If you operated a cake stand, which customer would you most want to keep—the one who pays you $5.85 a month for a piece of cake every day, or the one who pays you $44 a month for the same thing?
A no-brainer, right?
Let’s take it one step further. Say you are selling 100 pieces of cake a day for a dollar a piece. Then suddenly business falls off and you are now selling only 60 pieces a day. What would you do to get your revenues back up to $100 a day? Would you raise the price of your cake to $1.40 a piece to make up the loss difference?
I don’t think so.
And yet that is what The New York Times is trying to do with their new policy of charging $15 a month for access to their digital version of the newspaper--after one has read 20 articles in any given month. (For years, by the way, this version was given away free.)
However—now get this--if you take out a new home-delivery subscription to the Times for only $5.85 a month you can also have unlimited access to the digital version.
What a deal, right?
Here’s my problem with that. I don’t WANT the New York Times delivered to my front door—for a whole host of reasons. For one thing, I have tried it in the past and I found the delivery service unreliable. Two, if you’re going on vacation the papers will either pile up on your doorstep or else you have to remember to call and temporarily stop delivery. Good luck with that.
Three—and most important to me—the paper is not delivered when I want it. For example, in New York City one can always buy the Sunday Times on Saturday night. This is a ritual that many New Yorkers enjoy, myself included.
So let’s do the math. I buy four $5 Sunday NY Times a month on Saturday nights. That’s $20. Then I buy four $2 papers on Saturday mornings. That’s $8 a month. I also buy the Times on Wednesdays (food section that my wife likes) and on Fridays because it tells me what’s going on for the weekend. Add another $16 a month.
That adds up to $44 a month I’m spending on paper copies of The New York Times. And I’m not even complaining.
Now add $15 a month for the privilege of reading the Times online and I am up to $59 a month. That’s $708 a year. I don’t know about you, but that seems a little steep to me.
Which customer would you rather keep, New York Times? The one who is paying you $5.85 a month, or the one who is paying you $44 a month? More to the point, which one do you most not want to piss off?
The Times, like so many other brick and mortar old-school businesses just doesn’t get it. They tried this a few years ago with something called “Times Select.” When you read certain articles on-line—like Op Ed writers—you had to pay an on-line subscription fee. The program pissed everyone off, flopped, and was eventually cancelled. Now they are doing it again.
I complained (via email) the other day to The New York Times publisher, but of course I received the standard “Thank you for writing” form-email response.
Let me make a suggestion, NY Times. I’m no expert, but I know that people smarter than me can figure out a solution. You are still in the “push” delivery mind-set. Here’s our paper, take it when we give it to you—or else pay us a bonus for making it available to you when you want it.
Take a lesson from mobile marketing. I know the technology exists. Put a bar code or something on the front of every edition of your paper. Charge me $30 a month and give me an app for my smartphone. That way I can just grab a paper off the newsstand, scan it with my phone and be on my way. What’s more, you will know exactly when and where I bought my paper. AND, I will be able to read the paper on or off-line anytime I want to.
It’s a piece of cake.
A no-brainer, right?
Let’s take it one step further. Say you are selling 100 pieces of cake a day for a dollar a piece. Then suddenly business falls off and you are now selling only 60 pieces a day. What would you do to get your revenues back up to $100 a day? Would you raise the price of your cake to $1.40 a piece to make up the loss difference?
I don’t think so.
And yet that is what The New York Times is trying to do with their new policy of charging $15 a month for access to their digital version of the newspaper--after one has read 20 articles in any given month. (For years, by the way, this version was given away free.)
However—now get this--if you take out a new home-delivery subscription to the Times for only $5.85 a month you can also have unlimited access to the digital version.
What a deal, right?
Here’s my problem with that. I don’t WANT the New York Times delivered to my front door—for a whole host of reasons. For one thing, I have tried it in the past and I found the delivery service unreliable. Two, if you’re going on vacation the papers will either pile up on your doorstep or else you have to remember to call and temporarily stop delivery. Good luck with that.
Three—and most important to me—the paper is not delivered when I want it. For example, in New York City one can always buy the Sunday Times on Saturday night. This is a ritual that many New Yorkers enjoy, myself included.
So let’s do the math. I buy four $5 Sunday NY Times a month on Saturday nights. That’s $20. Then I buy four $2 papers on Saturday mornings. That’s $8 a month. I also buy the Times on Wednesdays (food section that my wife likes) and on Fridays because it tells me what’s going on for the weekend. Add another $16 a month.
That adds up to $44 a month I’m spending on paper copies of The New York Times. And I’m not even complaining.
Now add $15 a month for the privilege of reading the Times online and I am up to $59 a month. That’s $708 a year. I don’t know about you, but that seems a little steep to me.
Which customer would you rather keep, New York Times? The one who is paying you $5.85 a month, or the one who is paying you $44 a month? More to the point, which one do you most not want to piss off?
The Times, like so many other brick and mortar old-school businesses just doesn’t get it. They tried this a few years ago with something called “Times Select.” When you read certain articles on-line—like Op Ed writers—you had to pay an on-line subscription fee. The program pissed everyone off, flopped, and was eventually cancelled. Now they are doing it again.
I complained (via email) the other day to The New York Times publisher, but of course I received the standard “Thank you for writing” form-email response.
Let me make a suggestion, NY Times. I’m no expert, but I know that people smarter than me can figure out a solution. You are still in the “push” delivery mind-set. Here’s our paper, take it when we give it to you—or else pay us a bonus for making it available to you when you want it.
Take a lesson from mobile marketing. I know the technology exists. Put a bar code or something on the front of every edition of your paper. Charge me $30 a month and give me an app for my smartphone. That way I can just grab a paper off the newsstand, scan it with my phone and be on my way. What’s more, you will know exactly when and where I bought my paper. AND, I will be able to read the paper on or off-line anytime I want to.
It’s a piece of cake.
RSS Feed