Chicago Tribune Delivered (4 Days) for $0.50 per Week

[YankeeFan]

A Wednesday, Thursday, Friday, Sunday subscription for $26.00 per year:

http://www.groupon.com/chicago/deals/chicago-tribune?utm_source=twitter&utm_medium=Social&utm_campaign=grouponchicago

That's half off the regular rate, which is already 80% off the newsstand price:

https://services.chicagotribune.com/Circulation/regularDeliveryAvailability.htm


How much money will each of these subscriptions cost them?

 

[Dick Whitman]

They could give it away for free and most people under 60 years old wouldn't take them up on it.

They value the lack of clutter that comes from not having the physical paper around more than they value whatever benefit they would derive from the paper itself.

 

[YankeeFan]

That's how I feel.

I an read it for free online & I don't have old newspapers piling up.

 

[Stitch]

It's all about eyeballs. All this crap people say about "freeloaders" reading news on the Web is wrong.

People who pay for the print edition pay for the paper and ink, and the means to get it there.

 

[Joe Williams]

I've got to assume that a year's worth of papers, four days a week, costs the Tribune considerably more than $26 annually to print and distribute.

Wish I could order a bajillion subscriptions to bleed the place dry.

 

[MileHigh]

Depends if they can count it in the ABC count. If they can, that counts for a lot.

 

[Football_Bat]

Depends if they can count it in the ABC count. If they can, that counts for a lot.

I believe they can. The DMN was running a racket like this a few years ago (and if I could get the DMN for $26 a year, I'd be all over it). The DMN was actually for a while giving even Sunday-only customers three bonus weekday papers.

From my experience, what a newspaper charges per copy only covers circulation (carriers and bundle haulers) and postage. Advertising is where the income is. More eyeballs = More billing. So this is a good loss-leader for the Trib.

 

[Boom_70]

A Wednesday, Thursday, Friday, Sunday subscription for $26.00 per year:

http://www.groupon.com/chicago/deals/chicago-tribune?utm_source=twitter&utm_medium=Social&utm_campaign=grouponchicago

That's half off the regular rate, which is already 80% off the newsstand price:

https://services.chicagotribune.com/Circulation/regularDeliveryAvailability.htm


How much money will each of these subscriptions cost them?

It would be immoral to accept such an offer.

 

[I Should Coco]

From my experience, what a newspaper charges per copy only covers circulation (carriers and bundle haulers) and postage. Advertising is where the income is. More eyeballs = More billing. So this is a good loss-leader for the Trib.

Agree, Football_Bat. For once (at least in the past decade), I think the Chicago Tribune is doing something right.

You'll see many smaller papers do something similar to this. While the price at the newsstand won't change (or may even go up slightly), a wide array of deals will be offered to home subscribers. Especially out here in the boonies, that's who is keeping the print edition alive.

 

[YankeeFan]

Selling the paper at a loss is a good business model?

We've seen how well eyeballs translates to profits on the internet when they give the product away for free.

How's it any better a strategy when you do it with a print edition?

 

[Joe Williams]

From my experience, what a newspaper charges per copy only covers circulation (carriers and bundle haulers) and postage. Advertising is where the income is. More eyeballs = More billing. So this is a good loss-leader for the Trib.

Agree, Football_Bat. For once (at least in the past decade), I think the Chicago Tribune is doing something right.

You'll see many smaller papers do something similar to this. While the price at the newsstand won't change (or may even go up slightly), a wide array of deals will be offered to home subscribers. Especially out here in the boonies, that's who is keeping the print edition alive.

Makes me want to slap the paper in my city, then, for charging me 10 times what the Tribune is willing to take.

 

[RickStain]

Selling the paper at a loss is a good business model?

We've seen how well eyeballs translates to profits on the internet when they give the product away for free.

How's it any better a strategy when you do it with a print edition?

Advertisers will pay a lot more for print ads, where there's less competition.

 

[YankeeFan]

Selling the paper at a loss is a good business model?

We've seen how well eyeballs translates to profits on the internet when they give the product away for free.

How's it any better a strategy when you do it with a print edition?

Advertisers will pay a lot more for print ads, where there's less competition.

I still don't see this working for them.

Sure, they're trying to get their paid circulation numbers up so it looks good for advertising, but at $0.125 per copy -- including for a heavy Sunday paper -- they will lose too much money per customer to make it worthwhile.

 

[Stitch]

Selling the paper at a loss is a good business model?

We've seen how well eyeballs translates to profits on the internet when they give the product away for free.

How's it any better a strategy when you do it with a print edition?

Advertisers will pay a lot more for print ads, where there's less competition.

I still don't see this working for them.

Sure, they're trying to get their paid circulation numbers up so it looks good for advertising, but at $0.125 per copy -- including for a heavy Sunday paper -- they will lose too much money per customer to make it worthwhile.

If no one buys it at the regular price, what does that tell you?

 

[I Should Coco]

Selling the paper at a loss is a good business model?

We've seen how well eyeballs translates to profits on the internet when they give the product away for free.

How's it any better a strategy when you do it with a print edition?

Advertisers will pay a lot more for print ads, where there's less competition.

I still don't see this working for them.

Sure, they're trying to get their paid circulation numbers up so it looks good for advertising, but at $0.125 per copy -- including for a heavy Sunday paper -- they will lose too much money per customer to make it worthwhile.

If no one buys it at the regular price, what does that tell you?

It's all Walmart's fault!

