Would It Be More Efficient To Send Free Kindles To Paper Subscribers?

alleyinsider.com:

Not that it's anything we think the New York Times Company should do, but we thought it was worth pointing out that it costs the Times about twice as much money to print and deliver the newspaper over a year as it would cost to send each of its subscribers a brand new Amazon Kindle instead.

Here's how we did the math:

According to the Times's Q308 10-Q, the company spends $63 million per quarter on raw materials and $148 million on wages and benefits. We've heard the wages and benefits for just the newsroom are about $200 million per year.

Read the whole story: alleyinsider.com

Comments

[rocketman69]

02:40 AM on 02/04/2009

I thing the NYT is having problems is beacuse of reporters like this:

"According to the Times's Q308 10-Q, the company spends $63 million per quarter on raw materials and $148 million on wages and benefits. We've heard the wages and benefits for just the newsroom are about $200 million per year."

I've heard they spend $500 Trillion on coffee alone.

[adam hartung]

11:37 PM on 02/03/2009

Smart move at Amazon. Management isn't getting enough credit for being ahead of the market. Today with companies cutting back everywhere­, Amazon management is finding growth. Superior! Read more at http://www­.ThePhoeni­xPrinciple­.com

[matt832]

12:11 AM on 02/03/2009

Well, one of our local papers The Detroit Free Press is the first in the nation to drop daily delivery and go to 3 days a week with an online version available daily. The kindle might be a viable option, I'm really not looking forward to spending more time on my computer, but i don't see it happening. I'm not going to spend hundreds of dollars to get something I get today for a few cents.

If the kindle was in color and bit larger I'd say it was a great solution if it was subsidized by the newspapers­, but I think they are only b&w at this point and too expensive.

[Sumocat]

02:34 PM on 02/02/2009

The only problem with newspapers is paper.

[justmeinAz]

02:19 PM on 02/02/2009

Amazing. I think if they could find a solution that would keep their ad revenue, actively selling the kindle to their customers - maybe a huge discount on one with each yearly subscripti­on, would be a good move. You don't have to get everyone on board for it to be worth the trouble, financiall­y and environmen­tally.

[Tom95134]

01:31 PM on 02/02/2009

You may have a point but nobody is going to mug you on the subway for your copy of the NY Times. Now if you're reading it on a Kindle or a Sony reader you better have some insurance on the device (and maybe hospitaliz­ation).

Besides, I just like the feel of the paper and, you can fold the paper to fit the column length of the story.

[justmeinAz]

02:40 PM on 02/02/2009

Or, you could read the NYT on your kindle someplace besides the subway. just a thought. It's a bit of a sacrifice, I realize, if you spend a lot of time there, but considerin­g the environmen­tal benefit of that size of decrease in newsprint, it's a rather small one, as sacrifices go. You could also easily hide your kindle in a case made out of an uninterest­ing-lookin­g book, so no one but you could see the kindle. Not that you should risk your safety for any of this, but I do think there are options if you think about it. And the kindle automatica­lly will display the paper by column, just the way you like it.

[aspecialed]

01:23 PM on 02/02/2009

If the NYT gave me a kindle I would buy a lifetime subscripti­on.