If you’ve spent any time traveling the world, or surfing the web for that matter, you’ll soon realize how virtually all newspapers pale in comparison to the NYT. The pub’s editorial content is second to none. The key to solving their circ problem is a revamped biz model using modern-day solutions.

For example, distribute the Kindle or some other reader FREE to current and prospective subscribers with a 2-year subscription requirement to the NYT. A long-term sub commitment would provide the NYT’s with the required cash flow to underwrite the hardware, which presumably could be obtained at a discount from Amazon, Apple or another reader manufacturer given the quantities involved. The NYT’s could possibly even pass along to its readers a lower subscription rate as this biz model virtually eliminates paper, printing and distribution costs. From an advertising standpoint, higher graphics/production values of a reader, use of video, rich media opps, database mgt. tools, etc., would also lead to greater revenue potential.

If it was my baby I would leave the main site as free then charge for an iPad edition.
The new devise from Apple (much maligned by many who were hoping for a smaller computer) offers interesting possibilities for mixed media in way which the web can only play it.

Everyone wants digital content and the rush to it attain shows a lack of respect for production values. As a film maker it amazes me at the amount of badly shot, badly edited material which editors are happy to put on their newspaper sites.

If they think that the readers/audience will pay for that they are mistaken.
As the piece suggested outside help will be required.

So just relax. Watch them, and learn.

“We hold these truths to be self-evident, that while the Digital Age is upon us fast and furious, the print newspaper — hereafter dubbed the “snailpaper” — shall persevere as a good daily read, a fascinating look at the world around us and a valuable tool for understanding oped pundits and above the fold headlines. Sure, the dear snailpaper will also be seen as a useful tool
for wrapping fish at the Fulton Fish Market or lining the bird cage in the den, but all kidding aside — har! har! — the daily snailpaper can hold its head high and be certain of its place in the culture. While news migrates in pixels and bytes to the Internet at an exponential rate, piling breaking story upon breaking story and turning everyone and his mother into a 24/7 news freak and RSS aggregator, the plodding snailpaper will nevertheless remain the bedrock of analysis and insight, from sea to shining sea, delivered at a snail’s pace, yes, read at a snail’s pace, yes, and absorbed, word for word — on glorius printed paper! white newsprint reflecting inked letters! — at a snail’s pace, yes, as long as the Republic of Letters shall live. ”

– Signed, Jon Stewart Landlock’d

http://zippy1300.blogspot.com

no copyright, use as you wish!

Ed, the challenge of the NYT is to “reimagine” the amazing institution they have built in the context of the new realities — which means creating a new publishing model.

Cas127, you are right on that signalling. Similar to what I said about Rupert Murdoch’s rants… http://digitalquarters.net/2009/12/ruperts-campaign-to-make-subscription-the-new-free/ . But the NYT can’t afford to wait a year – if circulation declines at the current rate, they will have no circulation in just 6 years. Hate to see them waste one of those years on signalling.

–Ben
Ben Elowitz (@elowitz)
CEO | Wetpaint | http://www.wetpaint.com
Blog: http://www.digitalquarters.net

It seems pretty clear to me that the reason the NYT is waiting a year to implement metering is that it wants to signal to other “major” legacy publishers that they too should join with NYT in re-establishing a news oligopoly.

Waiting a year gives the NYT’s “competitors” a chance to catch on and respond in kind.

Hopefully the effort is doomed.

or a paucity of ideas? here’s an inspired model (to compare and contrast):

http://www.guardian.co.uk/media/2010/jan/25/cudlipp-lecture-alan-rusbridger

to be of the web, not on the web, is daring.

It constantly amazes me to see this quiet smirk denial that in the midst of all the emerging technologies such as out-of-home displays, mobile information services, social networking and IPTV that corporate ad-sponsored models like the New York Times will exist because they are “status quo” and there will always be around lemming followers – the same lemmings still using Polaroid instant cameras. NYT as well as an other ad-supported/monthy charge model is antiquated and will find it harder by the day to compete with the many emerging ways content is being presented to people everyday worldwide.

I have no compelling reason to pay the NYT one dime due to their blatant lack of diversity or at best, a fake diversity designed to insult my intelligence and appear diverse. I used to subscribe to the WSJ then I realize all I had to do was a parametric search against the hit words in the subscription preview content and find the content WSJ wanted to hide from me from another competitive source which offered the content for free.

I don’t see how anybody in 2010 honestly thinks the future generation is going to view premium content as some “exclusive text document” when they are bombarded by tons of interactive multimedia offerings. We are looking at highly disruptive technology right now such as Cuda/DirectCompute that can look at variables in parallel and in a context that has not been presented before for under $1500 to provide real-time search and information retrieval from a live data stream.

I love the article but it presents the same “horseless carriage” view of believing ad-supported/subscription text-based content NYT or any paper is about still have legs and can demand a premium price when consumers are finding new and interactive ways to consume content altogether…

PS: Can’t wait for the first college dropout show the status quo what Cuda/DirectComputer can do with content…and I expect that to happen way before 2011…