 

[gravehunter]

The LA Times offered a pretty good deal to me as well (not as good as the Trib's deal) and I took them up on it....twice. The first time I canceled because they weren't delivering the paper. I subscribed and canceled a few weeks later because they delivered the wrong paper.
You get what you pay for (sometimes), I guess....

 

[MrHavercamp]

These low subscription prices have already happened in the magazine business. I can't believe how cheap some of the 1-year rate offers I get from some pretty good magazines.

 

[LevinTBlack]

Selling the paper at a loss is a good business model?

We've seen how well eyeballs translates to profits on the internet when they give the product away for free.

How's it any better a strategy when you do it with a print edition?

I'm just going to say it, you must have no idea how advertising and the overall business model for radio, television and print works. Like someone already pointed out, the income from subscriptions is a very very small slice of the pie. A large majority of the income comes from advertising. This is true in all media. The higher the number of subscriptions, viewers or listeners the more you charge advertisers.

Selling the paper to a reader at or below what it costs to get it to them works if you subscriptions number goes up enough for you to charge advertisers more. Say they get 5,000 new subscriptions and lose $0.05 to 0.10 per paper. That's 250-500 dollars a day and almost definitely less than what they would make in added revenue from ads. Keep in mind they will already be running the press so the only cost is the extra paper. They already have worked out pay for carriers and whoever the new subscribers fall to just have to deliver them.

 

[YankeeFan]

Selling the paper at a loss is a good business model?

We've seen how well eyeballs translates to profits on the internet when they give the product away for free.

How's it any better a strategy when you do it with a print edition?

I'm just going to say it, you must have no idea how advertising and the overall business model for radio, television and print works. Like someone already pointed out, the income from subscriptions is a very very small slice of the pie. A large majority of the income comes from advertising. This is true in all media. The higher the number of subscriptions, viewers or listeners the more you charge advertisers.

Selling the paper to a reader at or below what it costs to get it to them works if you subscriptions number goes up enough for you to charge advertisers more. Say they get 5,000 new subscriptions and lose $0.05 to 0.10 per paper. That's 250-500 dollars a day and almost definitely less than what they would make in added revenue from ads. Keep in mind they will already be running the press so the only cost is the extra paper. They already have worked out pay for carriers and whoever the new subscribers fall to just have to deliver them.

I'm sorry, but you're wrong.

I understand perfectly well that there are costs associated with acquiring customers, and I understand that advertising is (or at least was) the main source of revenue for a newspaper and that if you can gro the audience, you can (theoretically) charge more in advertising.

But, $0.125 per paper is way to low a price. Newsprint, paper, and delivery cost money. The Sunday paper in particular is big and heavy.

If this was a great strategy, every paper would be doing it, and it wouldn't be a Groupon special for the Trib.

It's a clear money loser. It's a desperate attempt to show an improvement (or at least not a big loss) in subscribers.

Newspaper advertising is dropping, and stunts like this are not going to turn it around.

And, if I was an advertiser, and I was, I would not be impressed with the Trib's new subscribers. Would you want to advertise your product to people who only subscribed when the price fell to $0.0125 per paper?

Are they likely to even read the paper let alone buy your product? Very unlikely.

 

[LevinTBlack]

Selling the paper at a loss is a good business model?

We've seen how well eyeballs translates to profits on the internet when they give the product away for free.

How's it any better a strategy when you do it with a print edition?

I'm just going to say it, you must have no idea how advertising and the overall business model for radio, television and print works. Like someone already pointed out, the income from subscriptions is a very very small slice of the pie. A large majority of the income comes from advertising. This is true in all media. The higher the number of subscriptions, viewers or listeners the more you charge advertisers.

Selling the paper to a reader at or below what it costs to get it to them works if you subscriptions number goes up enough for you to charge advertisers more. Say they get 5,000 new subscriptions and lose $0.05 to 0.10 per paper. That's 250-500 dollars a day and almost definitely less than what they would make in added revenue from ads. Keep in mind they will already be running the press so the only cost is the extra paper. They already have worked out pay for carriers and whoever the new subscribers fall to just have to deliver them.

I'm sorry, but you're wrong.

I understand perfectly well that there are costs associated with acquiring customers, and I understand that advertising is (or at least was) the main source of revenue for a newspaper and that if you can gro the audience, you can (theoretically) charge more in advertising.

But, $0.125 per paper is way to low a price. Newsprint, paper, and delivery cost money. The Sunday paper in particular is big and heavy.

If this was a great strategy, every paper would be doing it, and it wouldn't be a Groupon special for the Trib.

It's a clear money loser. It's a desperate attempt to show an improvement (or at least not a big loss) in subscribers.

Newspaper advertising is dropping, and stunts like this are not going to turn it around.

And, if I was an advertiser, and I was, I would not be impressed with the Trib's new subscribers. Would you want to advertise your product to people who only subscribed when the price fell to $0.0125 per paper?

Are they likely to even read the paper let alone buy your product? Very unlikely.

You aren't thinking this fully through I don't think. Like I said before they already have the delivery people hired. Adding a couple of news houses to routes isn't going to increase costs. The only cost to them is the ink and paper. That will add up to more than the people are paying sure. That's what the bump in advertising does. Maybe the Tribune has problems selling ads. I don't know but a lot of big city newspaper fill ads easily, at least to my knowledge. If they aren't having issues filling ads then they control the price. If they are struggling to convince people to advertise then they probably won't be able to ask for more.