On the other hand: with the digital edition, they are able to track _each_ and _every_ thing you do on their site, and sell that data to advertisers. Try doing that with the paper version.
>Because all print advertisers know are the circulation numbers -- they have no idea if you're actually opening it up or not, or just sending them all straight to the recycling bin while you read them digitally.
Presumably the price of print ads is in some way related to typical response rate? Obviously there is less direct feedback than online, but advertisers aren't flying completely blind and just assuming people see their ads, right?
Oh, no. Print advertisers are almost completely unable to gather meaningful statistics. Prices are determined by circulation x a fuzzy notion of impact.
Re:New York Times Redesign
by beachstartup on Tuesday January 07, 2014 @01:36AM
(#7015997)
yes, the economist does this as well. generalized rule:
in order to promote sales of product X, make it only slightly more expensive than the one it is marginally superior to.
From what I understand, upping their print circulation lets them charge more for print advertisers (which pays more than digital advertisers), so NYT has a strong financial incentive to make the prices for digital/print comparable, in order to try to convince people to get the print version as well, instead of just the digital.
Because all print advertisers know are the circulation numbers -- they have no idea if you're actually opening it up or not, or just sending them all straight to the recycling bin while you read them digitally.
Again, not environmentally friendly. At least it's all recycled though.