# "Printing The NYT Costs Twice As Much As Sending Every Subscriber A Free Kindle"



## Marci (Nov 13, 2008)

Here's the rest of the article:

"Nicholas Carlson | January 30, 2009 4:35 PM

_Not that it's anything we think the New York Times Company should do, but we thought it was worth pointing out that it costs the Times about twice as much money to print and deliver the newspaper over a year as it would cost to send each of its subscribers a brand new Amazon Kindle instead.

Here's how we did the math:
According to the Times's Q308 10-Q, the company spends $63 million per quarter on raw materials and $148 million on wages and benefits. We've heard the wages and benefits for just the newsroom are about $200 million per year.
After multiplying the quarterly costs by four and subtracting that $200 million out, a rough estimate for the Times's delivery costs would be $644 million per year.

The Kindle retails for $359. In a recent open letter, Times spokesperson Catherine Mathis wrote: "We have 830,000 loyal readers who have subscribed to The New York Times for more than two years." Multiply those numbers together and you get $297 million -- a little less than half as much as $644 million.

And here's the thing: a source with knowledge of the real numbers tells us we're so low in our estimate of the Times's printing costs that we're not even in the ballpark.

Are we trying to say the the New York Times should force all its print subscribers onto the Kindle or else? No. That would kill ad revenues and also, not everyone loves the Kindle.

What we're trying to say is that as a technology for delivering the news, newsprint isn't just expensive and inefficient; it's laughably so._"

I had to read it once I saw that headline 

Marci


----------



## ScottBooks (Oct 28, 2008)

Did the Times suddenly stop selling single issues out of newspaper boxes and in all the 7-11s and Starbucks of the world? (Or were those numbers "left out" to make a better story?)


----------



## LDB (Oct 28, 2008)

Just as the NYT and all other mainstream media are famous for, this particular "reporter" has chosen misdirecting rather than reporting. Pertinent information is omitted and pertinent facts are skewed to the direction required to achieve the desired outcome.


----------



## Mikuto (Oct 30, 2008)

It appears to me that the article is *only* talking about subscriptions. If you pick up the newspaper in Starbucks, you're not subscribing to it.


----------



## ScottBooks (Oct 28, 2008)

Mikuto said:


> It appears to me that the article is *only* talking about subscriptions. If you pick up the newspaper in Starbucks, you're not subscribing to it.


That's exactly our point. The article assumes that *ALL* printed copies (and cost thereof) are for home delivery.


----------



## pidgeon92 (Oct 27, 2008)

Newspapers don't make money from subscriptions, but from advertising. The article is very skewed.


----------



## Lotus (Oct 31, 2008)

An odd article. By the way, it's not a NYT article, it seems to be from Silicon Valley Insider.

I'm assuming that if they did go Kindle-only for subscriptions, the newsroom staff would still be a cost. Unless, of course, they decide to send only advertising to the subscribers.

As pigeon says, advertising is the main revenue source for newspapers. Most newspapers expect to make either a very small profit or a small loss from subscriptions and newsstand sales.


----------



## geko29 (Dec 23, 2008)

Lotus said:


> I'm assuming that if they did go Kindle-only for subscriptions, the newsroom staff would still be a cost. Unless, of course, they decide to send only advertising to the subscribers.


...which is why the newsroom costs were subtracted out of the calculation. I'm not saying all of their assumptions are right (they're clearly not), but they did go to the trouble of assuming that newsroom costs would not change if they went to e-delivery exclusively.


----------



## Chad Winters (Oct 28, 2008)

Right but the critics point is that an unknown percentage of the cost of the printing is subscriber copies vs nonsubscriber copies which makes the comparison with the Kindle meaningless and therefore stupid journalism.

ie. if 20% of papers are sent to subscribers vs to individual copy buyers you can see that the article is misleading in its cost comparison. How much would it cost to send a Kindle to everyone who buys a copy of the NYT would be more accurate cost comparison


----------



## Lotus (Oct 31, 2008)

It's still really odd. In the section on "How we did the math," the newsroom costs are based on "We hear" not a published figure. It also doesn't state they removed the newsroom costs. The way I read it was that a random figure of $200 million was subtracted.

I'm also wondering about the difference between the Q308 10-Q and  "a source with knowledge of the real numbers." None of it really adds up. Either use real figures, or don't bother with unsourced "we hears."

Sure, it's nice to do a speculative story about e-newspapers, but at least have it make some sense.


----------



## tessa (Nov 1, 2008)

Can anybody help me, I'm not sure what they are trying to say,that it would be cheaper for the NYT to give away kindles instead of printing papers.?


----------



## Chad Winters (Oct 28, 2008)

tessa said:


> Can anybody help me, I'm not sure what they are trying to say,that it would be cheaper for the NYT to give away kindles instead of printing papers.?


They are trying to mislead into thinking that by not mentioning that many more papers are printed than just those for subscribers.


----------



## Knipfty (Jan 8, 2009)

The NY Times in my area costs $10.60 per week or $551.20 per year.  The Kindle version would cost us $167.88 per year.  For a net savings of $383.32.

