Old school versus new school, the Times bickers about iPad.
This week Gawker reported about an internal battle at the New York Times about the pricing of subscriptions for the iPad version of the times.
On one side, a Times source explains, you have print circulation, which thinks it should control the iPad since it’s just another way to distribute the paper. They’d like to charge $20 to $30 per month for the Times’ forthcoming iPad app, basically the product already demonstrated on stage with Steve Jobs, the source said. Why so much? Because they’re said to be afraid people will cancel the print paper if they can get the same thing on their iPad. Never mind that iPad distribution comes with none of the paper or delivery costs associated with print, or that there’s already a free electronic edition available to subscribers who cancel
This story came out the same day an article I wrote for the APA blog entitled “The iPad will save editorial photography.” The irony is that in my article I am all sunny optimistic about the future when newspapers and magazines start utilizing devices like the iPad to distribute their content. What I am ignorant about in my article is the internal politics at publications. I forget that there is a contingent of people who have a lot to lose when the paper manifestations of their product disappear.
I’m not suggesting that a radical departure from the status quo is easy. But in the case of the Times it is a necessity. Overcharging for a new exciting distribution medium so you can cannibalize the profits to try and resuscitate a flat lining business model doesn’t make any sense. The real asset of the Times is their content not the physical paper. I hope that cooler business heads prevail. Because the future of electronic distribution has the potential to employ a lot of editorial photographers and writers while at the same time adding a new multi-media dynamic to the genre.
