NYTimes to start charging for access to their website. • Hacker News Board

Re: NYTimes to start charging for access to their website.

#41

Post by Quarrelsome » Wed, Jan 20, 2010, 4:57 PM UTC

robg wrote: post #33

symesc wrote: post #29

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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.

I grew up delivering and reading newspapers and this has only shown me that the vast majority of "news" is just re-hashed press releases, or opinionated FUD.

The vast majority of my round bought the Daily Mail (who supported the facists in the UK, "hoorah the black shirts") or The Sun (famous for their "HIV is only catchable by homosexuals" opinion).

The world would be a better place without most of the newspapers out there. Quality reporting is another matter all together and is NOT synonymous with the term "newspapers".

Re: NYTimes to start charging for access to their website.

#42

Post by Quarrelsome » Wed, Jan 20, 2010, 4:59 PM UTC

robg wrote: post #39

roc wrote: post #35

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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?

Perhaps the term is "cheap" instead. Because once someone has broadcast "the facts" it is very cheap to inform everyone else.

Re: NYTimes to start charging for access to their website.

#43

Post by RiderOfGiraffes » Wed, Jan 20, 2010, 5:03 PM UTC

Largely the same discussion happened on this item: http://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=1058507

Probably there's not much point reading that rather than this, but I thought I'd make the connection since I noticed it.

Also reported here: http://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=1060009

A connection is suggestion with the release of the Apple tablet.

Re: NYTimes to start charging for access to their website.

#44

Post by robg » Wed, Jan 20, 2010, 5:28 PM UTC

Quarrelsome wrote: post #41

robg wrote: post #33

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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.

I grew up delivering and reading newspapers and this has only shown me that the vast majority of "news" is just re-hashed press releases, or opinionated FUD. The vast majority of my round bought the Daily Mail (who supported the facists in the UK, "hoorah the black shirts") or The Sun (famous for their "HIV is only catchable by homosexuals" opinion). The world would be a better place without most of the newspapers ou…

I grew up delivering a state paper. They did quality reporting about the small state. They still do. But I don't see how they survive without going hyperlocal. The problem is my parents (i.e., the generation that still subscribes) want a general news product in addition to the local stuff.

Re: NYTimes to start charging for access to their website.

#45

Post by discolemonade » Wed, Jan 20, 2010, 5:29 PM UTC

The problem with charging for news is that news as it's presented is unspectacular. Most people, if they don't have to-- won't pay for unspectacular information because chances are they can get it somewhere else because it isn't hard to produce or duplicate. I can get the same information from the NY Times at the Washpost. I do like their opeds though. I read David Brooks a lot. But I still won't pay for David Brooks' insight because it doesn't make me money or save me time or do something to make my life easier. That's the only kind of information you can form a business model around.

Re: NYTimes to start charging for access to their website.

#46

Post by robg » Wed, Jan 20, 2010, 5:34 PM UTC

Quarrelsome wrote: post #42

robg wrote: post #39

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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?

Perhaps the term is "cheap" instead. Because once someone has broadcast "the facts" it is very cheap to inform everyone else.

How do you properly compensate those that do the hardest work in getting "the facts" if endless copies can be made cheaply?

I suppose the answer is something like iTunes for the news. However, I'm not confident that market forces can pick the best reporting. I mean, Fox News does really well financially. How many people do they have in Haiti?

Re: NYTimes to start charging for access to their website.

#47

Post by DanielStraight » Wed, Jan 20, 2010, 5:49 PM UTC

To me, there are order of magnitude differences between good news sites and regular news sites. NYTimes is, in my mind, the best of the best, so I would have no problem with paying. Actually, I'm glad to see them respect their own content enough to charge for it. The advice to consultants is always to not undervalue their time, yet the advice to big companies always seems to be to undervalue their products.

Don't think about it in terms of news. News is everywhere. In-depths reports, amazing visualizations, and insightful editorials are not everywhere, and NYTimes does these better than anyone else I know. I think they have earned the right to charge.

Re: NYTimes to start charging for access to their website.

#48

Post by siculars » Wed, Jan 20, 2010, 5:55 PM UTC

How long will it be before someone implements an NYTimesShare, a la GoogleShare (http://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=1062495)? If they allow a certain amount of free then all you need to do is change your cookies periodically.

To be sure, outfits like the NYT that bring the public high quality news need to make enough money to pay the bills and their staff. I just don't know if this is the plan that will work.

Re: NYTimes to start charging for access to their website.

#49

Post by roc » Wed, Jan 20, 2010, 5:58 PM UTC

robg wrote: post #39

roc wrote: post #35

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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?

There's certainly a one-time cost in gathering and validating facts (though I'd be surprised if much time at all was spent validating these days). But as facts can't be protected as intellectual property, they will inevitably be repeated, bringing the ultimate cost to consumers down to the cost of distribution. Which, today, is pretty close to $0.

Also, increasingly, facts are self-reported by the audience. Who needs an international bureau when they can simply search for native sources? (e.g. Where does the average reader get their facts regarding the Iranian protests?) Events involving widespread infrastructure failure (Haiti) are an exception.

... You want a citation for it being easier to moderate paying subscribers vs anonymous posts?

Re: NYTimes to start charging for access to their website.

#50

Post by roc » Wed, Jan 20, 2010, 6:06 PM UTC

robg wrote: post #46

Quarrelsome wrote: post #42

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Perhaps the term is "cheap" instead. Because once someone has broadcast "the facts" it is very cheap to inform everyone else.

How do you properly compensate those that do the hardest work in getting "the facts" if endless copies can be made cheaply? I suppose the answer is something like iTunes for the news. However, I'm not confident that market forces can pick the best reporting. I mean, Fox News does really well financially. How many people do they have in Haiti?

The difficult-to-collect facts would be those necessary for in-depth and investigative pieces. I specifically called that out above as being pay-worthy. I can absolutely see for-pay access to those news pieces.

What doesn't work --can't work-- is charging for things like box scores, election results, stock news, press releases, traffic/crime/weather. (Excepting perhaps extremely time-sensitive subsets of that data.)

And if the NYTimes isn't discriminating between their quality, signature content and simple daily news - the customer isn't going to either. They're just going to be frustrated that if they try to use the NY Times for more than 1 big story a month, they're penalized. Or, god forbid, try to read the NYTimes.com at work, at the library or at a coffee shop...