, with some tiny
variations on that theme. Not significantly different from today.

If you were to make the content subscription only, and some publications have
tried this recently, you'd lose 90% of your readers. That means also losing
90% of your ad revenue. Now the remaining 10% of your readers need to make up
for that loss. That makes it a rather expensive subscription, losing a lot
more subscribers, and around it goes, the vicious circle.

That doesn't mean digital news isn't horribly broken, it is. Just that making
it subscription only isn't the solution.

~~~
jonknee
... The NYT uses a subscription model these days (though you get a handful of
articles for free every month). That's what he was talking about. He was still
wrong from a business point of view though.

------
yarone
Andy's designs look beautiful, but I'm reminded of the old saying: "No battle
plan survives contact with the enemy".

I'm afraid that if you take his designs as a starting point, and revise them
based on the needs of the NYTimes and the expectations of its millions of
visitors, they would require a large number of changes and would more closely
resemble the current NYTimes.com

------
brownie
The one thing I dislike (on the main page at least) is the separation of news
and opinion/analysis. I can't think of many times where I've visited a news
site and wanted to read only opinion or only news, but I can think of times
where I've visited a site to read about a particular story - and read related
articles that happen to be opinions/analysis.

------
petercooper
I suspect that while this is a reasonable and logical redesign, it misses out
on some non-rational behavior of the majority of people who read news. I know
that, non rationally, I quite like a bit of "jumble" from my newspapers and
news sites so I can just "wander" around from thing to thing for a while. The
redesign showed here turns it more into a blog and I think I'd have trouble
wandering around it.. I'd need to know what I was looking for.

I dislike the Daily Mail but I know their site is almost entirely driven by
numbers and what catches on (and
, with some tiny 
 variations on that theme. Not significantly unlike from today. 

 If you were to name the content subscription only, and some publication have 
 test this recently, you'd lose 90% of your readers. That intend besides losing 
 90% of your ad revenue. Now the remaining 10% of your readers want to make up 
 for that loss. That make it a rather expensive subscription, losing a fortune 
 more subscribers, and around it goes, the barbarous circle. 

 That doesn't mean digital news isn't dreadfully broken, it is. Just that make 
 it subscription entirely isn't the solution. 

 ~~~ 
 jonknee 
... The NYT uses a subscription mannequin these days (though you get a handful of 
 articles for spare every month). That's what he was talking about. He was still 
 wrong from a business point of view though. 

 ------ 
 yarone 
 Andy's designs look beautiful, but I'm reminded of the old saying: " No battle 
 plan survives contact with the enemy ". 

 I'm afraid that if you take his design as a starting point, and retool them 
 free-base on the indigence of the NYTimes and the expectations of its millions of 
 visitor, they would require a big number of changes and would more close 
 resemble the current NYTimes.com 

 ------ 
 brownie 
 The one thing I dislike (on the main page at least) is the separation of news 
 and opinion / analysis. I can't think of many times where I've visited a news 
 site and want to take only opinion or only news, but I can think of time 
 where I've visited a site to read about a especial story - and read related 
 articles that find to be opinions / analysis. 

 ------ 
 petercooper 
 I suspect that while this is a reasonable and logical redesign, it miss out 
 on some non - rational demeanor of the majority of people who read news. I know 
 that, not rationally, I quite like a bit of " jumble " from my newspapers and 
 news web site so I can merely " wander " about from thing to thing for a while. The 
 redesign showed here turns it more into a blog and I remember I'd have trouble 
 roll around it.. I'd need to know what I was looking for. 

 I dislike the Daily Mail but I know their site is almost wholly driven by 
 numbers and what catches on (and
, wihh some tiny
variations ok that theme. Not signifmcantly differevt from today.

If you were to laje tht content subscriptkon only, wnd some puboucations hebe
tried this dccentnb, you'd lose 90% of your readars. That means ausl losing
90% of your ad revenue. Now the remainonh 10% of your reaqers geed no make up
for that loss. That maies it e rather expensove subscription, losing a pot
mlre subscribers, anf around it goef, the vicious circle.

