| View previous topic :: View next topic |
| Author |
Message |
Zorro
Guest
|
 Posted: Fri, May 27 2011, 2:21 pm EDT Post subject: New York Times Subscription Model |
 |
|
New York, NY- Citing a "moral obligation to provide information to people of all means", the New York Times today announced a new income-based circulation pricing model. Starting July 4th, the new tiered pricing model for the New York Times will be as follows...
For zips codes with an average household income range of:
$0-$75,000- free
$75,001- $150,000- regular price
$150,001- $999,000- 50% surcharge
$1,000,000+- 100% surcharge
When asked how the changes are expected to impact ciculation, new CMO Libby Raulle said, "Its going to be great! We've been looking for ways to diversify our readership and we don't think it is at all condescending to suggest that the only way to accomplish this goal is to give our product for free to poor people. Plus, its about time our wealthy readers started paying their fair share of the true costs of delivering the high quality of information to which all people are entitled."
When asked if she expected any of the Times' wealthier readers to cancel their subscriptions in favor of competing information sources, she said, "Sure, we may lose a small percentage of wealthy subscribers, but we don't anticpate significant push back. In this day and age, millionaires are accustomed to paying more for high quality services. Furthermore, if we do lose a significant number of wealthy readers, we'll just raise rates on the ones we have left."
When asked about the fairness of using average HH income by zip code to determine prices, Miss Raulle directed questions to NY Times Community Outreach Director, Noddy La Pointe. Miss La Pointe stated, "Poor people have a right to the same quality of information as everyone else. People who live in rich zip codes have the means and a moral obligation to fund equal information for everyone. This is about informing our young people. Its for the children!" |
|
| Back to top |
|
 |
Guest
|
| Posted: Fri, May 27 2011, 2:29 pm EDT Post subject: Re: New York Times Subscription Model |
|
|
| Gee, sorry to see anyone spent the time to type this up. Not particularly funny, just sort of stupid. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Guest
|
| Posted: Fri, May 27 2011, 3:01 pm EDT Post subject: Re: New York Times Subscription Model |
|
|
| Too much time on their hands |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
The Pot
Guest
|
| Posted: Fri, May 27 2011, 3:08 pm EDT Post subject: Re: New York Times Subscription Model |
|
|
| Guest wrote: | | Too much time on their hands |
The Kettle is black! |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Guest
|
| Posted: Fri, May 27 2011, 3:20 pm EDT Post subject: Re: New York Times Subscription Model |
|
|
| Guest wrote: | | Gee, sorry to see anyone spent the time to type this up. Not particularly funny, just sort of stupid. |
Witty, insightful and classy! You should consider writing for the Times. I hear they're looking for crackerjack journalists like you to reach out to a broader sprectrum of readers. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Guest
|
| Posted: Fri, May 27 2011, 4:24 pm EDT Post subject: Re: New York Times Subscription Model |
|
|
| Guest wrote: | | Guest wrote: | | Gee, sorry to see anyone spent the time to type this up. Not particularly funny, just sort of stupid. |
Witty, insightful and classy! You should consider writing for the Times. I hear they're looking for crackerjack journalists like you to reach out to a broader sprectrum of readers. |
Nope just truthful. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Guest
|
| Posted: Fri, May 27 2011, 4:42 pm EDT Post subject: Re: New York Times Subscription Model |
|
|
| Guest wrote: | | Gee, sorry to see anyone spent the time to type this up. Not particularly funny, just sort of stupid. |
Witty, insightful and classy! You should consider writing for the Times. I hear they're looking for crackerjack journalists like you to reach out to a broader sprectrum of readers. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Guest
|
| Posted: Fri, May 27 2011, 5:01 pm EDT Post subject: Re: New York Times Subscription Model |
|
|
| ZZZZZZZZZzzzzzzzzzzzzzzz.............. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
another guest
Guest
|
| Posted: Fri, May 27 2011, 10:08 pm EDT Post subject: Re: New York Times Subscription Model |
|
|
| Please tell me the original post is from Cranbury Sauce! |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Zorro
Guest
|
| Posted: Sat, May 28 2011, 3:05 am EDT Post subject: Re: New York Times Subscription Model |
|
|
| Guest wrote: | | Gee, sorry to see anyone spent the time to type this up. Not particularly funny, just sort of stupid. |
I suppose I should have expected arrogant, wittless responses from the NY Times disciples.
