Fees And Free-Riders: The News Content Paywall Debate

Ellen Dibble

It used to be if you bought a subscription for the New York Times Sunday book review magazine, that would be mailed, the annual cost was reasonable, and you had access to the online New York Times. Since last year and the year before, apparently they don’t mail that book review magazine, but they bill for it, and after you pay for the subscription, they send you a partial refund. And you have presumably paid your share for online access, but because I am actually pretty confused, I try to get my news elsewhere and not depend on the old grey lady (NYT), which turns out to be very eye-opening as a strategy.

Michael

The NYT are beholding to the Government in regards to F.P. , one of there heads was made to look like a laughing stock in regards to the NYT going to the government and asking them what they thought than further worsen there standing by holding onto the report on Rick Davis after the Government wanted a week or two to paint the story line.

And recently in a BBC interview, Keller boasted that — unlike WikiLeaks — the Paper of Record had earned the praise of the U.S. Government for withholding materials which the Obama administration wanted withheld, causing Keller’s fellow guest — former British Ambassador to the U.N. Carne Ross — to exclaim: “It’s extraordinary that the New York Times is clearing what it says about this with the U.S. Government.” The BBC host could also barely hide his shock and contempt at Keller’s proud admission:

HOST (incredulously): Just to be clear, Bill Keller, are you saying that you sort of go to the Government in advance and say: “What about this, that and the other, is it all right to do this and all right to do that,” and you get clearance, then?

http://www.salon.com/news/opinion/glenn_greenwald/2011/02/21/nyt

Some news sources worth checking out, RIA News, Euro News, BBC, Guardians, haaretz,al jazeera, Democracy Now,PBS, The World on WGBH, Times online, RT News and the Young Turk is online and is more commentary than news but pretty interesting.

Than use fox’s for the daily talking points,
- Grady Lee Howard
  
  There is an invisible force called power that causes seemingly irrational behavior. Is media business afraid of government alone or of other business interests that covertly control the intelligence apparatus of government? What media are not owned by oligarchs? (RT? Al Jazeera? WSJ? NYT?) What would be better for oligarchs, owning PBS/NPR/CPB through underwriting intimidation, or abolishing them?

http://www.facebook.com/people/Joshua-Hendrickson/1652586055 Joshua Hendrickson

Since the window of unbiased newsreporting, open for so short a time (historically speaking), is closing again, and since there is no profit to be made from genuine investigative journalism, let’s just go ahead and throw objectivity into yesterday’s trash can and declare our biases universally so that we can all stick our heads in whatever sand soothes our aching minds. Reality may as well be what we make of it, and if theocratic types really do want to have their own facts, why not let them? This way we can spark off that oncoming worldwide war that much sooner and bring to a quick painful end the human experiment.

AfghaniBoy

How can we consider paying for soft articles at NYT, when Rolling Stone publishes an article like the one they did this morning for free.
The Kill Team
http://www.rollingstone.com/kill-team

http://www.richardsnotes.org/archives/2011/03/20/the-new-york-times-blows-a-chance-to-make-money/ Richard

New York Times editor Bill Keller’s odd thoughts on aggregation were and are telling. The New York Times, at least its management, is living in some kid of bubble, maybe breathing a bit too much of their own exhaust. I think The New Yorker magazine is too. Neither has found a graceful way to make money from online content while in fact, they both have the potential to do so because they have great content loved by large numbers of readers all over the world.

The clumsiness of their struggles are telling and add to the idea that both institutions are elitist. I don’t think of them that way (content-wise) but the way they protect their content seems out of step with the rest of the online world.

Make note NPR listeners, at least some of the New York Times’ clumsiness started during the time Vivian Schiller was working there. I don’t defend the right wing sting that brought her down from head of NPR but I’m not sure she’s got a clue about making money from online content.

Grady Lee Howard

What good is this commentary page if we’re all fishing our news out of the same toilet?

Jay Sekora

I will be at work and unable to call in live during the show, but I wanted to pass along my experience with the Boston Globe’s first attempt at a paywall some years ago.

I used to read Globe articles online from time to time, and also purchase the Globe from vendors and newspaper boxes maybe once or twice a week. I was considering getting a subscription, although the ecological cost of all that newsprint I wouldn’t get around to reading gave me some pause. Then the Globe instituted a paywall, and all of a sudden links to Globe articles stopped working for me. I quickly got in the habit of checking news links before I followed them and ignoring ones that when to to the Globe. Moreover, I stopped buying the Globe in print! This wasn’t so much a deliberate decision as a matter of the fact that whenever I thought of the Globe, I was reminded of the annoyance of the paywall. So basically I acted as though the Boston Globe didn’t exist for several years. I believe it was more than a year after the paywall experiment failed that I noticed and started reading articles (and, very occasionally, buying the paper) again.

