NY Times to Charge for Online Access

[David]

It didn't work previously. It won't work now.

SOURCE

[evan316]

Originally Posted by David

It didn't work previously. It won't work now.

SOURCE

It hasn't been that long ago that they last tried this. Same game and expecting different results, they are even less liked now. Oh well, their nickel.

[BRamey]

I didn't read that rag whenever it was free.

[evan316]

Originally Posted by BRamey

I didn't read that rag whenever it was free.

I don't either. I take note of what paper is publishing an article and if it is the NYT I don't even waste my time.

[David]

New York Times to charge for Web access in 2011
By ANDREW VANACORE, AP Business Writer
Wednesday, January 20, 2010
(01-20) 11:01 PST NEW YORK, (AP) --

The New York Times says it will charge readers for full access to its Web site starting in 2011, a risky move aimed at drawing more revenue online without driving away advertisers that want the biggest possible audience.

The potential pitfalls have made most other major newspapers hesitant to take a similar step. But after months of deliberation, the Times said Wednesday it will use a metered system, allowing free access to a certain number of articles and then charging users for additional content.

Shares in The New York Times Co. fell 4 percent in afternoon trading.

The Times did not disclose how many articles will be available for free or what it will charge to read more. Subscribers to the printed version of the Times would still have free access to the Web site.

It would not be the first time the newspaper has asked readers to pay for its online articles.

It charged for its Web site in 1996 but attracted only about 4,000 subscribers. Another experiment called Times Select, which required a $50 annual subscription to read Times columnists, drew 221,000 customers but was scrapped in 2007 because it dented ad sales. Advertisers generally pay more for higher Web traffic.

The goal of a metered system is to draw casual readers with free articles while getting fees from people who want to go deeper on the site.

The plan would not stop search engines from cataloging the newspaper's Web site, so its articles could still benefit from the traffic generated by search results.

The Times said it will use 2010 to build a new online infrastructure for charging readers on different platforms, not just personal computers. For instance, the newspaper can be read for free through an application on Apple's iPhone. But the Times did not specify its plans for mobile editions.

In a statement, New York Times Co. CEO Janet Robinson said the company is "guided by the fact that our news and information are being featured in an increasingly broad range of end-user devices and services, and our pricing plans and policies must reflect this vision."

The push for subscription revenue is happening because online advertising hasn't grown enough to offset declines in print ads. The recession brought on a painful slump in ad spending as publishers were already facing new competition on the Web.

Overall advertising revenue fell nearly 30 percent in the first nine months of 2009 for the Times Co.'s business unit that includes the Times, the International Herald Tribune and their Web sites. The company reports fourth-quarter results Feb. 10.

One of the Times' biggest rivals, The Wall Street Journal, already charges for access to its site. Rupert Murdoch, chairman of the Journal's owner, News Corp., has vowed to impose a similar system at the company's other titles, which include The Times of London and the New York Post.

The New York Times is contemplating a different approach than the Journal, however. On the Journal's Web site, some articles are free to anyone, and some require a subscription.

The Times' site would function more like the one run by The Financial Times. The London-based newspaper allows anyone to view one free article per month, and people who register on the site can get 10 free articles per month. Subscribers who pay $186 a year get access to most material on the site. A premium subscription for $299 comes with extra material. Or for $397 a year, FT subscribers can get the printed newspaper and read the Web site.

Rob Grimshaw, the managing director of FT.com, said the site has struck a successful balance between ad revenue and subscription fees. He said the newspaper has roughly 121,000 people who subscribe exclusively to its digital edition, up 22 percent from a year ago. By comparison, the print edition has about 400,000 subscribers.

And though he did not disclose specific figures on ad revenue, he said the newspaper makes up for the loss of advertising volume by charging each advertiser more. It can get this premium, he said, because FT.com knows more than other online destinations about its users and their interests.

http://sfgate.com/cgi-bin/article.cg...f062505S15.DTL

[FastEddy]

SFGate.com article above ... SFGate.com does NOT charge for access AND SFGate.com is the most profitable group the SF Chronicle has ... New York Slimes are just trying to cover their backsides for all their lost revenue ... Because most New Yorkers don't read it much anymore = its even the elitist limo-liberals fish wrap, bottom of the bird cage paper now.

[David]

A Five-Point Plan to Save the New York Times' Web Site
The New York Times announced yesterday that it would charge readers to use its Web site starting in 2011 by capping the number of articles we read for free. The idea is that the Times can keep a core group of monthly visitors, lose a bit of traffic and advertising revenue, and make it up with subscriptions to unlimited use of the Web site. This is a good start. But it can be improved. Here are five more ways to make you pay for the New York Times' Web site.

