Would you pay to read the New York Times online?
For well over a century, readers were willing to pay to have newspapers delivered to their homes. A lot of people still do, but not enough to keep the newspaper industry afloat in the face of declining ad revenue. And few traditional newspapers (the kind with huge staffs of reporters, editors, fact checkers, and so on), have figured out how to make enough money from online advertising to turn a profit as a growing number of readers turn online for news. Today the New York Times announced that it will begin charging for access to online articles in 2011.
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]
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 commentsmahJan 21st 2010 7:45AM
sustaining innovation? it's obvious you're not talking about the NYT.
bryantJan 20th 2010 7:01PM
NO I WOULD NOT. And I think this will just be the beginning because once nytimes sets their prices, others will do the same and offer price and no longer free news online. I think every major news company is going to follow the trend, goodbye free news! Hello newspapers all over again. And this goes for free episodes online too! like hulu....may no longer display free full episodes from your favorite shows, others will follow I bet.
youngorthoJan 20th 2010 9:04PM
Hell to the no.
JW99Jan 21st 2010 12:03AM
The NY Times is doing to itself what the "vast right-wing conspiracy" could never do -- reducing online readership and circulation to a small fraction of current levels. It has cost the Times' enemies nothing to silence their cadre of leftist loonies, from Paul Krugman to Frank Rich and Maureen Dowd.
NeoprimalJan 21st 2010 12:06AM
No
m0m0Jan 21st 2010 7:45AM
you'd have to pay me for me to read it.
JamesJan 21st 2010 9:55AM
I LOL'd at all the "you'd have to pay me" comments, but the simple fact is that if I have a choice of a website I can just go and read, or a website I have to go make an account to use, you can bet the rent money that I'm going to go to the more-open site, never mind if payment is involved. Until my computer comes with a coin slot to magically send money to whatever site I'm looking at, this paywalling nonsense is doomed to failure.