That said, I agree the "truth" is "not particularly funny, just sort of stupid." After all, the Star-Ledger reported today that more than half the "graduates" from the Newark Schools can not pass the High School Proficiency Test.
Keep on defending the status quo, it is working out great so far!
Z |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Guest
|
| Posted: Sat, May 28 2011, 7:03 am EDT Post subject: Re: New York Times Subscription Model |
|
|
| Zorro wrote: | | Guest wrote: | | Gee, sorry to see anyone spent the time to type this up. Not particularly funny, just sort of stupid. |
I suppose I should have expected arrogant, wittless responses from the NY Times disciples.
That said, I agree the "truth" is "not particularly funny, just sort of stupid." After all, the Star-Ledger reported today that more than half the "graduates" from the Newark Schools can not pass the High School Proficiency Test.
Keep on defending the status quo, it is working out great so far!
Z |
try "witless".......so pathetic |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Guest
|
| Posted: Sat, May 28 2011, 8:03 am EDT Post subject: Re: New York Times Subscription Model |
|
|
| Zorro wrote: | | Guest wrote: | | Gee, sorry to see anyone spent the time to type this up. Not particularly funny, just sort of stupid. |
I suppose I should have expected arrogant, wittless responses from the NY Times disciples.
That said, I agree the "truth" is "not particularly funny, just sort of stupid." After all, the Star-Ledger reported today that more than half the "graduates" from the Newark Schools can not pass the High School Proficiency Test.
Keep on defending the status quo, it is working out great so far!
Z |
Wow, I thougth this was just a bad attempt to imitate a Cranbury Sauce jooke until now. You actually believe that what you wrote is exposing some "truth"? What truth would that be exactly? And if someone didn't think the weird, nonsense rant was insightful they must be "disciples" of the New York Times?
Someone is off their meds. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Guest
|
| Posted: Sat, May 28 2011, 9:07 am EDT Post subject: Re: New York Times Subscription Model |
|
|
| Zorro wrote: | | Guest wrote: | | Gee, sorry to see anyone spent the time to type this up. Not particularly funny, just sort of stupid. |
I suppose I should have expected arrogant, wittless responses from the NY Times disciples.
That said, I agree the "truth" is "not particularly funny, just sort of stupid." After all, the Star-Ledger reported today that more than half the "graduates" from the Newark Schools can not pass the High School Proficiency Test.
Keep on defending the status quo, it is working out great so far!
Z |
Interesting that you would characterize responses as witless. That is the complaint I have about the original post. Let me get this straight if one dislikes your post they are a NYT "disciple"
Now I get it. This post tells us a lot about you. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Guest
|
| Posted: Sat, May 28 2011, 9:58 am EDT Post subject: Re: New York Times Subscription Model |
|
|
| Zorro wrote: | New York, NY- Citing a "moral obligation to provide information to people of all means", the New York Times today announced a new income-based circulation pricing model. Starting July 4th, the new tiered pricing model for the New York Times will be as follows...
For zips codes with an average household income range of:
$0-$75,000- free
$75,001- $150,000- regular price
$150,001- $999,000- 50% surcharge
$1,000,000+- 100% surcharge
When asked how the changes are expected to impact ciculation, new CMO Libby Raulle said, "Its going to be great! We've been looking for ways to diversify our readership and we don't think it is at all condescending to suggest that the only way to accomplish this goal is to give our product for free to poor people. Plus, its about time our wealthy readers started paying their fair share of the true costs of delivering the high quality of information to which all people are entitled."
When asked if she expected any of the Times' wealthier readers to cancel their subscriptions in favor of competing information sources, she said, "Sure, we may lose a small percentage of wealthy subscribers, but we don't anticpate significant push back. In this day and age, millionaires are accustomed to paying more for high quality services. Furthermore, if we do lose a significant number of wealthy readers, we'll just raise rates on the ones we have left."