I certainly agree that professional long-form journalism needs to be paid for, but I don’t know how to do that in a way that’s going to work for today’s citizens who spend a lot of their time and get a lot of their news on the Internet. I have to say, though, the NPR model of voluntary contributions works pretty well for me.

Some blogs have experimented with a “tip jar” next to articles, and I use those when I see them on a post I appreciate. (This American Life’s “text this number to donate if you liked this podcast” request also gets contributions from me.) That said, applied to straight-up journalism, that approach would risk increasing the echo-chamber effect, as people donated to articles that supported their prejudices and didn’t donate to articles that challenged them or expanded their horizons.

–Jay Sekora, Quincy
(Last name pronounced /suh-CORE-uh/, although if you quote any of this on the air just “Jay” is fine.)

Ellen Dibble

Thanks, Jay, for the word “echo-chamber effect” which names an effect I’ve been pondering a while. At this OnPoint Comments thread, readers have, for a bit over a month, been able to vote “like,” and if anyone goes up top to see by clicking “Expand Community Box,” to the left of the Discus icon, you’ll see the in-process scores.
Since I’ve been hanging on by my fingernails as a “liked” commenter for most of the duration, I’ve generated a few thoughts. For one thing, it seems possible to vote for oneself. One could compete cheatingly if one had an eye to “belonging to the club.”
Point number two: at least in most threads, the “like” votes SEEM to me to be at least half votes about “I agree with that,” which sort of suggests there should be a choice “I disagree with that.” Hence an echo-chamber effect. I believe that’s what you’re referring to, at least in part. If I wanted to accumulate a lot of Like votes, I would post a very one-sided, short, simple shout-out. I would take the tug-of-war approach and let people pile on.
That’s so different in terms of what a democracy NEEDS in terms of constructive discussion and foundational information. I try to vote “like” for applauding a useful new approach.
If people were a lot more liberal with their “like” clicks, this would be a lot muddier. But at least here, we all have the same amount of “money,” which is infinite. We can stuff the ballot box.
- Ian
  
  I agree that “Like” is too broad a category to be a useful gauge of anything. I vote “like” when I like the idea, or when I like the way it is expressed (a well-written and well-reasoned argument or comment earns my respect, even if it doesn’t coincide with my viewpoint). I also vote “like” for especially witty remarks, since humor often adds a “touché” or “gotcha” element that I appreciate.

Michal Gibbons

Since the marginal cost to the Times of each additional subscriber must be close to zero, why the significant jump from $0.00 to $.53 per day? One would hypothesizes that at, say $.10 per day, that the overall revenue and profit would be greater than what will be obtained from the new plan. Presumably this analysis on price elasticity was done; what was the result of that analysis ?

Cory

It is the beauty of Capitalism. Don’t charge what you need, charge what you think you can get.
- Michal Gibbons
  
  Right, but by lowering their price they might well get more.
- Anonymous
  
  If they do the Democrat party thing they will charge lots figuring they will make more money and no one will “not pay” because they have such a great product.
  
  If they do the Republican party thing, they will change a little hoping to keep every reader possible and by doing so making more money than they would from a high priced product.
  
  This is Capitalism!
  
  You tell me which one makes more sense.
ThresherK

Perhaps it’s not a mass thing, but a class thing.

If a reader picks up the print Times and doesn’t think that the ads are speaking to them, how badly does the Times want that person to be a paying customer online?

Mark – Canton Melbourne QC

I’d be willing to pay a reasonable fee for on-line access to the NYT to ensure quality reporting and substantial editorials. It doesn’t seem plausible in the~anytime~anywhere world of internet news to assume that independent and in-depth reporting can continue to be made available at no cost to readers.

Yar

Print journalism plays a different role in our culture than other forms of media. Print media understands it must use depth of reporting to compete. Speed is not as important as detail. This is shown time and again with coverage of politics and government. Many stories take months or research to build or uncover the truth hidden in the information gathered.

I fear movement toward web will trade quality for speed. The deadline of rolling the presses to generate printed information that can be delivered is not easily reproduced in other forms of news distribution. The printing process changes what is reported. What I think what may get lost is the research stories on corruption or ineffective government at the local level, especially in rural areas. This is where the press has served as the fourth estate, protecting our freedom and democracy.
The model I envision for the traditional newspaper is similar to that of NPR, an affiliate model, where a local media outlet covers the news close to home but gets a national and world feed from a New York Times or other national paper. The pay-wall would be at each local site. Advertising works best targeted at local audiences, and I believe it would expand the readership up the and down the food chain.
The main problem with pay-walls is a conceptional one. We can easily see it costs money to get a printed paper to our doorstep; we think the major costs are in printing and delivery, when actually having people available to cover all the events that did not make today’s paper may cost more than everything that made it into print today. Because a printed paper is tangible, we are willing to pay more for it.

