For me at this point, a print newspaper is useless. I have no time at home to read it, it's too big and the cats sit on it if I read it on the floor, and I've read the Times online for so long I am deeply disconcerted by the arrangement of the print. (My mother is visiting and is buying the Times daily and it's so weird.)
But I'm cheap. I don't spend $5 on coffee a day - I maybe buy a coffee out once a month. I bring my lunch. I pay $30 a month for the cheapest TV service I could get, and would pay nothing if there were over-the-air reception of PBS in my town. I'm actually thinking of cancelling TV, but it would be a big fight with my kids. Well, and my husband, probably.
Admittedly, I have never been one for reading the newspaper. I get the Sunday paper delivered now so I can skim through it, maybe, but mostly so I have something to wrap worm food in, and to use as kindling.
Jessica has a point - that the writers' effort is what we're subscribing to. This is a conversation that carries well beyond newspapers.
I rail at advertisements in products I pay for though. That's one thing that really peeved me about cable, which was originally something you paid for in order to get ad-free television. Until it wasn't.
I don't want ads in my books. I hate being trapped with them at the start of movies. I wish them nowhere near my apps (eyah, good luck).
If we're paying for the articles, in this model, we're also paying for a lot of advertisements, and we are getting those in spades (aggressive ones, too).
Local delivery of the NYT costs $5.85/week, or about $25/month. Outside of the NYC metro area, the print edition is $7.40/week or about $35/month. So $15/month for the same content anywhere in the country (more content, really, since the online version is updated throughout the day and includes video & interactive features) seems like a pretty good deal to me. DH is pretty addicted to the dead tree edition or I'd switch today.
$15 a month is a good deal compared to $35 a month, but a bad deal compared to $0 a month. It's all relative.
If we're paying for the articles, in this model, we're also paying for a lot of advertisements, and we are getting those in spades (aggressive ones, too).
The ads are the only thing that makes it possible for a newspaper to offer a reasonable subscription price in any format. Take out the ads and the subscription price just about triples.
I've been paying $12 a year for the crosswords in the NYT, but it also lets me read the online edition. I wonder if that will change.
One of the comments on the Times article notes that the commenter lives in India and $15 is about his daily salary, yet he reads the Times regularly online. They don't have differential pricing for the third world, which is interesting. I am sure they have their own numbers on where clicks are coming from, and have considered the issue; it would be fascinating to get some insight into the decision-making process.
In other possibly contentious news, for anyone interested in instant oatmeal (THE HORROR!), Serious Eats has done a series of taste-tests: [link]
Take out the ads and the subscription price just about triples.
I understand that. That wasn't really my point.