Buy your own Kindle and save money after year one!

Or the NY Times could send you a free Kindle with a two year subscription as long as you paid the full subscription price of $551.20.


----------



## tessa (Nov 1, 2008)

Knipfty said:


> The NY Times in my area costs $10.60 per week or $551.20 per year. The Kindle version would cost us $167.88 per year. For a net savings of $383.32.
> 
> Buy your own Kindle and save money after year one!
> 
> Or the NY Times could send you a free Kindle with a two year subscription as long as you paid the full subscription price of $551.20.


 Or you can get on the internet for free and save $551.20 plus tip.


----------



## Knipfty (Jan 8, 2009)

Yes, but then yo have to be near a computer.  The kindle frees you from that.


----------



## MamaProfCrash (Dec 16, 2008)

Knipfty said:


> The NY Times in my area costs $10.60 per week or $551.20 per year. The Kindle version would cost us $167.88 per year. For a net savings of $383.32.
> 
> Buy your own Kindle and save money after year one!
> 
> Or the NY Times could send you a free Kindle with a two year subscription as long as you paid the full subscription price of $551.20.


This is why I have an Aunt and Uncle thinking about getting a Kindle


----------



## tessa (Nov 1, 2008)

Knipfty said:


> Yes, but then yo have to be near a computer. The kindle frees you from that.


and where are you now?


----------



## Knipfty (Jan 8, 2009)

I don't read newspapers at my desk.  Big difference to popping over this DB and reading the NY Times.  Besides, I don't read that rag.


----------



## ScottBooks (Oct 28, 2008)

tessa said:


> Or you can get on the internet for free and save $551.20 plus tip.


The NYT is not free on the internet.


----------



## MamaProfCrash (Dec 16, 2008)

One of the reasons many people love the Kindle is because it is not back lit. If we prefer to read our books without back lighting and the headaches that come from back lighting, it makes sense the many would prefer to read their newspapers without back lighting. It comes as no surprise that people who like reading the newspaper want to be able to read them on their Kindle, no carrying the paper, no ink on hands, no back lighting, and it is cheaper then subscribing to the paper. All good.

I am annoyed that I cannot get the Economist on the Kindle. I have emailed them and asked to put the Economist on the Kindle (it is available for cell phones) but until they do, I am a subscriber with the paper edition. (sigh)


----------



## tessa (Nov 1, 2008)

ScottBooks said:


> The NYT is not free on the internet.


I don't pay anything for any of the papers I read on the internet.


----------



## LDB (Oct 28, 2008)

Cost comparisons aside, another option would be to pass on this worthless paper and encourage The Washington Times to Kindleize. At least then it would be relatively worthwhile reading.


----------



## MamaProfCrash (Dec 16, 2008)

LDB said:


> Cost comparisons aside, another option would be to pass on this worthless paper and encourage The Washington Times to Kindleize. At least then it would be relatively worthwhile reading.


Or perhaps allow each person to decide what newspaper they enjoy and read that without passing judgement.


----------



## geko29 (Dec 23, 2008)

ScottBooks said:


> The NYT is not free on the internet.


It is if you register, which costs nothing. That pretty much constitutes free, at least in my mind.


----------



## ScottBooks (Oct 28, 2008)

geko29 said:


> It is if you register, which costs nothing. That pretty much constitutes free, at least in my mind.


Long ago I read the Book section of the NYT online every Sunday. Once I tried and got the message that most of the content was "Paid Subscriber Only". This was several years ago; I haven't tried since. I look forward to this Sunday's.


----------



## LDB (Oct 28, 2008)

I'm not passing judgment on any_one_, merely voicing an opinion on a particular _thing_.


----------



## Ann in Arlington (Oct 27, 2008)

Sorry LDB, calling something worthless is, in my book, passing judgment.  Your point would have been made as well by simply saying "I don't care for NYT; I prefer the Washington Times and sure wish it was available on Kindle."  

Ann


----------



## LDB (Oct 28, 2008)

Opinions are judgments. Judgments are opinions. The original commenter sounded like he believed my opinion was toward a person when it was toward a thing. If we have become so sensitive and so PC that we can't have hard opinions regarding things/objects on the chance it might possibly by chance maybe perhaps potentially trouble someone then we've got insurmountable problems.


----------



## geko29 (Dec 23, 2008)

ScottBooks said:


> Long ago I read the Book section of the NYT online every Sunday. Once I tried and got the message that most of the content was "Paid Subscriber Only". This was several years ago; I haven't tried since. I look forward to this Sunday's.


Yeah, all NYT content, including archives going back to the 19th century, have been free since mid-2007. They used to charge $49.95/yr or $7.95/mo, but gave that up.


----------



## Cowgirl (Nov 1, 2008)

LDB said:


> Opinions are judgments. Judgments are opinions. The original commenter sounded like he believed my opinion was toward a person when it was toward a thing. If we have become so sensitive and so PC that we can't have hard opinions regarding things/objects on the chance it might possibly by chance maybe perhaps potentially trouble someone then we've got insurmountable problems.