This is where an affiliate system might prove useful, it puts reporters all across the nation and covering any story that occurs, and instead of leaving their stories on the editors desk they get published, just for a much smaller audience. If a story becomes national it already has a knowledgeable reporter on the beat. It has worked for NPR and I think it can work for print media as well.

Ellen Dibble

I like the idea, Yar, that more local advertising might be encouraged by local affiliates.
Local advertising might actually right-size the corporate flags in America. Instead of many many pages or TV spots advertising anti-depression medicine, or gas companies, we would see advertisements for something it might make sustainable sense to actually purchase. Something you might not notice if you only read the Times and watch CBS.

Ellen Dibble

I learned not to give out a credit card number to periodicals when a certain news magazine a few years back was determined to keep me as a subscriber. I was paying them by check. They sent me renewal notices every few weeks for months before and months after, and then sent me a notice that said they were going to sue me because I had not paid. I called and pointed out I had not renewed, but they insisted they ought to be paid nonetheless. So if the NYT can accept pay-by-mail I might make an arrangement with them where I can access their news for say 30 articles a year. That’s about my rate of use, actually. I take a cell-phone approach, not minutes of use, but days, maybe. There are too many good news sources to focus my interest on one source, paid or otherwise.

LinP

I was totally ready to step up and pay for an online subscription to The Times. However, with the departure of Frank Rich AND Bob Herbert, I’m not feeling as vested. Often, they were my touchstones to sanity about political, social, and even moral issues. I would love to know the REAL reasons why Rich and Herbert left the paper if, in fact, there is more to the story than they revealed in their columns.

Grady Lee Howard

This paper fired Chris Hedges.

http://moreover.myopenid.com/ moreover

When trying to get an an older article I ran into the Denver Post’s paywall. Luckily, our library system (Jefferson County, Colorado) offers free access, even from home.
Anyone who has ever researched a subject knows how many misses it takes to get a hit. With a fee for each article that becomes prohibitively expensive.

Anonymous

They need to find a way to make money from advertising. Most of the charge for the print edition was to print and deliver an actual paper which on line readers aren’t receiving. Charging will result in fewer readers which will result in their being less attractive to advertisers and being less influential. Howard Stern went from being influential to irrelevant when his show stopped being free.

Kathryn, Crasnton, RI

Hi, Tom,
Growing up on Long Island, we got 5 newspapers per day–I’m not sure that would even be possible now! At any rate, I have received the daily print version of the NYTimes throughout moves to Phila., the Bay Area in CA, Worcester, MA, Balto., and near Providence, RI. As a daily paid print subscriber, I will continue to receive daily free access to the online version. I am happy to pay for The NYTImes. They deserve to be paid for their very labor-intensive product. What would be cool is if several “big” papers could get together & provide access to their online versions to paid subscribers of one, either for free or for a small additional fee. I’d much rather pay for the real deal than someone’s watered-down “steal” of the work of The NYTimes. Thanks for a great show.
Kathryn, Cranston, RI

Wayne

I’m fine with the pay wall. You keep talking about the most expensive options – I’ll be able to access the NYT online for about $50 a year online. It’s the best online source for news/photographs/ video. I think that the “everything is free on the internet” mentality has to change. Do you expect to walk into a store and pick up the paper copy of the NYT for nothing??
Wayne

ymc

Well, I’ve just signed up for the Times digital subscription. I’d have subscribed to the newspaper if I didn’t dislike having to deal with the physical paper every day, and have been waiting for a digital subscription option for years.

I nearly went for the Sunday Times (paper) + digital option, actually, but decided to wait to see what the Special 3/28 Deal looked like …

Chev

nobody is going to pay this.

Markus

Three things that would keep me from subscribing to the Times.

I now have so many monthly fees to keep track off that I’d much rather pay once for something than have to keep track of one more monthly fee.

I have many other good sources of information.

I dislike the Times bias. This is not the point of today’s show, so I’ll leave it at that.

Etubrutus

What’s does the Times expect families to do….mom and dad with their own laptaps, ipads, kids away college….how many different subscriptions do you have to buy? Does everyone in the house need to pay $15 every four weeks?

jsmass

The one issue newspapers haven’t addressed is how to attract the youth market. They are too focused on retaining their subscribers rather than growing new customers.

leahb

Have you seen the re-do of the Sunday NYTimes Magazine? That’s a start. And the youth market isn’t a monolith, but it does seem 20-somethings think “news” comes best through less literal sources (read less true, less earnest) like Jon Stewart and *gulp* Fox. (I hate to put them in the same sentence, I don’t think Jon Stewart is in the same camp as Fox …) So you’re right, but how can a real, truth-telling, expensive news source like the Times be viable once the boomers die out? Tough problem…

Anonymous

Don’t progressive Democrats say that corporate profits are evil? If this is so they have successfully made the New York Times less EVIL? Since the progressive Democrats are the majority of the readers of this paper, even more should read for free online for free making the New York Times profit free and completely non-evil like NPR!

