Frédéric Filloux argues that two newspapers which charge for access to their online content have taken strategic decisions to charge much more for their printed offerings.
He views the 25% rise at the New York Times and the 14% hike at the Financial Times (see here and here) as "meaningful" because they outstrip mere "inflation adjustments."
Instead, they should be seen as accelerating the transition to digital by coaxing readers to go for the cheaper option.
The FT's print version now costs 25% more than it did last October while the NY Times's print version is far more expensive than its digital offerings.
Arguing that both are "working hard at converting readers to the digital paid-for model", he writes:
"The FT is heading full steam into digital, furiously data-mining its 4m subscribers' base to convert them into paid-for subscribers (250,000 according to the most recent count).
The FT's tactics are simple: readers are relentlessly pushed toward the paywall thanks to a diminishing number of stories available for free."
To secure online subscribers, he believes the papers' publishers depend on the uniqueness of their editorial content.
That is very obvious in the FT's case, with its specific content aimed at a specific community that relies on its information to make real-time daily investment decisions.
I'm altogether less certain about the NY Times. It does have, in US terms at least, a cachet (plus a group of commentators) that make it a must-read in certain quarters.
But comment aside, charging people to read general news is surely not going to work in the long run.
So, although the FT and the NYT may be employing the same strategy, the results are likely to be very different.
NB: FT cover price percentages corrected 7pm, 10 January.
Source: Frédéric Filloux
