How Much Is A New York Times Subscription? It Takes A Spreadsheet To Answer

New York Times mailer

Quick — how much does it cost to subscribe to the New York Times? The answer is that to figure out what’s the best option for you likely involves firing up a spreadsheet, given the lack of transparency in how the New York Times prices things.

The New York Times is hardly the only publisher to hide the yearly cost of subscription behind attractive trial offers. But since the publication hit me with two different offers today — part of a regular stream I get every two or three weeks, it’s getting special attention from me in this post.

In 2011, I subscribed to daily print delivery of the New York Times through an offer that gave it to me for about $200 per year. But after the six month trial period expired, I balked at the $400 per year price tag it went up to. I canceled.

A/A Testing

Since that time, at least once per month if not more, the New York Times keeps trying to get me back. I joked recently that it does with “A/A testing” with its offers, where after I reject one, it comes back with exactly the same offer, as if “try, try again” will work.

For those who don’t fully get the joke, marketers typically do what’s called “A/B testing,” where you show an offer (call it the A offer) to one group of prospective customers and a different offer (the B offer) to another. You figure out what works better. You may try several different offers, even, to improve your conversion.

With the New York Times, I can get exactly the same offer every few weeks. Yes, the offer will change in how it’s pitched and presented. There will be words like “New Offer” or “Welcome Back” or “Special Rate,” that try to initially hook me in. But the underlying pricing is no better than previously. So really, the offer hasn’t changed.

What someone at the New York Times ought to be trying to figure out is why I’m rejecting these offers. Take a moment to do a little market research. They’d discover that I’m rejecting them as too pricey. I don’t want to pay that much per year for home delivery of the paper, especially when I know that as a print subscriber, I’m actually more valuable to the paper’s advertisers (for the moment) than a digital subscriber.

The New York Times Pricing Matrix

A different pricing structure might bring me back. But hey, maybe in the end, there is no pricing structure for the New York Times that makes sense for me to come back.

I get that. But at the very least, don’t make me or any consumer have to produce something like this to figure out the basic cost:

New York Times pricing

That’s a chart of all the New York Times main subscription rates, as best I can tell, for the moment. You won’t find anything like it on the New York Times site in places you might look, such as here or here, not that shows print alongside digital. It’s worse when it comes to the print editions, where you often aren’t told flat-out what the regular rate will be when a trial ends. Consider this:

If you want to figure out the regular price of any of those options, after the subscription expires, you have to do the math. Sure, the math isn’t hard — but why not spell it out at least in the fine print?

Want Cheaper Digital? Take The Print Paper

That chart I listed above also exposes what I covered the last time I wrote about this topic — that if you want unlimited digital access to the New York Times (meaning you use both its smartphone and tablet app), you’re better off taking the print edition on a weekend or Sunday basis. You’ll save a few bucks.

Got that? The New York Times will actually charge you less for unlimited digital if you just get the dead tree version and throw it away.

That doesn’t say much about the real value of either the print or digital versions. They both must be overpriced if there’s an option where a copy can be printed each day, tossed on my doorstep by a human being and yet cost less than an all-digital subscription.

But then again, this is from a publication that seems to think “loyal” readers should pay it money while non-loyal users get everything for free. Consider this from from Denise Warren, the executive vice president for the New York Times digital products group, in a recent AdAge interview:

You can sample the Times’ core product — 10 articles a month — and you can come to us through search and social. So now you’ll be able to sample Opinion content, but if you want to drink deeply, if you’re loyal and can’t get enough of it, you’re going to be asked to pay.

Loyalty has little to do with all this. Those buying subscriptions are doing so, as best I can tell, for two reasons: stupidity and convenience.

I get the convenience part. If you do love the New York Times content, go to it all the time, it’s convenient to have a subscription. The app might make it easier to read what you want. It certainly saves you the hassle of the site’s leaky paywall, where regular readers probably don’t want to simply follow a link from social media or do a Google search to get around it.

But the stupidity part is also there — where the New York Times seems to assume people don’t know to figure out how to do math, to understand that when you give away a print edition with digital access for less than digital access, something doesn’t add up.


  1. Jim says

    While I agree that the pricing is opaque and all of the editions are more expensive than I want to pay, I also broke down and subscribed to the “smartphone edition” a couple of months ago. It’s easy to circumvent the paywall by using Chrome’s incognito mode and searching for the title through Google. I still do that 4 or 5 times a month for The Wall Street Journal

    But I found that that I was using enough that I want to support them. They’re one of the few news outlets that seems to be trying to do honest investigative reporting.

    I’m in Portland and our local daily paper thinned down and down. Then it went to 4-day-a-week delivery. Then it switched format to tabloid. And then I finally cancelled my subscription, which I’d had for 20 years. I hope the Newhouses go bankrupt.

  2. Danny Sullivan says

    I think it’s great you subscribe to help support them, especially given the usage you do. That goes to the loyalty part that was being spoken about and helps support some of what they say.

    But I also feel like they could perhaps get both loyalty and many more subscribers with something reasonable, and with pricing that adds up more than it does when you realize how digital is a “gimme” tacked onto print, even though the print costs are more. That means digital is sold for way too much.

    Pricing, of course, is tricky. The NYT could drop things to say $100 per year for digital and potentially gain many more subscribers. But they might also gain many more who have more demands, customer service needs — plus it’s a gamble with the people who already overpaid.

  3. says

    Hi Danny

    I feel your frustration, in the UK the Times has a similarly confusing range of options, you can have a 30 day trial for £1.00, a Premium Pack for £7.00 per week + receive a free iPad, you can trial the Sunday pack for 13 weeks for just £20.00 [also promoted as a 3 month trial] which then reverts to a weekly deal of £2.00. There’s a “Classic Trail Pack” at £3.00 per week but you then see that this one is actually a 1/2 price trial 3 months.

    How about the Digital Trial Pack at £1.00 for 30 days and then £6.00 per week for the Tablet Edition, SmartPhone app and web access or the “Classic Trial Pack” which is also £6.00 per week and delivers the newspaper to your door, Tablet Access and 7 day access to the Internet. So the Digital Pack offers Tablet access but you can get almost the same AND paper for the same price……….go figure

    There are no annual comparison

  4. Jose Nieves says

    I would love to read the NY Times more and support the content but the digital smartphone rate is just too high. $10 a month is the most I would pay. So I read my few articles a month from the the NYT app a few from the Washington Post, a bunch from the web smartphone/tablet/laptops/desktops (every device has its own limit). I then supplement with NPR and various other state papers across the country.

    Wouldn’t the NY Times do better having me pay something for their content then getting nothing? There should be a $1 week or $5 a month, $10 a month, $100 a year subscription for digital. The cheap digital plans don’t need all the bells and whistles but be reasonable maybe an express type format.

  5. Duck says

    Meanwhile, Spotify charges me roughly USD 3 here in the Philippines (I don’t know how much that costs in the US) for a full month of unlimited, no ads access.

    I’d subscribe to NYTimes if it were that cheap.

  6. Joe says

    Good article. I was just puzzling over the pricing conundrum highlighted by the author when I came here. Who’s going to pay five hundred dollars plus per year for a newspaper? Not me! They have brand recognition and access to world markets, so why not lower the price and bring on millions of subscribers. A hundred dollars per year times a million new subscribers would probably put them in the black for good.