Tablets Subscriptions Cheaper Than Paper

Just last week, as I noted previously, The New York Times announced that it was going to create a paywall for its website. But some interesting numbers have also come up. It seems that putting the "paper" in "newspaper" still carries a premium for readers.

The New York Times annual subscription price for tablet users is reportedly 57 percent lower than its paper subscription. Nor is the Gray Lady alone in this regard. News Corp's New York Daily News and Wall Street Journal tablet editions are 57 percent and 61 percent cheaper, respectively. 

This is worth considering because it was Apple’s Steve Jobs who suggested that tablets could save “print journalism,” and while the app versions for tablets are at least finding a revenue stream, the amount of the discount just seems like it reaffirms that it isn’t worth “paying for it,” or at least not paying full price. So other than the fact that print newspapers have higher productin costs, why is digital getting the discount?

For one thing the paper version actually includes “more” of some stuff and “less” of others. The Web and app versions often include multimedia, slide shows, and audio and/or video that just can’t be done in print. Meanwhile, ads may be more successful in the print versions because they are harder to miss.

It is actually harder to avoid the advertising in the print editions of newspapers and magazines; while readers may turn the page, there is no doubt that some of those ads – especially the well thought-out ones – actually catch the eye. How often can you say the same about a banner ad or other Web ad? Yes, some of these are catchy enough, too, but a print ad is something we see even if we don’t notice.

So this brings up the question again: Why is there a premium on paper?

The answer is that the media companies are looking to get people to pay what they (the people) got for free from the media companies. Early paywalls weren’t successful, which is why we see so few today. And yet, this new round of paywalls is coming back.

There is no doubt, there has to be revenue to make this work. As a reporter, I personally feel this as I write more copy for less money. I’m not alone, and I’m not complaining. This is just something that I’ve come to accept.

The issue is that these paywalls may not succeed, either. One problem is that this goes back to the original World Wide Web, which was never designed to be what it is today. The earliest websites were created by individuals at universities. Thus unlike print, or even radio or TV, advertising has never been easy.

In a way the Internet as a whole – and even the Web to some extent – is akin to cable TV. With cable TV it is the viewers who pay to receive hundreds of channels  – and it's the paid sites that are mostly entertainment based (i.e. HBO, Showtime, etc.). The news and information channels exist via ads.  In this regard, the media companies are trying to take the print model and adapt it to what actually works like cable. Thus this is why paywalls have not been successful.

And the truth is that it is probably going to be more than just offering discounts from the print version to make people think it is worth paying for it.