NYT's Digital Firewall Goes Up March 28: Who Will Pay to Read the Times Online?
On Friday the New York Times broke its near-silence on its new digital subscription plan with a front-page story by media reporter Jeremy Peters. As of Monday, March 28, visitors to nytimes.com can read 20 stories a month for free. After that, readers get several pay options, one being a $15-a-month fee for full web access. Print subscribers are unaffected.
Peters encapsulated the concerns:
No American news organization as large as The Times has tried to put its content behind a pay wall after allowing unrestricted access. The move is being closely watched by anxious publishers, which have warily embraced the Web and struggled with how to turn online journalism into a profitable business.
Canada is the Times’s guinea pig, which I’m sure pleases them:
The 20-article limit begins immediately for readers accessing NYTimes.com from Canada, which allows the company time to work out any software issues before the system begins in the United States and the rest of the world.
....
The Times’s announcement prompted more than 2,500 comments to its Web site.
A reader in Los Angeles wrote, “The price is too high. I just cannot afford it. I will go to BBC.com or cnn.com. Sorry, NYT, you picked the wealthy again.”
That comment prompted Lori K from Boston to respond, “The ‘wealthy?’ It’s two lunches at McDonalds. For a month of reporting. I’m happy to support the NYT for such a low price.”
Rick Edmonds at Poynter crunches some tentative circulation and ad numbers, but says to "check back in a year" to see if the paper's bets paid off.
- Clay Waters's blog
- Login to post comments
Comments
Who Will Pay to Read the Times Online?
Submitted by ripper58 on Fri, 03/18/2011 - 1:39pm.
Probably Don Imus and his ilk (except for Bernie)Not me. There are too many
Submitted by tampamom25 on Fri, 03/18/2011 - 1:42pm.
Not me. There are too many free sources of news to be spending money on the Times.I guess the people in charge think the NYT has too many readers
Submitted by Dave. on Fri, 03/18/2011 - 1:43pm.
-DaveVote for the American in November
Dave,
Submitted by Ashrak on Sat, 03/19/2011 - 8:18pm.
My local paper did this same thing, except they go so far as to charge subscribers of the print edition each month to view the online edition.
At the same time, they moved printing of the paper over an hour away from where it was done and print edition papers have been late ever since. I guess they thought they had too many viewers as well.
Fools. They. Are.
The Gray Lady is dying a slow
Submitted by d1carter on Fri, 03/18/2011 - 1:58pm.
The Gray Lady is dying a slow agonizing death...I won't pay to see it.Frank Rich didn't scurry down the hawser for no reason.
Submitted by SickofLibs on Fri, 03/18/2011 - 2:00pm.
$15 a month? - they gotta be kidding.
That's the same price as home delivery for an entire month of the Friday, Saturday and Sunday editions - 12 in all. Or about 60 pounds of newsprint.
The end draws near.
PS: apparently NYT subscribers are so dumb they need instructions on how to enter their own zip code:
"Enter Your ZIP Code (Example: 10018)"
It is written
Submitted by Tjexcite on Fri, 03/18/2011 - 2:11pm.
It is written by liberal elite, for the liberal elite and read by liberal elite. Now they will be able to say what they would never would say in public or in print. Tell the few that would pay what they already think of the world and there liberal elite view of it is. They do not need to write a view for the little people who do not live on the island as they do not matter in the world. The world ends at the Hudson river and East river. And then in less than a year when the links to and pay view goes to zero and no one talks about the NYT as no one can read it they will open the paywall.Who Will Pay to Read the
Submitted by Jack Bauer on Fri, 03/18/2011 - 9:59pm.
Who Will Pay to Read the Times Online?
People with more cents than sense.
All of the above Mr Obama? --- How about ALL OF THE BELOW, instead.
Fewer people will be exposed to their nonsense
Submitted by ChrisNH on Sat, 03/19/2011 - 7:16am.
Poor Paul Krugman. His rabid, screeching rants will be seen and read by fewer people. Maybe that will hasten his climb to the rooftop of a Manhattan skyscraper for a quick fall back to earth. Lib media hacks are rabid everywhere you look as they recognize that they force-fed us a failed ideology and a failed president. Fewer eyeballs exposed to the NYT is a GOOD thing.Grey Lady Down!
Submitted by OldJoe on Sat, 03/19/2011 - 8:48am.
LOL. Sooner the better.This action renders the Times ...
Submitted by NL207 on Sat, 03/19/2011 - 8:23pm.
completely worthless.
At least when it was printed on paper you could use it to line cat pan, bird cage, wrap fish with it or ignite your BBQ.
And, the dying
Submitted by UpNorth on Sun, 03/20/2011 - 12:16am.
lady crawls to the coffin, climbs in and begins to nail the nails into her own coffin. Go NYT, Go. We're all watching and hoping that you finish nailing the coffin shut, the sooner the better.