ThresherK

Any time you want to check back in to reality we’ll still be here.

Michael

Everyone says the newspaper is a dieing industry, but then all the TV news outlets cite newspapers such as The NY Times, Washington Post, LA Times, etc constantly. It TV wants to claim Newspapers are over, then why don’t they get their own stories.

Rex Henry, Washington, DC

Can they just charge a subscription fee for a digital version without the ads? Would be perfect on a tablet.

ThresherK

The HBO-style is one consideration, but my instinct tells me that there’s a substantial intersection between tablet users and the type of consumer NYT advertisers want to get through to.

I don’t see a lot of good for the Times to go out of its way separating that demographic willing to give it money for content, and those advertisers looking for that kind of customer.

Patrick Singleton

What about the New York Times reader application? Do the paywall policies apply to that?

Gregor Clark

I am perfectly happy to pay for online access to quality news sources like the Times. It seems like an absolute no brainer to me. Quality journalists need and deserve to be well paid for their work, and we should be willing to support them. Otherwise we end up with meaningless drivel and disinformation. My only question is why did the Times take so long to do this?

Gregor Clark
Middlebury, VT

http://abellia.myopenid.com/ abellia

I’m not sure that even outlets like the NYT do reporting anymore that deserves pay. What do the reporters bring to the table? In order to deserve being paid, a news source has to report in-depth, which probably means not instantaneous – which means, perhaps, a weekly or monthly? The Christian Science Monitor has gone to weekly publication, I believe.

Bill

I think 15 bucks a month is too steep for the NYT to attract large numbers of subscribers. Everyone already pays $50 per month for home internet, $50 per month for smart phone data, and maybe $15 per month for an iPad plan. A lower charge of $5 per month might actually bring in more revenue (and eyeballs) than $15.

Ian

I won’t pay extra for NYT access online. I already pay more than $500/yr for the Boston Globe, owned by the same company, despite the fact that I get little real news anymore about Boston, since the Globe decided to carve itself up into regional markets (which they do a poor job of reporting on). I subscribe because the Globe’s “Spotlight” series, though published too seldom (now that they have far fewer reporters) do the top-notch, in-depth type of reporting and uncovering of corruption, fraud, abuse, etc., that used to be the norm. Also, my partner appreciates the solid sports writing–decidedly local “news” best not written by Yankees fans.

The NYTimes would be out of my price range. I will go elsewhere.

David

I did pay for the NY times on line and it think it is a great deal. I couldn’t get through a day without the New York Times. I read it in Canada and we started paying last week.

David

Chev

I read the nytimes online and on my iphone everyday. I probably read 5-10 articles everyday. I will not be paying this fee. In my opinion the price is just too high and there are just too many other free news sources out there.

leahb

I am happy to pay online if it will keep the NYTimes in business and publishing people like David Brooks, Bob Herbert, and all the rest of the folks on the Op Ed page. Not to mention the amazing writing… and investigative journalism… oh, and the more left-leaning business coverage… and…
It’s an amazing resource, there’s nothing else like it.

LinP

Frank Rich AND Bob Herbert have both left within the past two weeks.

Mary Ann Hanson

The news has value. People need to pay for it. Period.

Paul Trotta

I think the times is going in the right direction, but have made a serious mistake in their pricing.

they should have another tier between 20 free articles and unlimited access. i would purchase it without thinking about it at around $7.50 monthly qand would consider it at $10. I would be thrilled as acitizen if they could make it work at $5–at that price it could become the most widely read source in the world.

4

http://www.facebook.com/profile.php?id=13600022 Jamie Pohotsky

The one thing that I can’t seem to understand about the New York Times is that they assume that everyone uses a smartphone or iPad– and leaves out those of us who read it just simply on a computer screen without an option to pay for it for just screen.

Some people don’t have smartphones, some people don’t have iPads… to me the fact that these are the only options available paint a picture of that “liberal elite” who use trendy new connectivity tools. There are plenty of us (who may be liberal too but not exactly affluent) who don’t buy smartphones or ipads. You are alienating that bracket with the lack of just-online pay option.

DavidG134

While the New York Times is useful for many articles in the science section I have not seriously read the New York Times since it helped lie us into war in Iraq.