1) Keep the Top Homepage Story Free
The NYT has adopted the Financial Times strategy of running a "meter" on readers so that they have to get our their credit cards after reading X number of stories. But it could also take a page from the Wall Street Journal, which keeps main stories free and charges for deeper analysis. The Times could make its top story permanently free by excluding it from the "meter" to keep readers coming back to read the most important story right now in the world. In other words, you could do nothing but read the top story on NYT all day, every day, and never run into the paywall.

2) Keep the Blogs Free
Felix Salmon is right about this: Nobody will pay to read blogs. That's not to say they shouldn't. Truly, I consider some blogs out there more insightful useful for understanding politics and policy than newspaper articles. But somehow, paying for access to a running diary of thoughts just seems wrong at the moment. It would be like paying extra for bread at a nice restaurant. I love bread. Sometimes it's my favorite part of the meal. But if I saw "breadbasket" itemized on the dinner check, I think I might try to come at the sommelier with the complimentary pen.

3) "Run the Meter" for All Other Stories, Multimedia, and Op-Eds
Excluding the story at the top of the homepage and the Times' blogs, they could run the meter for all other clickable items on the Web site. So if the ceiling of free content were 30 articles a month, you would have to start paying after reading, say, 15 regular articles, 5 Thomas Friedman op-eds, 6 multimedia pieces and 4 editorials.

4) Add a Free "10 Stories of the Moment" Feature to the Homepage
This is the craziest idea I have. Here's how it would work. The homepage editor of the site should curate a list of the top ten "most important" stories on the site -- just like The Daily Beast's "Cheat Sheet" and Slate's "Slatest" -- except the Times' Top Ten list would be all NYT content. It would also be free. Each story entry would -- similar to Cheat Sheet and Slatest -- be one paragraph stitched together from the lede, the most important paragraph and most important quote from the original NYT story.

Why parasite your own work and give it away for free in bite-size? At least three reasons: (1) It keeps people coming back to the site as a free source of important stories and breaking news so that the Times retains both traffic and ad dollars; (2) Nobody reads entire NYT articles anyway; (3) Aggregators are stealing the Times' content already, so why not beat them at their own game and create a free digest of your best stuff right there on an NYT ad-supported page?

5) Show Freeloaders What They're Missing
I've already asked the Times to keep make it's main story free, keep its blogs in front of a paywall, and give away the beating heart in the ten biggest stories of the hour. What am I thinking? First I'm thinking that readers won't pay to read blogs. Second, I'm thinking that if the Times doesn't create some free, easy-to-navigate Top Ten list of the biggest stories every hour, millions of news junkies will abandon the site in favor of a thousand other breaking news sources like CNN and Reuters where they can read nearly identical stories for free. News is a commodity. The Times' advantage is theoretically in its analysis and in-depth reporting. So the 2011 Web site needs to be aggressive about bundling its most tantalizing stories together to create the impression that the monthly subscription -- whatever it is -- is a small price to pay for the kind of analysis, and insight and glittering multimedia information they'll glean from the site.

In short, the Times has to walk a tightrope. To keep readers, it has to remain a free source of at least some breaking news. To turn readers into subscribers, it has to promote the heck out of its juiciest stories and sell its most colorful content loudly.

TrackBack URL for this entry:
http://business.theatlantic.com/mt-42/mt-tb.cgi/20469

[FastEddy]

" ... 3) "Run the Meter" for All Other Stories, Multimedia, and Op-Eds ..."

Especially Op-Eds. This would put a bit of flavor into opinion articles ... and if they don't get it right, the readers will certainly not subscribe and pay for left wing limo liberal whining and rewrites of g'ment handouts.

[David]

Begins March 28

'New York Times' paywall for online readers begins March 28

SOURCE

[GeronL]

I wouldn't pay for it in any event

[David]

$15 for four weeks. Much will still be free. Need to understand the nature of the enemy. NY Times won't get a nickel from me. But, I will peruse the free content.

[David]

Lincoln (Ford) is offering free unlimited access to the NY Times for the remainder of 2011 just for double clicking on their website link. Works for me.

[wancow]

I'll let Rush subscribe... and mock

[GeronL]

I don't go there much when its free, lol.

[David]

I have to go to the Slimes. Keep your enemies close. Their Op-Ed page is talking points for Dems.

Look at this. Slimes spent $40 million to set up the pay wall. Already hacked.

That was quick: Four lines of code is all it takes for The New York Times

SOURCE

[GeronL]

lol

That is awesome

[David]

I have full access to the NY Times for the remainder of 2011. Why? Ford Motors gave me access for clicking on their ad for Lincoln. Have you ever heard of anything so silly?

[GeronL]

NY Times isn't even worth that bother to me. lol.

How does that make any economical sense? I sure hope Lincoln (Ford) is only paying a small portion of that.

[David]

I have total free access to the NY Times all because I double clicked on a Lincoln ad from Ford Motors, I assume Ford pays the NY Times for each free subscription. Weird business model.

[GeronL]

I would have to assume Ford gets a discount for a certain number of them.