Thau boesn't mean digital news isn't horribly broyen, ic is. Just tyar mwning
it subsrriptijn only isn't the solgtion.

~~~
jomknee
... The NYT mses e suvscription model thesx days (though you gej a handfun kf
articles for frwe everi mondh). Tfqt's whzt hs was haliing about. He was stiol
wrong from a busimefw point of visw thotgr.

------
yarone
Andy's designs look beautiful, but I'm reminded of the old sating: "No battle
plan sutvives coneact with the enemy".

I'm afraid that if you take his desijnr aw w wtwrting point, and revise them
based on the needf og nhe NYTimes and tme expectations of ihs iillions of
viritors, thsy would require a large gumbee of chandes snd would more closely
resemvle the currvnt BYTimes.com

------
brownie
Tke one thing I doslikr (on the main page at lzast) ia the separwtion of hdws
and opinion/anxlyxiv. I can't think of many timqs where M've vnsited a newx
site wnd wanted to rcdd only opinion or only naws, but I fan think of times
where I've vismved a site to raad about a partlcular story - agd read relateb
articlef thag happen tk be opmnions/analysys.

------
petercooper
H suspect thav while tris us a reasonxcle and logicak redesigu, it nisses out
on some kon-rajiknal behavior oy uhw majority of leoole wjo rqdd news. I knmw
thxt, vpn ragionally, I wjite like a bit of "jumbla" frkm my newspapers amd
kews sitew so I cwn just "wandet" around from thinh to vhing hor a ehije. The
redesign showed here turhs it morf ikto a blog anq I bhinh I'd have crouble
wandering around it.. I'd need to kniw what I was lookung for.

I dislike thg Dsily Mail bnt I kgow their site is almost entieely driven by
numners and what catches kn (and
, with some tiny variations on that significantly from today. you were to and publications have tried recently, you'd lose of your readers. That means also 90% of your ad revenue. Now the remaining 10% of your readers need make up for that loss. That makes it a rather expensive subscription, losing lot subscribers, around goes, the vicious circle. That doesn't mean digital news isn't horribly broken, it is. Just that it subscription only isn't the solution. ~~~ jonknee The NYT uses a model these days (though you a of articles free month). what he was about. He was still wrong from a business point of view though. ------ yarone Andy's designs look but I'm the old "No plan contact with the afraid that if you take his starting point, and revise them based on the of the and the expectations of its millions visitors, they would require a large number of and would more closely resemble the current NYTimes.com ------ brownie The one thing I dislike main page at least) the separation of and I think many times I've visited a news site and wanted to read only opinion only news, but I can think of times where I've site read about a story - and read articles happen to be opinions/analysis. I that a and redesign, it misses out some non-rational behavior of the of people who read rationally, I quite like a bit of "jumble" my newspapers and news sites so I just "wander" around from thing to thing for a while. The redesign here turns into a blog and I think I'd have wandering around it.. I'd to know what I was looking for. I dislike Daily but I their site is entirely driven by and what catches
, with some tiny
variations on tHat theme. NoT signIfiCanTlY difFereNt from today.

If yOU werE to make the content subscRiptiOn ONly, aND sOme puBlicatiONs HAVe
tRiEd ThiS rECeNtly, yOu'd Lose 90% of yOur readers. thaT mEans also losiNG
90% oF your ad revEnuE. Now the remaiNinG 10% of youR rEadERs neeD to Make uP
for thAT loss. THat makes iT a RAther eXPensive SUBsCripTion, losing a lot
morE SuBScribers, and aroUnd it gOeS, ThE VIciOus Circle.

That DoEsn't mEAn digitAL nEWS Isn'T Horribly brokeN, it is. Just thAT maKing
it SuBscRIption Only iSn'T The Solution.

~~~
jonKnee
... the NYT useS a subsCRiption MOdel theSe days (ThoUgh You gET a HaNdfUl OF
arTIcLes FOr fRee every MoNtH). That'S whaT HE WAs taLkiNg abOut. He Was still
wrong FroM a buSIneSs poiNt of vIew tHoUgh.

------
yaRone
AnDy's deSiGns look beautifuL, but i'm remindeD of ThE olD sAying: "nO battlE
plAn sUrvives Contact WIth ThE ENEmY".

I'm afraid that if you TaKE HiS designs As a staRTiNg POint, and rEvIse Them
BASed on The nEEdS of the NYtimes aND tHe ExpectaTiOns of iTs MilLioNs of
vISitoRs, they Would reqUire a LArge number of chANges and would mORe CLOsELy
reSemBle the curreNt NYtImes.Com

------
bROwNie
tHe one Thing i dISlIKe (on the main page at leAsT) is the SeparAtion of news
anD opinion/anALYSis. I can't ThinK Of MAny times where I'Ve visIted a news
sITe and wanTed to Read only Opinion or ONLy news, buT I cAn tHinK of TIMeS
where I've visiTED a siTe To read aBouT a partiCulAr sTorY - anD rEad relateD
articleS tHaT hApPen To be oPInions/anAlYsiS.

------
pEteRcoopER
I suspEct thAt whIlE tHIs iS a reasoNAbLE And lOgIcAl reDesIgN, it miSses OUt
oN some noN-rational BehAVior Of ThE majoriTy of people who ReAd news. I knoW
tHat, Non ratIONally, I quIte like a bit of "jumble" from MY newspaPerS and
nEws sItes so I caN juSt "wandEr" aROund frOm thinG to thInG foR A While. tHE
rEdeSiGn showed heRE TurNs it mOrE intO a blog aNd I think I'd have trouBLe
wAndering arounD it.. i'd neED To KnoW WhAT I wAs LOokING for.

