Why the New York Times Online Strategy Will Fail
Wednesday, March 23, 2011
If you are interested in news business, you all know that the New York Times has decided to offer online content only to those who subscribe.
The subscription is $35 per month to access the site on a computer, a smartphone and an Ipad, when it is only $15 dollars to get computer access only.
Do you think this marketing strategy will work?
Obviously, it is understandable that the New York Times is losing when people read their articles online and don't buy the print version anymore.
The New York Times hopes that the most online frequent readers will subscribe to get their news because they are used to read those online.
But the problem is that readers could still have access of New York Times articles through links all over the web. For example, news aggregators provide links that lead right to the article while keeping it free.
Some New York Times readers explain why they won't pay to access site online.
"There are other reputable sources that are free, and the editorials on the Times page, if they are worth, will be passed around via social media," says Ditto, a 29-year-old attorney.
Some people think that this is a strategy to sell more print version rather than make money online strategy. The New York Times pricing seems designed not to get people to subscribe digitally, but rather to discourage existing subscribers from canceling their print subscriptions.
Photo credits: Paris, Museum Of Arts, Public Domain via Wikimedia Commons.
4 comments:
I also agree that the strategy won't produce good results. If newspapers ever stopped being published and companies instead only offered online material that people had to pay for, it would be interesting to know what people would do if that was their only option. Until then, I don't think the pay wall will be successful.
Like I said in one of my tweets, there is always a flaw to every plan. There are too many open spaces for hackers to sneak through.
I think this is what will get people to pay for the Times. It will get passed around an people will still read it, which will prompt the Times to lower their rates, which will get more people to pay.
I think it has potential to succeed. NYT needs to reduce the payment a bit and then it could stand a change. I like the idea of letting everyone have 20 free pages of content.
Post a Comment