New York Times to ask online readers to pay up
Filed under: Company News, Technology, Media
That The New York Times asks readers to sign in to access most of its online content has long been a point of contention in the wild open source range that is the internet. Not only should access to content be free, readers insist, but it should also be universal and require no privacy-violating account. In the advent of Twitter and Facebook, where everyone seems eager to connect one's identity with the restaurants of which we are "fans," the links we read, even the friends' status updates and links we "like," this seems to have faded.These old privacy concerns will, I expect, resurface as news that The New York Times is considering charging a monthly access fee to its web site, nytimes.com; in a survey, the company asked print subscribers if they would pay $2.50 or $5.00 per month to read the paper's content. The consideration is not merely academic; a spokesperson confirmed the statement, "The New York Times website, nytimes.com, is considering charging a monthly fee of $5.00 to access its content, including all its articles, blogs and multimedia," was in fact a possibility. In the face of huge advertising revenue declines -- 27 percent in the first quarter 2009, and analysts expect a similar fall to be reported in the second quarter -- it's unsurprising that the newspaper might look elsewhere for revenue.
Yes, some would pay. But far more would consider the protection of the content a drawing of lines in the sand; protectionism and snobbery and a capital "E" on the long-held "Elitist" criticism. Gawker found the potentiality "inevitable" and "necessary" and most of its readers agreed; on Twitter, first responders were mixed about 1/2 and 1/2; on one side, "that's starting to not sound totally crazy"; on the other side, "umm, no."
While upper-income readers who don't currently subscribe to the New York Times' print edition will certainly see the $5 fee a small price to pay, many others will forego reading the Times entirely and online discussions will change from a link to articles and discussion there to a summary of articles, with discussion dispersed. Here in Portland, where we frequently discuss the latest reference to Portlanders in the New York Times, I can predict exactly what will happen: the few subscribers will pull-quote the portions that reference Portland, or Portland-ish causes, and everything else will be ignored. Times writers with a wide following, like Nicholas Kristof, David Pogue, and Michael Pollan, will continue to be followed on Twitter and Facebook but will have to pull the most important essays outside of the subscription wall to generate the wide, cross-generational impact they desire.
It will, suddenly, alter the New York Times from the paper of record and the common generator of most-discussed writing to the paper of an elite subset. Perhaps it will allow for the company's financial survival; but it will destroy a wide swath of its relevance. It's a bad idea, and I hope management sees that before it's too late.
D-Day for Harry Reid: Can he wrangle 60 votes for Senate health bill?
Fed stalls on Chinese bank deal, costs taxpayers $1.7 billion
Dell in a handbasket: Should founder Michael Dell resign?
Reader Comments (Page 1 of 2)
7-10-2009 @ 8:14PM
Carol said...
I seldom go to newspapers outside my area unless something is extra interesting. NY is neither the beginning of the world nor the end. If they want to charge a fee for access, that's fine. I simply will never access them again. I lived for 60+ years without that paper. Betcha I can struggle along with the years I have left, thank you all the same.
Reply
7-10-2009 @ 8:20PM
chris said...
Good luck to the NY Times. Guess I will look for news elsewhere. It would seem to me that looking at Google's business model might be instructive to newspapers who think they will get enough people to pay online to make it worth their while.
Reply
7-10-2009 @ 8:37PM
Bill said...
Sounds like a capitalistic idea by a socialist rag.
Reply
7-10-2009 @ 9:16PM
LadyCoco said...
I subscribed to the NY Times crossword puzzles for years. First it was free. Then it cost $9.95/year. When it went to 39.99/year, I quit. I can work free crossword puzzles elsewhere. I prefer the Times' puzzles, but just can't afford it any more.
Reply
7-10-2009 @ 9:20PM
Joe said...
If I want to read propaganda, I will turn to Joseph Goebbells...at least his is free...as far as paying for the liberal biased propaganda coming from the NY times, thanks but no thanks....tell the last one out to shut the light
Reply
7-10-2009 @ 9:23PM
Glenn said...
PAY FOR THEIR BIASED " BS "........NOT IN THIS LIFETIME......NO WAY IN HELL.......
Reply
7-10-2009 @ 9:30PM
JD said...
Pretty soon, NYT and the Boston Globe will be bankrupt, thanks to declining ad revenues and years of mismanagement. This is a last-ditch effort to survive, similar to Tribune getting Sam Zell to buy them. Tribune is bankrupt and the NYT will follow shortly.
Reply
7-10-2009 @ 9:38PM
Evan said...
We had a NYT paper in the outhouse back on the farm. After we found out it adversely contaminated the feces we never had call to have one around again.
