New York Times Mulls $30 for iPad Subscription

Credit: JL08/Flickr

The New York Times, one of the iPad’s most vociferous and earliest proponents, now seems split on how much to charge for a version of the ‘newspaper of record’ for the tablet. The newspaper is split on pricing, with the print side and digital side at odds. The publication is considering charging iPad owners between $10 and $30 to read its paper, claims a report.

Citing an unnamed source, Gawker writes the print side wants to charge $20 to $30 per month for an iPad version of the daily newspaper. The argument is that the iPad would cut into subscriptions of the print edition, thus requiring the higher price tag. Currently, the newspaper offers much of its print content online for free, although that may end next year. New York Times Media Group president Scott Heekin-Canedy reportedly sides with the print division.

However, the digital side of the Times is “up in arms over print circulation’s pricing,” according to the report. Proponents of a digital New York Times see $10 per month as a better pricing arrangement.

“The internal fight might also determine how relevant — and profitable — the nation’s most prominent newspaper can remain in the digital future,” Gawker‘s Ryan Tate wrote, explaining why there is such debate over pricing for an iPad edition.

Earlier this month, Apple CEO Steve Jobs met with 50 New York Times executives in hope of winning them over to the iPad. The executives left unconvinced, reports said.

The dispute within the New York Times seems to mirror the debate other newspaper and magazine publishers are having with Apple. As we reported Tuesday, several publishers are objecting to Apple demands of keeping a portion of iPad subscription revenues “forever” and not sharing iPad subscriber information as a potential “deal-breaker.”

DON'T MISS
Danish newspaper turns itself into huge pulp iPad to mull the future of print

[Via 9to5Mac and AppleInsider]

20 comments »

About the author

Ed Sutherland is a veteran technology journalist who first heard of Apple when they grew on trees, Yahoo was run out of a Stanford dorm and Google was an unknown upstart. Since then, Sutherland has covered the whole technology landscape, concentrating on tracking the trends and figuring out the finances of large (and small) technology companies.

(sorry, you need Javascript to see this e-mail address)| Read more posts by Ed Sutherland.

