(This isn’t Chyi and Tenenboim’s point, but having the data in one place makes it clear how deeply irrational some of these prices can seem when put in comparison with one another. Weekday single-copy prices went up even more, roughly tripling. But in general, these large newspapers increased their prices between 2× and 2.5×. The biggest price-hiker by a fair margin was the Los Angeles Times, who went from a quite-low $104 to about-what-you’d-expect-these-days $624 for a year of home delivery. Here’s the key chart from their paper (click to enlarge): Despite the increase in price, about two-thirds of print readers remained loyal to a product that has become much more expensive and is considered dying by many. Seven-day subscription now costs $510 a year - print subscribers are paying on average $293 more to have the same newspaper delivered to their doorstep. Seven-day home delivery price more than doubled, and weekday single-copy price tripled. The analysis documented industry-wide, more-than-substantial price hikes. Iris Chyi and Ori Tenenboim have done us a service in a new paper just published in Journalism Studies, measuring the rate at which all those prices have gone up - or at least went up between 20, the span they analyze - at 25 large American newspapers: Even accounting for inflation since then, a Post subscription now costs about 3.5 times what it used to. A year’s home delivery subscription to the Post cost about $130 back then. And kids, gather ’round while I tell you about how angry people were in 2001 when a copy of the Post went from 25 cents to 35 cents. As recently as 2013, a weekday Boston Globe ran you $1.25 and a Washington Post or Dallas Morning News cost $1. And if you’re in that dying breed of single-copy buyers at a newsstand or coffee shop, those four papers would cost you, on a weekday, $3, $2.50, $2, and $2.49, respectively. The Washington Post or The Dallas Morning News will each run you about $650. A subscription to The Boston Globe here in Cambridge will run you about $750 a year. To get a sense of what might replace the so-called eyesores, check out the " modular distribution box" that hit the streets of Park Slope in May.If you’ve been a daily print newspaper subscriber for any length of time - whether it’s a seven-day morning habit you’ve had for decades or a Sunday-only New York Times subscription you have mainly so your four-year-old will sometimes see Dada reading something other than a screen :raised_hand: - you’ve noticed prices have gone nowhere but up.Ī seven-day print subscription to the Times will now run you over $1,000 a year in much of the country.
Is it so bad if a teensy, little ugliness on city streets remains in the '00s? And is increased government regulation of news racks really a fight MAS should spend its time fighting? While we admire much of MAS' work for the city and we know this is a media-obsessed kind of place, we wonder about this preoccupation with news racks.
While news racks are illegal if they are within 15 feet of a hydrant, in a bus stop and within 5 feet of a corner area, among other rules, MAS wants elected officials to regulate them even more stringently! Include cross-street details, people! There's even a prize for the winning photo: a $100 gift certificate to Urban Center Books on Madison Ave. The organization wants the "dirtiest, most unkempt, most repulsive" ones you can find in the five boroughs. Today the Municipal Art Society announced that, tired of decrepit and ugly news racks, it is launching a new campaign to eliminate the city of every last stinkin' one of them.Ĭlaiming that inhabitants of other world class cities like Paris and London do not tolerate such rattiness in their streets, MAS is asking the public to help document the worst offenders by sending photographs to Don't hold back. The much vaunted non-profit that seriously opposed the Atlantic Yards has a new enemy.
0 kommentar(er)
