During Tuesday’s lecture class, I could not get over the fact that Michael Golden said The New York Times charges $800 for a yearly subscription to its newspaper. While that includes a full digital subscription as well, that just seems like an unbelievable amount of money to spend for a newspaper.
While I know the Times has a lot of clout and prestige, I find it hard to believe that people will continue to pay such a large sum for information that is readily available for free from news aggregate sources. Contrarily, a full-digital access to the Times is only $440 per year, which is a much better deal in comparison to the print subscription. Is it really worth an extra $360 per year to read from a newspaper?
Maybe it’s worth it to some, but I have a feeling the Times’ print revenue will decline in recent years as more subscribers discover the better value of the digital subscription. As Golden said, newspapers are considerably less valuable by noon and seemingly worthless by sundown. A digital subscription would allow readers to consume up-to-the-minute breaking news at any time during the day, instead of waiting for the paper to arrive the next morning. Only time will tell, but it will be interesting to see if the Times’ readers will transition to the new media age and leave the print edition behind.