An article on on Jamie Dimon, CEO of JP Morgan Chase
http://www.nytimes.com/2010/12/05/magazine/05Dimon-t.html
The glowing review of a man responsible for a big share of the economic crisis sounded like he had paid money for it.

Much of the articles fall into the realm of out and out paid advertising for the gas fracking industry and other business interests.

Overall, the propaganda regarding the government is so thick I am contently reminded of the days of old and the Soviet Pravda, the official newspaper of the Communist Party, which spouted the party line no matter how blatantly absurd that we in the West made fun of.

John from Plainville MA

I get almost 50 percent of my news from what my friends post on either their or my facebook walls already.

When people my parent’s age (just approaching AARP membership eligibility) ask me about facebook and tell me why they think it is so bad, I fire right back at them about how my friends can (and do) put news stories that they know are pertinent to my specific interests right on my facebook page, the critics are usually thrown for a loop right there.

Facebook is free and will be free, so I fear for the health of newspapers trying to make people pay for online news. News is created by social discourse and the new forum for social discourse (see Libya and Egypt et. al.) is facebook (and reddit to a lesser extent).

Ian

Reporters as a profession ought to band together via nonprofit schools of journalism and produce their writing that way. Like all lawyers being sworn officers of the court, reporters would be officers of the truth. Nonprofit, in-depth reporting, beholden to no one particular advertiser, with no pay wall. Use the university’s relatively stronger dedication to ferreting out the truth and adding to it through research and publication. Example: the way reporters from across the nation banded together to for IRE (Investigative Reporters and Editors), to collectively investigate the murder of Arizona Republic reporter Don Bolles, who was looking into a big mob/government-officals corruption scandal.

http://en-gb.facebook.com/onanov Donald Baxter

Before the paywall went up I received a free subscription from the Lincoln division of the Ford Motor Company, good until the end of 2011. Perhaps this is where the advertisers step up and start spreading their money around. I don’t know whether to be overjoyed that I have an extension for free, or to mourn the fact that Lincoln sees me as a part of the demographic for their automobiles.

Abbysea

I was an early subscriber to the NYT reader, now paying $5 per week, which also gets me unlimited access to the web site. I think it’s a bargain and fail to understand the expectation for free news and other content. I don’t work for free and don’t expect others to.

david

I think that some kind of flat news access fee among a series of news outets would be more fair from a user perspective. Another idea could be that if a person has a local subscription they could upgrade their subscription to access say 5 or more major news outlets on the web.

Abdollah

I read the NYT daily online and I would be quite happy to to pay for it. The subscription rate ($ 450 per year for all platforms) is very excessive, however, and therefor I would stop reading NYT. I would suggest the NYT should charge annual subscription of $120-150 per year. I have a paid subscription to online the New Yorker and the Nation.

Hoshiar

Sfoster

I’m willing to pay – but $20 for 4 weeks is too steep. I was an old Times Select reader and that worked well. It was $20 a year, i think.

These new fees will add up. I already pay:
Comcast cable – about 170 a month (w HBO etc)
WBUR – about 200 a year
WGBH – about 200 a year
Boston Globe – $30 a month

It is adding up – what will I cut???? Why doesn’t the Times aim for 5% sign up at $10 a month???? much more likely to work I think.

Ben

“The news has value. People need to pay for it. Period.”

Really? Do advertisers fit into that “period”? The NYT spent many millions of $ to put up a paywall that is (a) silly — you can get around it with a simple “NoScript” plugin for firefox, and (b) hurting their jurnallists whose careers are based on how much people read/recognize them.

Mac

I think the only model that works for the reporting of local/regional news is the independent, endowed trust. Think NPR with a big trust fund. Then we get the information necessary to having an open democracy.

Mac

West Union, IA

Mbheitz

Yes. Absolutely. I will pay. I paid several years ago, when the NYT first floated its trial balloon. We don’t get anything GOOD for nothing. Let’s get with it. (BTW, I called in to On Point over a year ago when the same topic was on the air. I said the same thing then.)

Cosmicpea

I totally understand the need to go to pay system for the Times but the minimum plan is just too expensive for some people, especially in this economy. Not only can I not afford it, but I don’t understand why those of us who only want web access have to pay for smart phone access even if we don’t have or would never use a phone to read the news. I would grudgingly pay up to $100/year but at the current minimum pay plan it’s just too dear.

At the moment it seems that there are too many workarounds to consider buying a subscription.

Anonymous

Since I can’t get thru over the phone , that’s okay … I’d like to know what each of your guest experts think about newspapers charging ISPs versus consumers direct, much like cable TV networks charge cable companies? There are approx 100 million subscribers to approx 25 large ISPs in the U.S. who generate $35B in subscription fees and the ISPs pay nothing for content. Imagine cable TV companies not paying cable networks!? E&P.com published this solution … http://homepage.mac.com/pjbermel/EP.pdf

Tina

Can you tell us about a PARALLEL SITUATION?

