Mar 22 2011: Charging works for the WSJ and the FT because of their highly specialized financial content. The NYT does not have that sort of material. The NYT's bread-and-butter is their editorial section, but that will not suffice online. The internet is already full of pundits (bloggers, HuffPo, RCP, etc.), and I can't imagine that too many people will be willing to pay $20/month to read another set of pithy musings.
Mar 18 2011: I would get whichever job allowed me to make as much money as possible while increasing my talent. Then, I would have the means to invest in worthy causes.
Simple physics teaches that force is equal to mass multiplied by velocity (F=MxV2). As I see it, our ability to be a force for good is dependent on our means (our mass) and our talent, passion, etc. (our velocity).
If this is true, our force is at least somewhat dependant on our wealth. Obviously, increasing either factor (mass or velocity) will produce an increase in force, but why not try to increase both factors simultaneously?
Mar 18 2011: This will never fly. The public will not pay to get online news.
Last year, Newsday lost millions putting their site behind a paywall. After 3 months, they had 35 subscribers (http://www.observer.com/2010/media/after-three-months-only-35-subscriptions-newsdays-web-site#). When I was 10, my personal newsletter had a larger circulation and brought in more money.
The problem is that the internet is filled with substantive news sources. The vast majority of them are free. You simply cannot make a viable business by charging someone for content that they can get for free (and just as easily) elsewhere.
The NYT will likely try to market this as being a great source for editorials and commentary -- instead of emphasizing the hard news content. The problem here is that they are forced to compete with the internet's (and, for that matter, the world's) vast array of bloggers and pundits. They are stepping into an arena in which they will no longer be the big fish in a small pond. From a marketing perspective, it's a losing battle.
From a brand perspective, the NYT is king… of newspapers. Given their industry, their brand is iconic and largely nostalgic. The internet does not have any truly iconic brands and rejects nostalgia.
With these kind of business plans, it's easy to see why the NYT is a dying company.
Mar 17 2011: I believe that happiness and fulfillment are two significant arenas in which secular worldviews have often failed. The religious sector seems much more able to inspire both of these feelings as it tends to deal more in ideals. The religious sector is fundamentally aspirational and offers substantial -- albeit unproven -- promises of ultimate success. This notion of ultimate success is what I find lacking in many secular worldviews, and I believe its lack often produces a lack of happiness and fulfillment.
On a side note, I find it odd that so many seem unaware of the fact that happiness is a choice. It is not contingent on circumstances or abilities. This is proven by the fact that so many of the world's most unfortunate people are immensely happy, while the most fortunate are often the most miserable. It's all about perspective and the choice to be happy or, perhaps as is more often the case, the choice to be unhappy.
TEDCred score: +0.50 TEDCred reflects your contribution to the TED community.
A reply on Conversation: What is your feeling on the New York Times online subscription model ?
A comment on Conversation: What kind of job would you do if you were not worried about the income?
Simple physics teaches that force is equal to mass multiplied by velocity (F=MxV2). As I see it, our ability to be a force for good is dependent on our means (our mass) and our talent, passion, etc. (our velocity).
If this is true, our force is at least somewhat dependant on our wealth. Obviously, increasing either factor (mass or velocity) will produce an increase in force, but why not try to increase both factors simultaneously?
A comment on Conversation: What is your feeling on the New York Times online subscription model ?
Last year, Newsday lost millions putting their site behind a paywall. After 3 months, they had 35 subscribers (http://www.observer.com/2010/media/after-three-months-only-35-subscriptions-newsdays-web-site#). When I was 10, my personal newsletter had a larger circulation and brought in more money.
The problem is that the internet is filled with substantive news sources. The vast majority of them are free. You simply cannot make a viable business by charging someone for content that they can get for free (and just as easily) elsewhere.
The NYT will likely try to market this as being a great source for editorials and commentary -- instead of emphasizing the hard news content. The problem here is that they are forced to compete with the internet's (and, for that matter, the world's) vast array of bloggers and pundits. They are stepping into an arena in which they will no longer be the big fish in a small pond. From a marketing perspective, it's a losing battle.
From a brand perspective, the NYT is king… of newspapers. Given their industry, their brand is iconic and largely nostalgic. The internet does not have any truly iconic brands and rejects nostalgia.
With these kind of business plans, it's easy to see why the NYT is a dying company.
A comment on Conversation: Do you think it's even possible to be 100% happy and fulfilled?If yes, what's your way to do it? If no, why is it so deeply essential to us?
On a side note, I find it odd that so many seem unaware of the fact that happiness is a choice. It is not contingent on circumstances or abilities. This is proven by the fact that so many of the world's most unfortunate people are immensely happy, while the most fortunate are often the most miserable. It's all about perspective and the choice to be happy or, perhaps as is more often the case, the choice to be unhappy.