Suspected PayPal Hackers Seek Deal To Stay Out Of Prison
2 Men Arrested After Teen Was Run Over For His iPad
Would you pay to read the New York Times online?
There were rumors floating around earlier this week that the paper was close to making this move.
Few papers have successfully managed to pull of a paywall. The Wall Street Journal charges for access, but that paper reaches a niche audience with the kind of business reporting that's hard to find anywhere else. The New York Times may be "the paper of record" in the United States, but it's not exactly the only place to go to find out what's happening in the world, the US, or even New York City. It should be interesting to see whether the paper can convince enough people to pay for content to turn a profit this way.
That said, there's good news for casual, occasional New York Times readers. The paper is taking a metered approach. You'll be able to read a set number of articles each month without paying a cent. Once you go past your monthly allotment of free articles, you'll have to pony up some cash to keep reading.
It's not yet clear how many free articles you'll be allowed to read, but I like the idea of a freemium model. It gives readers a chance to see what they're missing and decide whether it's worth paying for full access.
What do you think? Would you be willing to pay to read the New York times? Or would you just look elsewhere for your news? You know, if every other news source on the face of the earth hasn't decided to start charging for content by 2011. With the Times leading, there's a decent chance that others will follow.
[via TechCrunch]
Comments
27
Subscribe to commentsGardiner WestboundJan 20th 2010 11:59AM
No.
jsmorleyJan 20th 2010 12:23PM
No chance. The NYT has an inflated opinion of its rapidly declining importance in the era of "new media" and is in for a disappointing ride.
ZackJan 20th 2010 12:22PM
Nope!
r3loadedJan 20th 2010 12:49PM
How exactly do they plan to enforce the "free articles per month" quota? Cookies? I'll facepalm if they do.
As for the question - nope. I primarily read BBC/CNN/Times Online/Guardian and am also an Economist subscriber.
JoshJan 20th 2010 1:54PM
Probably by a combination of Cookies and IP addresses. Or by making the site require registration and do it through an account.
ArchionJan 20th 2010 12:49PM
Nope.
SeanJan 20th 2010 7:22PM
No.
smokingplatypusJan 20th 2010 12:56PM
Nope, not a chance.
dOgBOiJan 20th 2010 1:17PM
If every news source was behind a paywall, I'd probably pay for the Times. But given that I can get the same news from other sources, I won't pay for it. I'll miss some of the Op-ed stuff, but I can live without it. The only reason the Wall Street Journal is making money on the paywall model is that it is often a business expense paid for by one's company. That's not so for the Times, so they have just removed themselves from the online conversation, and that is a huge mistake.
I won't link to them. Too much chance that my friends have already met their limit and thus won't be able to read the link. I doubt many people will link to them at all for the same reason. They'll become a dead spot on the internet. It's a shame, but it's just the way it is.
If they want my money, they are going to have to offer me something no else does, and do it at a reasonable price. Until that happens, there is no reason for me to pay.
Oh, and this part free, part business model speaks to me of an easy way to pirate the articles. Guaranteed, if you put anything useful behind the paywall, it will be pirated. That's just the way digital content works.
The NY Times just demonstrated its lack of relevance and its lack of understanding of the internet market.
calintel2Jan 20th 2010 1:43PM
I like the NYT but...NO way!
(there are too many alternative, good sources of news....).
Kevin108Jan 20th 2010 2:07PM
I didn't read them when they were free. I certainly won't read them now that they're not.
MedlirJan 20th 2010 2:17PM
No.
NYT also recently changed how their iPhone/Touch app for their crosswords works too. Previously you paid $9.99 for the entire year, and it gave you access to all the archives, but when 2010 hit, they changed it to $1.99 a month/$9.99 for 6 months/$16.99 a year subscription plans, and everyone who upgraded and had paid already got the shaft and lost access to all their previously downloaded puzzles, ones they'd already paid for. Same service, almost double the cost, hooray!
michas_piJan 20th 2010 2:39PM
You couldn't pay me to read the New York Times.
vailaboboJan 20th 2010 2:54PM
No...You only need The Economist , everything else is cheese....
SiggyJan 20th 2010 3:29PM
Hell no. And you know why revenues are declining? No one gives a crap about newspapers anymore. Everything is owned by 5 conglomerates, there's less competition, they already fired their investigative reporters, they have no backbones, etc. The New York Times company themselves lobbied the FCC to allow more corporate ownership of a greater number of media entities in the same area. Then they failed to report on their own company doing so. Check out "New Media Monopoly" to see what I mean.
campbellJan 20th 2010 3:32PM
No.
The Economist and Financial Times are doing this in UK but they will lose out.
SimonJan 20th 2010 4:21PM
I don't even read New York Times when it's free.
chgoguy7Jan 20th 2010 4:42PM
Nope. And you write "With the Times leading, there's a decent chance that others will follow," but that is assuming that the NYT experiment actually works or fails miserably. IMO, with all the free content online today, I can't imagine it working out.
Robert BelewJan 20th 2010 6:30PM
don't read it now so why would I pay...
EdJan 20th 2010 6:30PM
Yes, if the price is reasonable, say, around $50/year. Good reporting costs a lot of money and if we're not willing to pay for it, the quality of information we receive will decline. Much of the blogosphere depends on professional reporting for news, information, articles to link to and respond to, etc.
I think the freemium model might work. I could see something like a quota of 30 articles per month for registered users (1 a day) after which you have to pay a relatively modest fee ($50/year or $5/month) to get unlimited access.
I think the whole everything should be free culture that we have is short sided. I'm amazed that people complain that iPhone apps are expensive if they are anything more than a couple dollars. At some point, sustaining innovation requires that some people charge for their services.