The original motive behind this post was to share with you how I learned to beat the Time’s digital subscription costs, legally. But after reading their recently released financial report, I’m not so sure I should.
We all know how hard newspapers have been hit by the world’s move online. I’m now having the strange feeling that like an endangered species, we should be helping these guys out, instead.
I’m not considering creating a ”Save the Times” charity. But I’m wondering if my actions, and those of anyone like me who beats the system, will end up being the straw that eventually breaks the camel’s back. I’d hate to see the Times and all their great writers end up at Fox News.
As we all know print newspapers are getting killed by the seismic shift to online reading. The global economy hasn’t helped either by killing ad spend and CPC, and of course, the growth in sharing articles via social networks just compounds the pain. This last point I’ll get to later.
Should we feel bad for the Times?
In case you did not know it, NYTimes.com is the world’s #1 news site, getting over 45 million unique visitors each month and reaching 1 in 6 Internet users.
That’s good news, because their print business has been dying over the past five years. They are still the third-largest U.S. newspaper on weekdays. The Wall Street Journal is No. 1 with an average weekday circulation of 2.1 million and in second place, USA Today, with 1.8 million followers. But subscriptions like ad revenues are shrinking and not nearly enough to foot the Time’s big-time operating costs.
According to its financial statement released in February, the Times’ digital subscription base is growing. The company has been restructuring and refocusing their business model to take advantage of the shift to digital. Times’ Chairman and CEO, Arthur Sulzberger Jr., in the report said, “In 2011 we made significant strides in our strategy to transform and rebalance our company. Our fourth-quarter results demonstrate the continued focus on building The Time’s digital subscription base and developing a new robust consumer revenue stream, while maintaining its significant digital advertising business.”
OK, so they’re counting on digital subscribers to save the day – even more guilt.
At least they are heading in the right direction. Paid digital subscribers for the Times and Herald Tribune are 390,000, an increase of approximately 20% since the end of the third quarter 2011. Even better, ad revenues increased on the year by 10 % despite falling cost-per-click prices.
Will this be enough to offset (no pun intended) the fall in its print business? We’ll have to wait and see. The rest of the news world is anxiously watching too, as the Times' digital subscription model is seen as a possible solution to their own revenue shortfalls.
Businessinsider.com believes the Time’s digital business will eventually support a newsroom of about one-third to one-half the size of the paper's current one. Could you imagine working at the Times now? Knowing you or the guy next to you will soon get the ax.
Who wants to cast the first stone?
As I mentioned, the purpose of this post was to share how I legally beat the Time’s subscription price.
Before I say how, let me state that I actually used to pay for my subscription - at least for a while. I didn’t realize that when my credit card was renewed, it null and voided the one I had registered with the Times. So in actuality, my subscription was cancelled unintentionally - beyond my control.
For the thirty odd years that I’ve been reading the NY Times, I have basically followed the same ritual almost every day. Read the sports pages, check the Knick articles, read a couple of favorite columnists, any interesting articles that stand out and that’s it.
Is that worth two hundred bucks per year? I’m still deciding.
In the meantime, here’s my secret, which is probably not a secret as there’s most likely a million other people (literally) doing the same thing.
I just follow my favorite journalists and columnists on Twitter. They now send the articles to me. If it sounds interesting, I can click their link. It’s faster, more effective and… it’s FREE! Goodbye subscription price. No more of the amazingly annoying pop banner that tells you that you have used up your 20/month free allotment of Time’s articles. BTW, does that 20/month allotment include when you click on a section or return clicks?
These days everybody seems starved for time. Is my Twitter trick the future model? Pre-choose what interests you and have it delivered. Google seems to be considering it. Tell us what you want… never mind, we know what you want; we will recommend what we think is relevant to you. You can then decide if you want to read it.
It all seems fine and dandy and a great time saver but you know what? Nearly every time I follow a tweet to a Times’ article, I stumble upon another interesting piece. I fear that with all the great tools created to bring and follow what we like to our doorstep: we are losing the joy of discovery.
The other day on the radio in the car, I heard an amazing song from an artist I never heard of. The chance of that happening online gets smaller every day.
Is the thrill of the unexpected worth two hundred dollars a year to you?
About Andrew Singer
I provide communications and inbound marketing services to a wide variety of international companies, ranging from hi-tech firms like Siemens and TrackMan to more mainstream clients like Carlsberg, Coloplast, Novo Nordisk and the World Youth and Student Travel Conference. Find examples of my work on my website www.andrewsinger.dk.
No comments:
Post a Comment