This was posted 7 years 11 months 27 days ago, and might be an out-dated deal.

Related
  • expired

New York Times Digital Sale - 60% off a 12 Month Subscription

50
New York Times Digital Sale - 60% off a 12 Month Subscription
Go to Deal
fred09 on 25/11/2016 - 10:29 nytimes.com (107 clicks)

Was on the NYT site recently when I stumbled on this digital sale: 60% off yearly digital subscriptions.

The basic package gets you full access to the site / app for $1.60 AUD a week, or $6.40 a month. Down from $4/ week.
There is also an all access package for $2.70 a week (extra podcasts, behind the scenes content, etc)
And finally there's an all access plus package for $3.80 a week with two bonus subscriptions you can give to whoever (could make a good cheap Xmas gift)
Cancel at any time, and changes to regular pricing after 12 months.

I've been on the hunt for a new paper for a while now, so I've decided to give the basic package a try. App experience so far is pretty good, content is compelling (if not a little US-centric obviously), as are the morning brief emails and recipe pages.

Other Newspaper

Related Stores

The New York Times
The New York Times

closed Comments

  • goodbuy on 25/11/2016 - 10:37
    +2

    Content is written by Carlos Slim's personal network of bloggers

  • Zerosignal on 25/11/2016 - 10:47
    +3

    The Failing New York Times I believe

    • IVI on 25/11/2016 - 11:22
      -2

      So, pay even Less for 3x Access Plus subs (buy 1 for <$4. Get 2 more free)

      PS to Mod"s can NYT still pass the 500 reviews test?

      Someone's mooted they may be failing…

      Could be Risk to OZBers

  • Grok on 25/11/2016 - 10:53
    +3

    The NYT spent the last two years trying to get Hillary elected with the most biased, one sided, eronious, deceptive reporting I have ever seen, aside from the Huffington Post.

    It deserves to die.

    • [Deactivated] on 25/11/2016 - 11:00

      Bullshirt.

    • IVI on 25/11/2016 - 11:26
      -4

      Now that Trump's won, do you think folks in, eg, Bangladesh, etc. Deserve to die
      ie, from Climate Change (& consequent Melting of Ice at Poles)?

      I don't.

      Not saying Clinton would have done All, but I think she'd have done More to pushback CC.

      • Grok on 25/11/2016 - 11:50
        +3

        My point was about bias not Trump.

        The role of a news organisation is to fairly report the news, unless the NYT is going to officially say it is a "progressive" and left leaning site like we all know the Huntington Post is, it should try to be fair.

        It wasn't and it wasn't the only one and Hillary still lost, the electorate is finally on to them.

        • jackspratt on 25/11/2016 - 16:25

          ………… the electorate is finally on to them.

          Is that the 2M+ more voters for Clinton than Trump?

        • [Deactivated] on 25/11/2016 - 17:57

          @jackspratt:

          She also got more votes than O'Bama in the 2008 democratic primaries…who was complaining then?

        • Grok on 27/11/2016 - 00:41

          @jackspratt:
          Those votes were in New York and California, So Yeah, if the USA was New York and California Hillary would have won.

          Too bad there are 48 other states. All of them poorer.

        • jackspratt on 27/11/2016 - 14:32

          @SamR:

          ………. there are 48 other states. All of them poorer.

          They certainly are now.

  • swalloweda on 25/11/2016 - 11:08
    +1

    Eronious and deceptive? So it correctly reported The Donald's campaign? Haha.

    Thanks OP, good spot! Quality Newspaper, think my OH may already subscribe, so will save us a few dollars!

  • 1bug on 25/11/2016 - 14:19
    +2

    An Obituary for The New York Times (via ‏@wikileaks)
    https://twitter.com/wikileaks/status/801524675134320640

Login or Join to leave a comment
Login Join