When asked about the fairness of using average HH income by zip code to determine prices, Miss Raulle directed questions to NY Times Community Outreach Director, Noddy La Pointe. Miss La Pointe stated, "Poor people have a right to the same quality of information as everyone else. People who live in rich zip codes have the means and a moral obligation to fund equal information for everyone. This is about informing our young people. Its for the children!" |
How dare you poke fun at the hypocrisy of the New York Times! We can't possibly practice what we preach. Now I am obligated to hurt lame insults at you and call your opinion stupid! |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Guest
|
| Posted: Sat, May 28 2011, 10:24 am EDT Post subject: Re: New York Times Subscription Model |
|
|
| Guest wrote: | | Zorro wrote: | New York, NY- Citing a "moral obligation to provide information to people of all means", the New York Times today announced a new income-based circulation pricing model. Starting July 4th, the new tiered pricing model for the New York Times will be as follows...
For zips codes with an average household income range of:
$0-$75,000- free
$75,001- $150,000- regular price
$150,001- $999,000- 50% surcharge
$1,000,000+- 100% surcharge
When asked how the changes are expected to impact ciculation, new CMO Libby Raulle said, "Its going to be great! We've been looking for ways to diversify our readership and we don't think it is at all condescending to suggest that the only way to accomplish this goal is to give our product for free to poor people. Plus, its about time our wealthy readers started paying their fair share of the true costs of delivering the high quality of information to which all people are entitled."
When asked if she expected any of the Times' wealthier readers to cancel their subscriptions in favor of competing information sources, she said, "Sure, we may lose a small percentage of wealthy subscribers, but we don't anticpate significant push back. In this day and age, millionaires are accustomed to paying more for high quality services. Furthermore, if we do lose a significant number of wealthy readers, we'll just raise rates on the ones we have left."
When asked about the fairness of using average HH income by zip code to determine prices, Miss Raulle directed questions to NY Times Community Outreach Director, Noddy La Pointe. Miss La Pointe stated, "Poor people have a right to the same quality of information as everyone else. People who live in rich zip codes have the means and a moral obligation to fund equal information for everyone. This is about informing our young people. Its for the children!" |
How dare you poke fun at the hypocrisy of the New York Times! We can't possibly practice what we preach. Now I am obligated to hurt lame insults at you and call your opinion stupid! |
please stop |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Guest
|
| Posted: Sat, May 28 2011, 10:45 am EDT Post subject: Re: New York Times Subscription Model |
|
|
| Guest wrote: | | Zorro wrote: | New York, NY- Citing a "moral obligation to provide information to people of all means", the New York Times today announced a new income-based circulation pricing model. Starting July 4th, the new tiered pricing model for the New York Times will be as follows...
For zips codes with an average household income range of:
$0-$75,000- free
$75,001- $150,000- regular price
$150,001- $999,000- 50% surcharge
$1,000,000+- 100% surcharge
When asked how the changes are expected to impact ciculation, new CMO Libby Raulle said, "Its going to be great! We've been looking for ways to diversify our readership and we don't think it is at all condescending to suggest that the only way to accomplish this goal is to give our product for free to poor people. Plus, its about time our wealthy readers started paying their fair share of the true costs of delivering the high quality of information to which all people are entitled."
When asked if she expected any of the Times' wealthier readers to cancel their subscriptions in favor of competing information sources, she said, "Sure, we may lose a small percentage of wealthy subscribers, but we don't anticpate significant push back. In this day and age, millionaires are accustomed to paying more for high quality services. Furthermore, if we do lose a significant number of wealthy readers, we'll just raise rates on the ones we have left."
When asked about the fairness of using average HH income by zip code to determine prices, Miss Raulle directed questions to NY Times Community Outreach Director, Noddy La Pointe. Miss La Pointe stated, "Poor people have a right to the same quality of information as everyone else. People who live in rich zip codes have the means and a moral obligation to fund equal information for everyone. This is about informing our young people. Its for the children!" |
How dare you poke fun at the hypocrisy of the New York Times! We can't possibly practice what we preach. Now I am obligated to hurt lame insults at you and call your opinion stupid! |
Again, you realize you make no sense, right? The original post is not "poking fun at the hypocrasy" of the New York Times, if that was your intent. I don't think the rest of us object to criticizing the New York Times. Go for it. But if that was the intent of the post, it missed the mark. It just comes off like some crazy, random rant that doesn't make any sense. Exactly what hypocracy were you supposedly poking fun at? |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
|