Certain SCHOLARLY PERIODICALS are “walled off” thru LEXUS NEXUS.

In fact, Lexus Nexus MAY be SO expensive that only libraries can afford subscriptions; there may be a new model within Lexus Nexus for individuals though.

The Journal of the College of William and Mary is walled off within Lexus Nexus. You can SEE the opening page of an article on the internet, but you CANNOT SEE FARTHER WITHOUT A SUBSCRIPTION.

There are LOTS of periodicals within Lexus Nexus. WHY CAN’T THE MAJOR NEWSPAPERS JOIN TOGETHER IN SOMETHING SIMILAR TO LEXUS NEXUS; later, the smaller papers can join in, too.

Thanks! By the way, I believe in PAYING FOR PEOPLE’S WORK — ESPECIALLY for quality work, like NY Times, NPR, PBS — I DO give to NPR & PBS!

Ron

So here we are, high unemployment among young people and folks in rural areas, and a growing group of retirees and we’re putting up paywalls to cut them off from critical information and forcing them to the non-critical opinion ‘news’ sites. Oh, and think of the power of the Times among those abroad who rely on it for a pretty clean window into America. I think these companies should more carefully align their ‘business models’ with broader social responsibility.

Anonymous

Paul in Brookline, MA … I’d like to know what each of your guest experts think about newspapers charging ISPs versus consumers direct? Much like cable TV networks charge cable companies. There are approx 100 million subscribers to approx 25 large ISPs in the U.S. who generate $35B in subscription fees from the consumer and the ISPs pay nothing for content. Imagine cable TV companies not paying cable networks!? E&P.com published this solution … http://bit.ly/aG1S6W

RickV

The ISPs would love it. It would kill net neutrality overnight.

Suzanne

I value the content and am willing to pay, but I think $15 every four weeks is too steep for my budget, let alone the tablet rates. I can’t afford it!

David, Lexington MA

The “pay fence” may work for the Times, but not for other papers. The Times has a unique value as the best overall coverage and near real-time analysis of world news available in the US (BBC arguably as good or better but doesn’t convey US perspectives). As someone who works on public issues all over the world, I depend on the Times more than any other single news source.

For other papers, it’s a tougher sell. I think the likelihood is that there won’t be much that makes any money trying to compete nationally. Local papers with very targeted, segmented coverage–town by town, neighborhood by neighborhood–mixing blogs, public service and some advertising (or non-profit sponsorship) are probably the only logical money-makers.

David in Lexington MA

Ellen Dibble

As to new models, I have a new model for absorbing information. Our local newspaper does a good job of elaborating current issues, actually, for things that I “should” learn today. But the New York Times has ALWAYS been too dictatorial for me. There is a lot to learn, and my interests drive me too much. I can’t follow their lead and my own at once. On top of that, my careful reading time is AFTER I turn off the computer. In short, I buy books and settle in with them.
The opportunity the New York Times is missing here is that even though with the Internet, I can search a particular topic that is driving my interest, the time block that I am pursuing that interest is not my online time. I want the compilations and the Times access but I want it in books. I’d take it, I suppose, in Kindle.
I’m looking today through histories of uprisings in Yemen. And I have a series of Lonely Planet books, and I can see that inspired and well-trained reporters have contributed to this. But even better would be a collection of New York Times articles from the relevant time period. Who is compiling that sort of thing? No one. I have to take the time to go through their online archives, print it out, and then retire to my couch for reading. WITHOUT A USEFUL INDEX AT THAT POINT.

Ed053

One way to get free news is to have the Government supply it. It works in places like Libya…. ;^)

Anonymous

and at NPR! Everyone knows that corporate media would never do cover hard hitting and unbiased stories like you get here. LOL

Tina

How many bloggers CHEAT by getting the “meat” they use for their OPINIONS by getting the HARD WORK of the New York Times’ reporters for free?

Anonymous

Everyone should just use http://www.drudgereport.com/ for a quick news reference.

Dainbug

Where does drudge get his news? Oh yeah, he steals it too.
- Anonymous
  
  He doesn’t steal content, he links to it. This is unlike Arianna Huffington, founder of the Huffington Post and now editor-in-chief of AOL content. Her writers are going on strike since they haven’t been paid a penny!

tucker

We subscribe to the WSJ print and online for $245/month. The difference is that the print edition is available on a same-day basis whereas we would receive the NYT in print on a next-day basis, which is unacceptable.

Mollyjarboe

I am happy to pay for content and the convenience of getting it online, but I agree with the caller who said the price point is too high.

