I honestly don't think the metered approach will work for them. Most people will hit that point, and instead of paying will search for, and find, they have other alternatives. In the end, NY Times will just lose most of those regulars as the alternative becomes the primary source.
NYTimes to start charging for access to their website.
31–40 of 69 posts
Re: NYTimes to start charging for access to their website.
#32"Starting in early 2011..." that's an age away in internet time. Things could have changed considerably by then.
It's an entire year to look like they're doing something
Re: NYTimes to start charging for access to their website.
#33In other news, "billybob to stop reading nytimes.com"
No kidding. I dropped WSJ.com last year and don't miss it. The Internet delivers a WORLD of news sites meaning the traditional publishers have less of a voice than they did when paper was the sole medium. Their proposed pay wall may ensnare existing readers, but who in his right mind is going to subscribe having never had a relationship with this provider before? "Oh, you want money for that story, the same story I c…
Aren't most of those other sites derivative though? They opine on the news reported by others (or just copy/paste), and often poorly without relevant context. Moreover, I kinda like one-stop shopping for World, National, Business, and Technology news. It's not perfect, given journalistic biases, but it's often good enough.
I may be biased though. I grew up delivering and reading the newspaper.
Re: NYTimes to start charging for access to their website.
#34I didn't realize anyone still read traditional news outlets.
Well, maybe only slightly sarcastic.
This is the death-knell of the traditional news media. When they start actively driving consumers away by charging for services once rendered free, there is no way they will be able to recover. The Internet has enabled citizen journalists to get inside the established media's OODA loop and take them out. Established media is too slow and too antiquated to ever be able to catch up, let alone get ahead and stay ahead.
Re: NYTimes to start charging for access to their website.
#35In other news, "billybob to stop reading nytimes.com"
I had the same initial response where robg == billybob. Then I started thinking "why must good content be free?". The best alternatives (Economist, WSJ) all charge and I'm not about to start reading cnn.com. Perhaps the BBC site. I could cobble together a morning read from other sources. I guess it just depends on their pricing model. I'm willing to listen, at least.
Good daily news must be free, because the facts are free and there are too many places that will freely distribute those facts.
Good content, on the other hand, does not have to be daily news. Which is the distinction I wish more newspaper companies would understand. You'll never get people to pay for box scores or reprints from the AP/Reuters. You will get people to pay for investigative journalism, quality insight, in depth reporting, etc.
The Times would have a better chance at monetizing if they stuck to such a 'members' section concept. Another under-appreciated fact overlooked in most monetization schemes: people will pay for the ability to comment and be given preferential comment placement. And when only subscribers can comment, it's far easier to police for spam and moderate for civility.
Re: NYTimes to start charging for access to their website.
#36Earlier quoted context omitted.
You're basically willing to trade one cup of coffee for a month of decent journalism, but no more?
And at $1.50 it's not going to be a particularly good cup of coffee. But I'm in the same boat. I already shell out ~$100 a year for the Economist, and various other subscriptions. If I have to start paying for all the news SOURCES I read I'm going to be out a great deal more. Note I said SOURCES. I'm willing to pay for news, but not a monthly subscription to a news site I only read occasionally.
Maybe there's a business model to be had for a decent aggregator? I know I'd pay (how much is the sticking point) for a nice mashup of NYT, WSJ, and Economist content. That might be my dream news publication, actually.
Re: NYTimes to start charging for access to their website.
#37Earlier quoted context omitted.
You're basically willing to trade one cup of coffee for a month of decent journalism, but no more?
And at $1.50 it's not going to be a particularly good cup of coffee. But I'm in the same boat. I already shell out ~$100 a year for the Economist, and various other subscriptions. If I have to start paying for all the news SOURCES I read I'm going to be out a great deal more. Note I said SOURCES. I'm willing to pay for news, but not a monthly subscription to a news site I only read occasionally.
This almost sounds like you'd be willing to pay dues to the AP or Reuters. I don't think that's such a bad idea. I know it would never fly in America but a funding system similar to the BBC, where households have to purchase licenses for things, might work well.
Re: NYTimes to start charging for access to their website.
#38I didn't realize anyone still read traditional news outlets. Well, maybe only slightly sarcastic. This is the death-knell of the traditional news media. When they start actively driving consumers away by charging for services once rendered free, there is no way they will be able to recover. The Internet has enabled citizen journalists to get inside the established media's OODA loop and take them out. Established medi…
Can you point me to some good citizen journalism then?
Re: NYTimes to start charging for access to their website.
#39Earlier quoted context omitted.
I had the same initial response where robg == billybob. Then I started thinking "why must good content be free?". The best alternatives (Economist, WSJ) all charge and I'm not about to start reading cnn.com. Perhaps the BBC site. I could cobble together a morning read from other sources. I guess it just depends on their pricing model. I'm willing to listen, at least.
Good daily news must be free, because the facts are free and there are too many places that will freely distribute those facts. Good content, on the other hand, does not have to be daily news. Which is the distinction I wish more newspaper companies would understand. You'll never get people to pay for box scores or reprints from the AP/Reuters. You will get people to pay for investigative journalism, quality insight,…
Are the facts really free? Take what's happening in Haiti. What's free there? Seems like a lot of very difficult work to me.
Interesting last point. Citation?
Re: NYTimes to start charging for access to their website.
#40I've been hoping for this for over a year now. I'm _more_ than happy to support their journalists oversea and at home (USA for me, as for the NYT). Without some sort of support, we wouldn't be getting the same breadth and depth and quality of news.
It astonishes me when people think this should be free. KNowledge should be free, yes, but news that costs money and much, much time to acquire and then disseminate _does_ cost money and I'm glad to pay for it.
This is high quality journalism from hard working people: asking them to do it for less and less is ridiculous. Content is tangible, to me at least, and worth money, just as a few lines of code "anybody" could write is also worth quite a bit.