I couldn't have said this better. Thank you


----------



## Chad Winters (Oct 28, 2008)

Ahh someone who labors under the misapprehension that the classical view of tolerance is still acceptable 

Classical view: I may disagree with you, but I respect you

Postmodern view: You must accept all truth claims because there is no truth except what you decide is true for you. Except if you beleive something strongly that is different from me....then I will hate you and throw rocks.

http://www.str.org/site/News2?page=NewsArticle&id=5359


----------



## MamaProfCrash (Dec 16, 2008)

I find that words are rarely the problem but that the tone is the problem. If people are discussing a subject and you call that newspaper worthless, twice, it comes across as condescending. If people are discussing a subject and you say, I would love to have paper x on the Kindle because I don't read paper y you make your point without sounding condescending.

Political discussion in the US would be greatly improved if people focused on the tone.


----------



## LDB (Oct 28, 2008)

I only used the term worthless once, not twice, however that's another branch on the tree of "change" that we exaggerate those things we no longer want to find acceptable just as "reporting" and "journalism" is no longer a matter of neutrally presenting facts but now is molding the facts into the "change" desired, whether newsprint vs. e-ink or whatever the story is.


----------



## ScottBooks (Oct 28, 2008)

LDB said:


> I only used the term worthless once, not twice, however that's another branch on the tree of "change" that we exaggerate those things we no longer want to find acceptable just as "reporting" and "journalism" is no longer a matter of neutrally presenting facts but now is molding the facts into the "change" desired, whether newsprint vs. e-ink or whatever the story is.


Speaking of neutral facts, doesn't your original post in this thread assume that the article came from the NYT? (Or other "mainstream" media)?

Not that anyone asked but, here's my two cents...

I wholeheartedly agree with the tone comment. I buy the Washington Times 2 or 3 times a week; I subscribe to the Washington Post. They each have their good and bad points but I wouldn't call them either of them worthless. Doing so in a public forum would imply that anyone who read them had poor judgment while in reality they might just have bad taste . Or value things differently from the way you and I might. It's an obfuscation of name-calling.


----------



## LDB (Oct 28, 2008)

Actually my original post didn't assume this to be from a mainstream media source. Rather, it suggested that just as they do this particular person chose to "report" in a decidedly slanted fashion that leads to their desired conclusion. Certainly anyone that chose to could say they consider the Washington Times nothing but birdcage liner and the NYT the finest journalism available anywhere and I wouldn't consider it a personal insult in any way, merely their opinion.


----------



## Betsy the Quilter (Oct 27, 2008)

If we're discussing our opinions and our considerations, my opinion is that I wouldn't consider any of the last several comments to be on topic.  (Which was rather whimsical, I thought; too bad it had to get weighed down.)  Free Kindles for everyone!  A Kindle in every pot!



Betsy


----------



## geko29 (Dec 23, 2008)

Betsy the Quilter said:


> A Kindle in every pot!


Nooooooooooooooooooooo don't boil my Kindle!


----------



## Betsy the Quilter (Oct 27, 2008)




----------



## coyote (Feb 24, 2009)

There is an interesting article in Business Insider that states that the NYT could save some money by switching its subscribers to Kindles. And in fact, that's why my husband got me a Kindle... our NYT annual subscription ($540) was the same price as a Kindle ($360) plus the annual Kindle subscription ($180). In essence, we got the Kindle for free, and we're reducing out carbon footprint. (Of course, we can't share the paper over breakfast, but he's more of a _New Yorker_ man.)

coyote


----------



## Zeronewbury (Feb 20, 2009)

I had heard that publishing cost item.  Do you find that the NYT Kindle version satisfies your need?  I'd miss the crossword!


----------



## coyote (Feb 24, 2009)

Zeronewbury said:


> I had heard that publishing cost item. Do you find that the NYT Kindle version satisfies your need? I'd miss the crossword!


I was worried when Dan proposed getting a Kindle version of the paper. I take a lot of pleasure in the folding, the shuffling, and the sorting out of the 'chaff' (like the sports section!)

In actuality, though, I love it. It took me about three weeks to stop wiping my fingers constantly on my napkin, and I often found myself worried that I would get ink smudges on the nice white Kindle. The navigation is very nice, and I can easily flip through articles until I find one that I find interesting. So far (since the Kindle 2 shipped) I've gotten the paper every morning without fail.

I am not a crossword person, but I do know that you can subscribe to the NYC crosswords online. ;-)

coyote


----------



## pidgeon92 (Oct 27, 2008)

We have a topic on this already.... I'm going to dig it out and merge these together.


----------



## davem2bits (Feb 2, 2009)

coyote said:


> I am not a crossword person, but I do know that you can subscribe to the NYC crosswords online. ;-)


I went thru three monitors before realizing the online version was too expensive.


----------



## MichelleR (Feb 21, 2009)

I'm not a "crosswordsy" person, so I love my Kindle subscription to the NYT. It's actually the only subscription that is not a bit of a let down, and I look forward to reading it each day when I wake up and the world has started to make enough sense for me to comprehend anything.


----------