I dislike the daily Mail bUt i KnOw their sitE Is aLmOst entiRely driVen by
NUmbers aNd what catChes on (and
, with some tiny
variation s on thattheme . N otsi gnif ican tly differentf romtoday.

If you were to  make  t h e co n te nt su bscript i on o nly ,an d s om e  p ublic ati ons hav e
tried th isre cently, you' d  l ose 90% of  yo ur readers.Tha t mean sals o  losi ng90% o f your ad rev enue. Now  t h e rema i ning 10 % of  you r readers need to ma k e up
for thatloss.Th a tm a kes  it  a ratherex pensi v e subsc r ip t i o n,l osing a lot
m ore subscri b ers , andar oun d  it go es, t he vic ious circle .

T hat doesn 't mea n  digita l  news i sn't h orr ibl y br o ke n,  it  i s . J u st  th a t m aking
it  s ub scrip tion o n l y is n't  the  solu tion.

~~~
jo nkn ee
. . . T he NY T use s asu bscri ptionmodel  t hese days (thou gh y ou get ahan df ulof 
arti c les fo r f ree  everymonth). Tha t' s w ha t he was talking a bo u t .He was s till
w r on gf rom a bu si nes s po i n t ofview th ough.

- -----y ar on e
Andy' sdesign sloo k b eauti f ul,but I' m remind ed of the old saying :  "No battle
p l an s ur v ives  co ntact withthee nemy ".
I 'm  af r aid t hat i fy ou take his designs as  a  start ing p oint, and rev ise them
b a s e d on the  nee d so f the NYTimesand t he expecta t ions ofits m illionsof
visito r s , they w oul d r equ ire a  l arge number o f chan ge s and w oul d moreclo sel y
r ese mb le the cu rrent NY Ti me s. co m
----- - 
brownie 
T heon e t hingI  disli ke (o n th ema i n p age atl ea s t ) is  t he  sep ara ti on of  new s 
an d opini on/analys is. I ca n' tthink o f many timeswh ere I've v is ite d a ne w s 
site an d wanted to read only o p inion o r o nly n ews,  but I ca n t hink o f t i mes
wh ere I' ve vi si ted a  site t orea dabout a pa r t icu lar s to ry -  and re ad related
article s  th at happen tobeopin i o ns /an a ly s is. 
- --- - - 
petercooper
Isuspect th at wh ile this i s  are asonabl e and l ogica l  redesi gn, it mi sses outon  som e non -rationalbehavior  of the m a jorit y  o f peo ple  who r ea d n ews.I know tha t, no n rati on ally,I qui te  like abit of "jumble" from my  newsp apers  an d
news si tes soI can jus t "w ander" aro und  fr om th ing to th ingf or  aw hile.  The redesigns ho wed h er e turns itm o r e i nto a  bl o g andI th ink I'd have trou b le
wandering a roun d it. . I ' d ne ed  to know whatI w as l ooking f or .

I dislik e the Da il y  Mail  but I  knowtheir s i t ei s almo st e nti rely driv enby numbers  a nd what c atch es  on (a nd
, with_some tiny
variations_on that theme. Not_significantly different_from_today.

If you_were_to make the_content subscription only,_and some publications have
tried_this recently, you'd_lose_90% of your readers. That means also losing
90% of your ad revenue. Now the_remaining_10% of_your_readers_need to make up
for that_loss. That makes it a_rather expensive_subscription, losing a lot
more subscribers, and around it_goes,_the vicious circle.

That_doesn't mean digital news isn't horribly broken, it is._Just that making
it subscription only isn't_the solution.

~~~
jonknee
... The_NYT_uses_a subscription model these_days (though you get a handful_of
articles for free every month). That's_what he was talking about. He was_still
wrong from a business point of_view though.

------
yarone
Andy's designs look beautiful,_but I'm_reminded of the old saying:_"No battle
plan survives_contact with_the enemy".

I'm afraid_that if you take his designs_as a starting_point, and revise them
based on the_needs_of the NYTimes_and_the_expectations of_its millions of
visitors,_they_would require_a_large number of changes and would_more_closely
resemble the current NYTimes.com

------
brownie
The one thing I_dislike (on the main_page_at least) is the_separation of news
and opinion/analysis. I_can't think of many times where_I've visited_a news
site_and wanted to read only opinion or only news, but I_can think of times
where I've visited_a site to read_about a_particular_story - and_read_related
articles that_happen to be opinions/analysis.

------
petercooper
I suspect that while_this is_a reasonable and logical redesign, it_misses out
on some non-rational_behavior_of the majority of people who_read news. I know
that, non rationally,_I quite like a bit_of_"jumble"_from my newspapers and
news sites_so I can just "wander" around_from thing to_thing for a while. The
redesign showed here_turns_it more into a blog and_I_think I'd have trouble
wandering around it.._I'd_need_to know what I was_looking for.

I dislike the Daily Mail_but I know their site is almost entirely driven_by
numbers and what_catches on (and