Posted in News |

Josh Yates
I don’t see how they can even BEGIN to charge that much. I could POSSIBLY see $10 per month, but certainly not $30.
I don’t like what this is implying for other online content providers. It looks like we may be going to a system where we have to pay for ALL online content, no matter how or where we consume it. Seems like we may be taking a HUGE step backward in this arena…
carpo
Crazy. I would pay 5$ maximum.
http://www.larrymadill.com/ Larry
Seems like newspapers and magazines still don’t get it, and are willing choosing extinction over evolution.
Personally I wouldn’t pay $30 a month for a NYT sub. I would pay $5 to $10 a month for a iPad sub. And I don’t current subscribe to any dead tree newspapers.
http://www.toxicspark.com Andrew Macdonald
I agree with the other comments, the pricing set out here is well above what it should be.
Baring in mind I read a few different newspapers everyday, if i paid $20 for each of those per month, the pricing would be ridiculous. Add on top of that the fact ill want a 3G subscription with my iPad.
Then add on top of that my monthly magazine subscriptions, we are talking about $150 a month in subscriptions for my iPad alone.
As Josh pointed out, if this is the way the media are going to go, we are going to be paying for ALL online content.
Im excited for the future of print media in the online realm, but they really are pricing themselves into extinction.
Pat
When I read the headline, I thought, you know, I might actually pay $30 a year for the NYT. I certainly would pay $10. Then I read that was the monthly price. I just laughed.
These guys like the NYT need to realize that their product is worthless, and they can’t charge premium prices. I can get news for free from many sites on the web. Why would I pay the NYT $30 a month? So I can do the crossword puzzle?
Publications that don’t have unique content are going to have to team up with other publications and sell subscriptions. I pay around $50/month for hundreds of cable channels. They need to do the same thing with print. Put together 20 or 30 magazines that provide different content, and sell THAT package for $30/month. One publication will not sell for $30 a month, especially when that publication doesn’t provide anything unique that can’t be had for free.
That’s just one way they might be able to turn it around. I’m sure there are many others. But trying to get $30 a month for something that is worthless? These guys are in huge denial.
John
Remember reading how a newspaper Could save millions of dollars a year by charging half a normal sub and giving away kindles to long term subscriber. Savings in print, distributon costs etc.
I think NYT thout the magic unicorns would provide 100 % new subscribers. Of course it will erode paper copies as many current subscribers will switch upon getting an iPad. But evey switcher will be saving NYT money.
Gomi
Publishers: Generate content that plays to strengths of the iPad. Advertisers: Create ads that play to the strengths of the iPad. Publishers: Charge advertisers, not readers.
nacra
First of all, as someone noted, the NYT is not worthless. Anyone who thinks so needs to get a clue.
In the print world, the model was to offer a monthly subscription, which included home delivery, at a discount from the newsstand price. I don’t have a problem with migrating a home delivery subscription to an electronic subscription for the same or close to the same price. The electronic version should then be available on all my devices (iPad, iPhone, Mac, etc.).
My small town newspaper cost $13/month for local content and journalism that isn’t even close to the quality of the NYT. Home delivery of the NYT is about $32/month, depending on your locale, but there are significant expenses attached to physical deliver, so there is no way they can justify $30/month, and hopefully the print guys will see that.
http://www.rosscarroll.com Ross Carroll
$30 per month is preposterous. Per year? Well that seems fair.
O E B
The New York Times at $30 a month is worthless in a world where up to the minute news is accessible at every turn. I wouldn’t pay anything for something I can get for free or at a comparatively low price. i.e. the CNN application. Sure the NYT has some nice editorials and opinion pieces. I would even be the first to say that Thomas Friedman is a Genius… But $30 a month..? MAYBE, $30 a year… And to be honest, I do not even think that is going to fly. Here is a free lesson for the NYT: When Price goes up, Quantity Demanded goes down. Now repeat that most basic economic phrase to yourselves over and over and over and over…. At $30 a month, forget QD going down, you are going to shift the whole damn demand curve off the graph by pissing people off.
Charli
folks need to keep in mind that they have salaries etc to pay. so you won’t be getting any newspaper or magazine for pennies.
that said, if that $30 a month was full multimedia, total archive and ad free, I’d go for it.
mark
What do people pay today for a paper subscription? US$11.80 per week. Out of that amount NYT has to pay paper and distribution. When you deduct these two from the amount paid, then a fai amount will be US$3 per week. Take into consideration that one reads the newspaper online different than one does at the breakfast table I believe that a price of US$1 per week is more reasonable.
If all printed media are going to think about prices like US$15 and up for their mags on the iPad then I can tell you that the iPad will have a short lifespan.
No, you are not going to pay more than 15-20 per cent for the subscription for a general magazine on the iPad. The amount could be even less when you look at the advertising opportunities the iPad is bound to offer to publishers.
Dustin
I would pay $10 a month, and for that price I had better get access on my computer AND on an iPad. I would not pay $30 per month. NYT needs to keep in mind that I have never subscribed to their paper version, but have read their website for years for free. If they have a lower digital subscriber fee, they will gain more new subscribers like me to make up for whomever gives up the paper subscription to move to all digital.
bodypainter
it seels like slowly the people start to understand the problem of the ipad: the ipad is apples content cash cow. it’s main purpose is to generate money. whatever you do on it: you have to pay, pay, pay, pay. I am not surprised that the publishers are planing to charge 30$ per months. remember that apple wants 30% of this money! yes, no production, no tree, no delivery, but: 30% for apple! notice that a website can be used for free, and a file COULD be downloaded for free too, but thanks to the totally closed concept of the ipad it is seems not to be possible to that way. i understand that apple wants to earn money, but their behaviour leads to the fail of the concept: the internet is cheap, efficient and everything that is offered can be reproducted unlimited. the concept should be to widen the audience/costomer base and charge less to seduce them to also join in. to charge the SAME is not the right concept. the NYT should invent a seductive price that widens their base otherwise only a few people will afford this expensive price, and the whole ipad will fail. same applies to the book and music market…
ai
Why does the NYTimes want to follow the Anthem Blue Cross pricing scheme (fewer readers means we have to charge obscene prices, which causes fewer readers, which requires higher prices, which…)?
Guess stupidity and short-sighted greed is not exclusive to health care, energy, or politics.
But it seems to be a trait shared by all the dinosaurs.
Chuck
I don’t look at the NYT now, and it’s free. In fact, if you want to know whats going on in the world, you have to go to Fleet Street. The Times’ bias and pride just won’t let it report all the news.
Jeff P
In general a magazine/newspaper subsrcription costs cover printing and distribution. The advertising pays for everything else. No printing and very low cost distribution should bring the price down substantially. Apple gets a percentage (30%) of the subscription. 30% of $30 is $10. 30% of $1 is $.30 cents. Simple math people. Now realize that if you offer cheap iPad subscriptions your electronic distribution will increase dramtically as many will subscibe based on the low cost. This increases your advertisers exposure (with clickable links that lead you to their websites/promotions) which allows you to charge more for advertising which increases revenues while decreasing printing and distribution costs through electronic distribution.
It doesn’t take a rocket scientist or and MBA for that matter to see this. I’m fully suprised that the genius’ that run the NYT don’t see this.
fcuello
What if I want to continue to receive the print subscription? Shouldn’t I have the option of a free subscription with the iPad? It’d be great for reading while away from home…
http://mspmag.com gary
$30 for the best newspaper on the planet? Sure!! And, it’s about time they got something ready for IPad.
http://www.dryscalptreatment.info Abigail Clark
Monetizing websites, blogs, etc is a good way to earn some passive income.*`”