It sucks, but I figure it had to happen eventually. Is this the beginning of the end for free online newspaper access?

I paid up. I keep an open tab on NY times.com all day long. If it were any other news outlet, I'd probably pass, but I feel like you can't find this kind of content elsewhere. The Times and NPR are the two news sources I couldn't live without, and I don't mind contributing if that's what it takes to keep them going.

Am I wrong, can you find comparable stuff elsewhere for free?

Does anyone care?

We buy the Times Weekender at home for the same reason (and send KEXP a check once a year). Wanna support them.

It'll be interesting to see how this works out for them. I hope people show that they don't mind paying for quality content--because quality content isn't possible if newspapers go out of business.

Metered access is much better than a paywall, but this just doesn't seem to fix the real problem they have, though it won't hurt.

Newspapers don't sell content. Newspapers sell advertising. Subscription prices cover ink & paper and little else. Until newspapers find a new revenue model or stop trying to bank on box display ads and THOSE GODDAMN ADS THAT COVER THE FUCKING PAGE AND I CAN'T FIND THE 'X' TO CLOSE IT OUT, they are going to be in a pickle.

I don't understand why TV shows are putting entire episodes for free with no commercials

I can watch the Daily show with more content and no interruptions, why would I watch it on TV? Why wouldn't they just run an ad or two at the breaks? I mean it's great for the viewer, but why are they inventing new mistakes that the music industry hadn't even thought of.

S'Nice if you have a Kindle:

Kindle Subscribers Will Be Able To Access NYTimes.com For Free

If only the milkman had the Squirrgles around to support him.

To an extent you are correct... traditionally--going back to the first penny press--a newspaper earns its money through selling advertising. However, what do you do when that doesn't work? This has been a problem ever since televised news put a major dent in the circulation numbers of newspapers. If your circulation numbers drop, so does the potential amount of money a company will pay for an advertisement.

The newspaper industry has been debating this problem since that time and the problem has only become compounded with the internet over the past 10 years.

I doubt if what the NYT is doing is the solution, but it is the correct first step that will, hopefully, lead to a solution.

Physical models can sometimes lead to internet models, so perhaps we will find that if the NYT gets a lot of takers for the e-subscription, they can take those numbers to advertisers and be able to charge more for their on-site ads. Advertisers are willing to pay if they know their ad will be seen (see: super bowl ads), whereas if it is a complete gamble they won't pay much of anything (see: hulu).

I think the value proposition is all wrong. $35/month for the content one gets for free today seems shockingly high. i love the ny times, but i don't love it for this price. i'll get my news elsewhere. i don't think that any online paywall works if there is compelling free content available elsewhere.

Actually, it is $15 a month for the content one got free before. The $35 plan is only if you want access from apps on all of your digital devices (phones/ipads, etc).

$15 a month sounds pretty reasonable to me... and by my quick calculation is cheaper than a print subscription.

$35/mo for all the things that i got free as of yesterday: web, phones and ipad.

I wonder how long until a mirror site gives away their content?

That said, it will be interesting to see how things pans out in an era where people expect to get everything for free.

In the internet age, with the expectation of all things gratis, you get what you pay for. Ergo, for you music-heads, Arcade Fire, Clay Your Hands! Say Yeah!!, & Tapes n' Tapes.

ASK BILLYG & RADCLIFFE ABOUT VAMGPIGERG WEEGKENGDG.

"you music-heads"

But, you're also potentially killing your subscriptions if you start adding tons of ads. One of the presumed perks of paying the premium would be that that you wouldn't be inundated with ads.

Also, NYT is potentially shooting themselves in the foot because if their site is lock and key, then news link aggregate sites like Drudge, HuffPo, Fark, etc aren't going to link to you.

I would imagine NYT will have to focus more on exclusive content, because anything by way of headlines would be covered for free in a million different places.

They allow non-subscribers to read 20 articles per month, so I'd think that they'd be okay here.



This is the only reason I think NYT can pull it off, and why I paid. You can find headlines and AP & Reuters articles anywhere. But I think NYT excels at analysis and in-depth reporting, and you don't find that everywhere, especially not on the scale that NYT produces. Plus, NYT always gets the biggest leaks and exclusives (i.e. wikileaks). I

The only for any to paper to succeed in charging for online content is to offer something exclusive that people can't find elsewhere. I think NYT has enough original content to do just fine with this, but I'm not sure how many other papers do.

fixed

(wife and baby don't really do much dairy)

And yes that would rule. Soymilk is fucking heavy.

It was my understanding that if you follow a link, it doesn't count against you. They don't seem to be putting a lot of effort behind enforcement, which I think is a smart move. Young people don't buy newspapers (and never have) and old people suck at the internet (and figuring out how to get it for free).

Not exactly. Newspaper margins were in the 10-20% range even in the 2000s. I worked at a paper that posted circulation gains on both pub statements for 2007. Prior to that, circulation fell every year, ad rates went up every year, and you kept your margins. It wasn't until around 2008 that the shit really hit the fan, and that was because the paper was bleeding advertisers, not subscribers. In fact, the subscribers quit after the advertisers. The real hole in the boat was real estate. Ballparking, Advertising was 80% of revenue, and 75% of that was classified advertising. I left town, but from what I hear, the real estate section is down to 8-12 pages. I have no idea how they keep the lights on. It used to regularly be 48. They even had to rearrange the printing schedule to make it work.

Metered access doesn't do anything to address that problem, that's why I don't think this is a game changing idea. It will recoup some revenue, but it won't run the paper. I don't understand where you are going with "what do you do when [selling advertising] doesn't work", because pricing content as a revenue producer is much more unlikely to work. That's why they moved to ads in the first place. Now, there is one newspaper that has done well with a paid model, and that's the Wall Street Journal. The reason WSJ works is because it has unique content. If NYT can re-position themselves in that way, then the paid model has a better chance of working. Right now though, I don't see them doing that.

Paid. I'm a grownup so I don't have to waste time thinking about 15 bucks here and there (less, since I am of course AN EDUCATR).

when is this happening? I still use the site most days while I'm bored at work and get the headlines emailed everyday. Also there are better sources, I think, out there for free, although maybe not dailies. I prefer foreignpolicy.com, although I admit I find most domestic news boring.