Dave

I am not willing to pay for a subscription that includes advertising. It needs to be one or the other guys. I will continue to read my news on-line and pay for that use in advertising, but I am tired of paying for TV and other subscriptions which subject me to advertising anyway.

Photoguy

To all those who say they wont pay for online news: You’ll miss newspapers when they’re gone. Go ahead and stick with the info-tainment idiocy of cable news.

Rick Vaughn

The pricing seems a little skewed against tablets, right now the Ipad, even though there doesn’t seem to be any enhanced delivery. The full sub is $455 a year, tablet and phone, yet the cost differential doesn’t seem justified.

At $455 a year maybe i should just order the print and let the print edition pile up outside the apartment building while I read on my iPad.
But why should the digital subsidize the Times’ sunk capital costs.

Oh, and by the way, I received last week an offer from the Times for a free digital sub paid for by Lincoln(Ford Motor). So I’ll still be reading you.

Susan Foster

Sorry – at $200 a year the NYT plays into the right wing’s narrative and becomes a journal for the elite and/or wealthy. Students for example are NOT going to pay that price – and as a professor I really value their access to good stories. Price point is way too high.

Imorgenstern

I think they are ignoring existing corrollaries for the ‘new business model’. Bundle 5 to 10 publications together in a package people will pay for, i.e., NYT, Economist, Int’l Herald Tribune, Financial Times, etc. Packages are what TV did to move from free (advt support) to cable (for apy)

lkw

one of the main difficulties is that now both my partner and I would have to pay for access. It would be nice if they offered some sort of “family plan.”

Rog

Goodbye NYtimes. Hello BBC

Photoguy

If you don’t see a difference between the two, thats your loss. Lots of news outlets tell you whats happening. NYT gives you an insightful explanation and furthers the conversations. How many incredible stories have been broken by NYT in the past few years?? C’mon… really???
- Rog
  
  You are willing to pay them $15-30 a month for “insightful explanations”? Sorry, but that’s too steep for me when I can get the same news minus the “insightful explanations” for free.

http://joellknott.myopenid.com/ Joel

Why don’t major national newspapers partner with local papers across the nation? Provide the online presence with national news mixed with local news from your zip code. I would subscribe to the New York Times if a part of the content was my local news mixed in.

TV stations have been doing this for decades. I have local news show and national news on one channel of distribution.

Anonymous

When you pay for music, it isn’t interrupted by advertising.

Bill

To those who suggest shutting down the print edition of the NYT, keep in mind that the government (or ISP’s) would have the power to block access to nytimes.com. The print edition MUST remain in place.

Bill

keep in mind how the WikiLeaks site was brought down and attacked during controversial leaks.

Antegigs

Americans are news junkies so they’ll pay if they have to … but the “info for the average bloke” revolution that the internet was supposed to be will become elitist, only for those with really-really good incomes. Too bad.

Davudoo

When I read of the subscription plan announcement I was delighted. I use the Times many times each day and I think it’s a great resource. I pay $15/ month for Netflix and it’s almost entirely fictional material. But if Netflix disappeared I’d be able to make my way strategize my life without it. I look at other newsfeeds, but I really rely on the Times. Paying for the NYT’s is A-OK by me, and I count myself amongst the mentioned digiratti

Ddisterheft

I’m listening to the program right now and am doing a slow burn about the callers who refuse to pay for using the NY Times’ content. I suspect that these are the same people who listen to NPR for hours every day and yet don’t support their local radio station. One lesson I learned from my mother is that you get what you pay for. If you want to read news for free, you’ll soon get a product that is worth the price.

Bbruosta

Kind of an elitist attitude, don’t you think? I enjoy NPR. I like the NYT. I have contributed to NPR in the past. Not willing to pay for the NYT. One can get good, quality, and non-biased news for free. For example, you can find Associated Press news stories at a ton of outlets on the ‘net.

Anonymous

It’s kind of appropriate that rags like the nyt are going down. Years of servicing the wealthy have sprung back at them as most people now don’t have enough money to spare for the nyt.

ThresherK

You do know how much newspaper prices have increased w.r.t. gasoline or automobiles or a cup of coffee, right? And you know what proportion of a newspaper’s income comes from advertisers v. subscribers v. single-copy sales, right?
- Anonymous
  
  Can’t get blood out of a rock. In 80% of American households somethings got to give. They’re paying higher taxes so the rich can pay less. Maybe the rich are going to have to pay more for their newspapers after all half the time the newspapers are nothing but propaganda for the rich anyways.

Marc P.

I own a cellphone, not a handheld persnoal personal assistant/multi-use device. I don’t Kindle, text, Tweet, own (or plan to own) a tablet of any kind. I cherish my hardcopy newspapers and have no intention of giving them up willingly, regardless of availabiliy/cost of online news content.

