Slog

News & Arts

Line Out

Music & Nightlife

« Notes from the Unemployment Line | Reading Tonight »

Thursday, February 19, 2009

Media A Kindle in Every Pot

Posted by Brendan Kiley on Thu, Feb 19, 2009 at 10:05 AM

Over at Business Insider, Nicholas Carlson has a modest proposal for the New York Times: lean into the problem, ditch print, and give everyone a Kindle.

Carlson estimates that it costs $644 million per year to print and deliver the Times, then figures it would cost $297 million to buy each of its two-year subscribers a new Kindle.

And his math is super-conservative: "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." Amazon, of course, would cut the deal of a lifetime to get a Kindle in that many households. At real prices, the New York Times could probably give all its subscribers a Kindle, plus a chunk of high-school students that it hopes to convert into future subscribers.

The New York Times going permanently smudge-free, would tie a few weights to the legs of the drowning print industry. But it's drowning anyway.

The latest publication fishing around for a buyer? Playboy.

Thanks to Slog tipper Brad.

Share via

Comments (22) RSS

Oldest First Unregistered On Registered On Add a comment

that's brilliant; that's so bold and smart that the implementer would be studied for years in bschools all across the world. it would radically change everything. it's like shoving the advertisers out of the way to push the button on the newspaper industry...

Posted by AF on February 19, 2009 at 10:19 AM

Playboy's been doomed since about 1990. I can't imagine how or why they've hung on so long. And with the collapse of the lad market -- Stuff, Maxim, FHM, etc. -- that pushed them to the brink, there's nothing left for them. "The Girls Next Door" is a perfect metaphor for the magazine itself -- aged horndog pays bunnies to prance around him until the money runs out.

Which is why it's the best show on television.

Posted by Fnarf on February 19, 2009 at 10:23 AM

There is the revenue part which makes this exercise purely academic: You lose the advertising revenue that goes along with the print publication? The ads don't transfer to the Kindle like the the content does. The screen is too small. The NYT would save money but at the cost of loosing 88% of their revenue.

But a big flexible sheet of e-paper that delivered ads like newsprint might work.

Posted by Tim Keck on February 19, 2009 at 11:03 AM

I'm not a fan of e-readers....but when technology gets to the point where I can download my daily newspaper and magazines subscriptions...count me in.

Posted by Rotten666 on February 19, 2009 at 11:06 AM

But I still can't take my lap top to the jon (well I could be really, but I can bring my microwave in there too ... stupid!)

Posted by former tristate on February 19, 2009 at 11:11 AM

Can the Kindle show pictures? Can you search for information on it? I would subscribe to a newspaper if I got a free Kindle.

Posted by elswinger on February 19, 2009 at 11:11 AM

Not gonna work.

First, if they did that, they would loose a lot of their advertisers, since there is very limited capability to do display ads on the Kindle.

Second, "two-year subscribers" probably make up a very small portion of their total readership. The Times is sold in news stands all over the country. This proposal also makes the assumption that all of those two-year subscribers would happily accept a Kindle version of the Times in place of the paper version. Many would accept that, but lots would baulk. Lots of people actually LIKE spreading the paper out on their breakfast table.

An interesting notion, but it's not gonna happen. Maybe with some future version of an e-reader.

Posted by Reverse Polarity on February 19, 2009 at 11:13 AM

That's brilliant. I'd jump on that bandwagon and I haven't subscribed to the NYT in years (and I live in NY). I have no desire to read books on a kindle, I'm not that kind of reader. But I'd take the NYT delivered fresh to it every morning and read it on the subway to work.

Posted by Al on February 19, 2009 at 11:44 AM

I hereby solemnly swear that I will subscribe to any newspaper that gives me a Kindle or a Sony e-reader with my subscription. I never liked the format of daily newspapers anyway; too large and awkward and smeary.

Posted by Geni on February 19, 2009 at 11:55 AM

@3:
You are (theoretically) speaking English: learn the difference between 'loose' and 'lose'.

Posted by Indy on February 19, 2009 at 12:01 PM

Ooh, that's twice in a week for Mr. Keck and "loose". Remember, "loose" rhymes with "noose"; "lose" rhymes with "booze". Maybe language tapes would help?

Yeah, the ad thing is going to kill this. The NYT barely cares about subscriber revenue, compared to ad revenue, I'm guessing. Newspapers are devices for placing ads in front of eyeballs, not for selling news stories, which are only there to attract the eyeballs.

@4, @6: the Kindle already does those things. Search alone is the thing that's making my juices flow.

Posted by Fnarf on February 19, 2009 at 12:33 PM

Pretty much everyone who can afford an NYT subscription either has or will have an iPhone or something like it in a couple years. Kindle is a big step backwards for these people (for reading newspapers, anyway).

slog.thestranger.com/iphone (sorry for plugging your ad-free site, Tim Keck!)

Posted by lizzie on February 19, 2009 at 12:35 PM

@10: It's an easy typo. I'm sure Tim Keck knows the difference.

@6: Yes, it shows pictures, although not well, and yes, you can search the web in a rudimentary way on it, although it does best with text sites. Hopefully version 2.0 will improve on both features.

Posted by TVDinner on February 19, 2009 at 12:36 PM

@12, that's hilarious of you to suggest that (a) everyone will have an iphone soon and (b) 2" wide screens are a step forward. Narrow universe much? I'll bet fewer than 10% of NYT subscribers have smartphones today; and I don't want to read ANYTHING on a screen that small.

@13, he's 0 for 2 so far. He has yet to spell it correctly to date, and two points define a line.

Posted by Fnarf on February 19, 2009 at 12:45 PM

Not that they aren't interesting, but Slog writers seem way slow on this publishing industry stuff. This is the second or third time recently that Slog's picked up a two or three week old story that's already exhausted itself on the industry blogs and brought it back up. Just read Galleycat for God's sake--the Kindle NYT thing is from January!

Posted by jray745 on February 19, 2009 at 12:55 PM

Hey, someone edited @3. What was 'loose' is now (correctly) 'lose'. BUT: 'loosing' is still incorrect.

Keep trying guys!!

Posted by Indy on February 19, 2009 at 1:36 PM

Tree Hugger has an assessment of the environmental impact of these options:

http://www.treehugger.com/files/2009/02/…

It's a little surprising.

"Not to mention that the claims that getting your news online really helps the environment aren't categorically true. It may cut down on paper usage, which is no bad thing, but unless your electricity comes from carbon free sources, you're just shifting the resource consumption from one place to another."

Posted by MEC on February 19, 2009 at 2:00 PM

You lose. Your mother is loose.

Now you won't forget.

Posted by supergp on February 19, 2009 at 2:07 PM

I think you guys have lost me. I sure hope I don't make this mistake again. We'll see...

Posted by Tim Keck on February 19, 2009 at 2:29 PM

Watching you like a hawk, Keck. One more "loose" out of you and I'm swooping down and snapping your neck like a dry twig.

Posted by Fnarf on February 19, 2009 at 3:59 PM