Reply
7-10-2009 @ 9:53PM
Chritine Barkley said...
The New York Times is barely just "funtionally defunct" at best. Nobody buys the news anymore, and very few buy advertisements in that manner either. The idea is an EFFECTIVE ad campaign.
I used to search stories for research when finishing my MBA, and I found a lot of material related to my field in the NYT. However, I would never have then, nor would I ever consider buying thier crappy product online. They should just be glad that people look at their advertising (if they even do) while looking at their online addition.
What a stupid idea for such a long-running publication to go bankrupt on purpose, thereby having the need to ask Uncle Obama for stimulus bailout cash.
Reply
7-10-2009 @ 9:53PM
Larry said...
No problem, I just will not read it, there are plenty more places to get the news. So tell you advertiser that. It should make them happy.
Reply
7-10-2009 @ 9:54PM
sam said...
The reality of the situation is, newspapers will begin to charge a monthly fee for all inclusive access to their on-line news. After which, you'll pay according to which segments of the paper you would like to read.
Thus no free ride. They want to close paper print operations, print, distribution, collections, etc., all costly. So once you stop reading paper print, they win, as on-line news only requires one copy to distribute worldwide.
Reply
7-10-2009 @ 10:02PM
Sam said...
Oh well,
The new reality of the news industry is, they want to close print operations. Why? The cost of materials, labor, distribution, sales, collections etc.
Once closed, each and every newspaper will charge per segment of the paper you would like to access on-line Think you'll be able to find it in forums or news groups, or anywhere else, nope, just like the recording industry, any site that projects the news without paying will be charged, brought to court, fined, and closed.
People think the newspaper industry is losing, when in fact, they are just beginning to reap hugh sums of money from on-line news. One copy, distributed worldwide in numerous languages, cheap, profitable, and they win.
Buy stock now while its cheap.
Reply
7-10-2009 @ 10:35PM
anonymous said...
Charging for access is a bad idea, NY Times!
Reply
7-10-2009 @ 10:37PM
krktoday said...
I remember when the "first" pay for view boxing came up on TV. I'm thinking "if these idiots refuse to pay they will continue to offer it for free and continue to sell advertising" but nope these idiots flocked in droves to pay to watch the boxing and that was the beginning of paying to see every sport event that amounts to anything. If we "pay" the NY times we will have to pay for something every time we turn around on the internet. I hope people aren't that dumb
Reply
7-10-2009 @ 10:41PM
TSteelman said...
We've been down this road before. The model looks good on paper but fails in practice. It will only drive people to the major media sites like MSNBC, FOX, CNN and even online broadcast news like ABC,CBS, or NBC. All of which will still allow access for free. Broadcast sites have multiple sources of revenue and multiple products other than just daily news. I wouldn't buy print media stocks. More likely stocks in broadcast media.
Reply
7-10-2009 @ 10:44PM
Oliveme said...
Actually, when the Times first went online they charged for crossword puzzles, most editorial content, and access to back issues. I also believe that there was a two tiered payment structure for awhile. My guess is that the Times has figured it that it has already winnowed away people who do not consider the Times a "necessity." I also wonder what it mean in terms of web sites that offer content directly from the Times as well as those sites which offer summaries of articles with links to Times content.
Reply
7-10-2009 @ 10:45PM
Tarado said...
I would have thought that with all the CRAP and GARBAGE this outfit puts out and given the number of occasions that they've been caught publishing LIES or ERRONEOUS reports that it would have been the other way around...that The New York Times would be PAYING viewers not asking viewers to pay for that junk. It's no wonder this outfit is on the verge of BANKRUPTCY.
Reply
7-10-2009 @ 10:53PM
Susan S said...
They would have to Pay ME....what a crappy ,biased and not to be trusted rag.
Reply
7-10-2009 @ 11:07PM
Arthur said...
It's just a liberal tool for the democratic (SOCIALIST) party and will not be missed. But, I'm afraid that Sam is probably correct in the online news theory. I might just buy some stock in it.
Reply
7-10-2009 @ 11:00PM
Paula said...
Regardless of what paper it is, of course they should charge. They've had to charge for print since they started, or else they'd be out of business. It never made any sense to take something you're trying to profit from, and give it away for free. They should have charged for viewing from the very beginning. Now that people have had it for free for a while, they'll be peeved that they can't have it free anymore. But think about it. Why should you be getting it for free? Someone had to be paid to write the article, someone has to be paid to run the website, someone has to be paid to market the product. It was a mistake from the start to put it online for free. That goes for any and all publications posting their content free of charge for consumers.
Reply