]

11. I got your point

I could've phrased my post better, was speaking in general to all others who seem to love her. My bad.

MAGA Haberman is trending on twitter now.

[grantcart]

9. This thread wins the "Yes we have no bananas" award.

OP wasn't praising Maggie.

[brooklynite]

10. "The New York Times Tops 6 Million Subscribers as Ad Revenue Plummets"

New York Times

In the first three months of the year, The New York Times Company added more digital subscribers than it had gained during any quarter since it started charging readers for online content in 2011. But that increase was driven by widespread interest in news of the coronavirus pandemic, which has ravaged the U.S. economy and cut deeply into The Times’s advertising revenue.

By the end of a dramatic quarter, Times employees had grown accustomed to working remotely, and readers were flocking to the newspaper’s website, drawn by articles on the coronavirus and its effects that were offered at no charge.

Many of those readers bought subscriptions. The company reported on Wednesday that it had netted 587,000 new digital subscriptions during the quarter. The majority — 468,000 — were for the core news product, and the remaining 119,000 were for other digital products, including apps like Cooking and Crossword.

The fact that you have a $1 a week subscription (offering rates vary continually) doesn't mean most readers do, or that that is how much they "value" the newspaper and especially that they're unhappy about the columnists that you are. Inexpensive digital subscriptions are essentially free money since there's no additional cost to add extra readers who may discover the paper and pay a higher renewal rate.

[ok_cpu]

12. They're taking a long view. I guess we'll see how it works out

That $1 / week is for a year, which is well longer than a normal teaser rate, in my experience. I understand what you're saying, but I believe they have had to cut prices to add or keep subscribers. In my case, I only returned because it is so cheap.

Interest in COVID coverage brought them the eyeballs. We'll see if they can hang on to them.