Martin Nisenholtz, senior vice president of digital operations at The New York Times Co., dismisses complaints about the proposed $49.95 fee for accessing NYT "premium" content and proves that he knows his market:
"People think nothing of ordering a $25 martini at the hotel bar -- but pay 50 bucks for archived material at the Times? Oh my God!"
do people seriously not mind paying 25 dollars for a martini? where is this magical world where a martini tastes as delicious as that?
Posted by: r a e d y at May 19, 2005 09:35 PMraedy, it's similar to the $5.00 milkshake, i assume.
Posted by: fan at May 19, 2005 11:55 PMThat's pretty amazing to me. I've paid far too much for fancy martinis at fancy restaurants, but $25 for ONE? You can buy a lot of pretty fancy vodka for the price of a couple of those.
Posted by: chrisg at May 20, 2005 01:54 AMCome on, he lives in New York City, one of the most expensive places to live in the US. He probably thinks 25$ is a reasonable price.
Of course, it isn't to me, and neither is the 49.95.
Posted by: owlish at May 20, 2005 06:50 AMCalifornians calling NY expensive? Talk about the proverbial "pot calling the kettle black"!! The obvious reason why this is being done can be broke down into a simple mathematical equation: Computer Users>x "where x is the past number of computer users" - Total Revenue < Total Revenue of Subscribers.
In other words the net is HURTING THEIR NET $$$!!!
I for one WILL NEVER PAY and will just go to the Post, Journal, USA Today or some other source! HA!!!!
Posted by: Zaphod at May 20, 2005 10:31 AMAn apt comparison--watered-down drinks and dumbed-down writing.
Posted by: Chrees at May 21, 2005 12:43 AM