Comments on: Updated: It’s Official: New York Times Will Adopt Online Meter — But Not Until 2011

By: Laura

Laura — Wed, 20 Jan 2010 21:37:22 +0000

Strong feeling the New York Times will be bankrupt by then

By: Laura

Laura — Wed, 20 Jan 2010 21:35:42 +0000

I think the New Yok Times will be bankrupy by then

By: jabi

jabi — Wed, 20 Jan 2010 17:21:51 +0000

Ed, the loyalty the Times is referring to is the incredibly high time spent and pages per monthly visitor on the site. It’s through the roof.

By: steve

steve — Wed, 20 Jan 2010 16:49:15 +0000

“why the delay?”

c’mon, you know why the delay, staci.

it’ll never materialize.

nyt share price has risen on the hype that this would save them. putting it for for another year just might keep investors buying that hype.

gotta wonder what kind of spin we’ll be hearing from brill in the near term.

By: Ed Dunn

Ed Dunn — Wed, 20 Jan 2010 16:37:20 +0000

I think the “loyalty” the NYT is referring to is their paper circulation which is a machine in itself. I do not believe the market is mature enough to tout “digital subscription loyalty” and I see no research indicating mass media orientated digital content has such loyalty.

Even so, if the NYT is touting loyalty, my question is why are they proposing a “metered” system? If they are promoting loyalty like the WSJ, then it would make sense to use the subscription model.

The problem with the “metered” model is trying get consumers to take the bait – that is going to be a tough sell when the consumer has other options online to get the same mass media orientated digital content. Even further, I’m concerned that they announced 2011 as a date instead of Jan. 20, 2010 as they give others ample enough time to prepare a competitive strategy.

Maybe I’m old fashioned but I don’t believe any firm should rest their laurels on loyalty – I’m pretty sure Blockbusters thought the same “loyalty” thing when these RedBox kiosks started showing up and the postal carrier is walking around with red Netflix envelopes stuff in his mailbag…

By: Staci D. Kramer

Staci D. Kramer — Wed, 20 Jan 2010 15:27:45 +0000

Ed, I don’t think they’re making an arrogant assumption. That loyalty
statement has basis in research and in action. Whether the loyalty will
stand the test of payment for those who aren’t already subscribers is a
different issue.

By: Ed Dunn

Ed Dunn — Wed, 20 Jan 2010 15:14:02 +0000

** The reasoning boils down to this from Arthur Sulzberger, Jr, who holds the dual roles of NYT publisher and company chairman: “Our audiences are very loyal and we believe that our readers will pay for our award-winning digital content and services.” **

This statement alone tells all. Notice the arrogance of assuming their audience is loyal – I’m pretty sure Polaroid and Circuit City also thought they had a loyal base. The second part of the statement is even more intesting. It does not say the customer will pay for what the customer wants but instead, it tries to argue the customer will pay for award-winning (translation: good ol boys acknowledging each other) content the writers think customers will consume. Didn’t General Motors have this same attitude where it was about the auto designers ego and not the customer demands?

Read between the lines….