MattFancy Posted January 20, 2010 Share Posted January 20, 2010 http://www.nytimes.com/2010/01/21/business/media/21times.html?hp The New York Times announced Wednesday that it intended to charge frequent readers for access to its Web site, a step being debated across the industry that nearly every major newspaper has so far feared to take. Starting in early 2011, visitors to NYTimes.com will get a certain number of articles free every month before being asked to pay a flat fee for unlimited access. Subscribers to the newspaper’s print edition will receive full access to the site. But executives of The New York Times Company said they could not yet answer fundamental questions about the plan, like how much it would cost or what the limit would be on free reading. They stressed that the amount of free access could change with time, in response to economic conditions and reader demand. “This announcement allows us to begin the thought process that’s going to answer so many of the questions that we all care about,” Arthur Sulzberger Jr., the company chairman and publisher of the newspaper, said in an interview. “We can’t get this halfway right or three-quarters of the way right. We have to get this really, really right.” This will be interesting to see how it plays out. If it goes well, more newspapers will certainly follow suit. I guess its their last chance to get people to buy newspapers and not read everything online. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
RedskinsTime Posted January 20, 2010 Share Posted January 20, 2010 The Times suck anyway. I didn't read it when it was free. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
RedlightG20 Posted January 20, 2010 Share Posted January 20, 2010 In other words, newspapers are failing. Now that's some news! Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Burgold Posted January 20, 2010 Share Posted January 20, 2010 I hope it works. I think that this is what the newspapers should have done at the beginning. It's probably too late now. Even if most other significant papers follow suit. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
MattFancy Posted January 20, 2010 Author Share Posted January 20, 2010 I hope it works. I think that this is what the newspapers should have done at the beginning. It's probably too late now. Even if most other significant papers follow suit. I agree. I kinda think this is a last ditch effort. Its going to be hard to charge people now for stuff they have been getting for free. If it works, more power to them. I think its going to be tough to persuade people to pay to read news online. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
SkinsHokieFan Posted January 20, 2010 Share Posted January 20, 2010 If its a nominal fee, like 5 dollars a month, I think it'll work There are several websites, in particular sports related ones, that I used to get for free, but was willing to pay 5 dollars a month for GOOD premium content. It can work, if the content is GOOD. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Henry Posted January 20, 2010 Share Posted January 20, 2010 No thanks. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Kosher Ham Posted January 20, 2010 Share Posted January 20, 2010 They should have gone the route of a cheap monthly fee years ago. I don't need to read a paper anymore. Everything in the news is at my fingertips. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Corcaigh Posted January 20, 2010 Share Posted January 20, 2010 I wouldn't pay for news, but I'm happy to pay for good content and articles. But that really turns them into journals/magazines rather than newspapers. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Thiebear Posted January 20, 2010 Share Posted January 20, 2010 Fark.com: I'd pay for. NYtimes: not so much. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
ixcuincle Posted January 20, 2010 Share Posted January 20, 2010 The ****? Not again. I thought they got rid of this ****. They used to do that at first, remember? And then they made it free for all. I frequently read the NY Times Food section and have the RSS feeds on Google so this might impact me. The NY Times will not see a cent from me Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
TD_washingtonredskins Posted January 20, 2010 Share Posted January 20, 2010 I think that all newspapers should do something like that. Why not? I would limit access to people who have a subscription. Those people can choose to have just online or both online and paper. Really, it's odd that all newspapers offer their content up for free when it used to require people to pay for it (even if it is as low as $0.25 per issue). Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
McD5 Posted January 20, 2010 Share Posted January 20, 2010 NYT to go out of business. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
jpillian Posted January 20, 2010 Share Posted January 20, 2010 I think newspapers need to figure out micropayments and go that route. Pay by the article. Keeping reporters and staff on hand costs money. Most of the demand for content is probably from the internet at this point (and if not, it will be). They need to figure out a way to monetize that, or make like the dinosaurs, rollover, and die. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Corcaigh Posted January 20, 2010 Share Posted January 20, 2010 I think newspapers need to figure out micropayments and go that route. Pay by the article. Keeping reporters and staff on hand costs money. Most of the demand for content is probably from the internet at this point (and if not, it will be). They need to figure out a way to monetize that, or make like the dinosaurs, rollover, and die. There needs to be a model for sure, and hopefully a smooth one, perhaps via something like Paypal or Amazon. It's frustrating to be given a link to a website such as WSJ Online and then realize that registration or some longer commitment is required. I buy HBR articles all the time and wouldn't think about paying a dollar or two (or more) if I thought the article was worth a few minutes of my time. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
TD_washingtonredskins Posted January 20, 2010 Share Posted January 20, 2010 There needs to be a model for sure, and hopefully a smooth one, perhaps via something like Paypal or Amazon. It's frustrating to be given a link to a website such as WSJ Online and then realize that registration or some longer commitment is required.I buy HBR articles all the time and wouldn't think about paying a dollar or two (or more) if I thought the article was worth a few minutes of my time. Yeah, there needs to be some process where the site can just debit from your account whatever the cost is per article as you access it. Good idea. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Archived
This topic is now archived and is closed to further replies.