Phillip C

I think the consumption channel is critical. I support NPR because I want to be able to listen to the news while I do other things. I think people will be willing to pay for news if the consumption method is convenient (i.e., no pop-ups, clean UI, etc.) and the pay scheme is manageable and easy. How many people spend a lot of money on books because the kindle makes purchase incredibly easy.

How can news sources protect their investment in journalism? The guy blogging in California is getting his info on Libya from somewhere…

Jill

Many people (including me) don’t use the internet as a gateway to single sources of news, like a virtual newspaper shop. I research topics, and go where my interest and needs take me. I could not afford to have a subscription to every publication that has a single article now and then that I need to read. We already pay for access to news and information, by paying our substantial monthly fees to our internet access company. Why isn’t there a model that requires these companies to pay for content? After all, if there were no sites to look at, I certainly wouldn’t be paying comcast or verizon for access…

Jeff

Everyone expects music and news to be free – think of what it costs to support a camera crew in Pakistan or write/record one song.

This attitude of “Oh – the web is free” will lead to tons of information with no credibility.

Bbruosta

I am too used to free news to ever pay anything. One can find the same story on many different news sites, so until they all go to a pay model, I see no reason to subscribe. I will grant that the NYT provides more in-depth perspectives, but not enough that I will subscribe. As far as online ads, I use ad-blocking software, so I never see them.

Tim Flynn

I believe that the public loves their ads (regardless of complaining about them) just as much as they value good news. Why dosen’t the print media try to do it better? Make it the place to be for good creative advertizing! It’s informative and entertaing to ponder good ads while catching up on the news.

The web experience is not all that wonderful for either.

Tim Flynn
Fayston VT

Ed Pickett

How do the costs of production for print versus electronic compare? I would think the electronic would be considerably cheaper to deliver and the price should reflect that to some degree. Regarding the New York Times, I would think that an online edition has opportunity to enrich the experience with a search engine for related articles, back issues, more pictures, video clips, and eternal links. (Imagine the NY Times linking to an external document on Google, Government website, NPR, or Factcheck.org)

LP

I’m a librarian, and sometimes hear people speculate that libraries are becoming obsolete now that “everything is free online.” This is a perfect example of why libraries are still relevant- we pay for institutional subscriptions to newspapers and magazines, and anyone with a library card and pin number can access articles for free via the library’s website.

People can pay for NYT online (and all their Kindle books and Flickr accounts) or take advantage of their public libraries!

Michael Wolz

I can definitely afford to contribute to those reporters who prepare the content I trust.

Buddy

Democracy depends on an active, robust, press, with full freedom of the press. We need experienced journalists who can ‘smell” when big issues are being hidden or masked. Democracy needs investigative journalism. Without a vibrant press, it is not clear if we will have an informed electorate, or just one that relies on highly partisan press.

http://abellia.myopenid.com/ abellia

I’ve always thought that papers should have people pay for things that they are interested in AND make it easy. For instance, provide a headline and a first paragraph. If you want more, click a button and get charged a dime.

barry

Where does this idea come from that we should be able to get anything we want for free? We want to drive on well-maintained roads and bridges and have someone babysit our kids for us during the work day but don’t want to pay taxes. We want news for free but don’t want to pay for a public broadcasting system. We ARE willing to pay for our service providers to provide us with mindless entertainment, endless commercials, and Fox. Is there any connection here with why we are no longer able to find common ground about just about anything in this country?

Mimbrenos4

I live in a rural area of New Mexico. FIfteen years ago, I used to get up at 7 a.m. on Sunday morning to go fight over the three copies of the Sunday Times that we would get in our local grocery store. If you had told me then that I could get all the content of the whole week’s Times on my computer, without having to even leave my house – for just 15 bucks a month – I would have thought it was too good to be true. After a decade of having all this absolutely free, though, I’m not sure I’m going to go for it…

Cynthia
Silver City, NM

Tina

A caller just mentioned GOOGLE as a company that knows “how to monetize”.

Does he know that GOOGLE OWES THE U.S. FEDERAL GOVERNMENT MILLIONS OR BILLIONS (I’m VERY bad with numbers — but the number was mentioned last week on NPR) OF DOLLARS that they have squirreled away in accounts in Ireland and somewhere off shore.

I LOVE using Google for the history researching I do, so I was APPALLED to find out that people are losing their safety net so that Google can keep its money until some Senator offers a period of forgiveness when some of the money comes dribbling back into our country (this is what happens, according to the news report). This is ALSO money that could be circulating into our economy, but it is kept in “boxes” in foreign countries.

Don’t use Google as an example, unless we want financial shenanigans everywhere ….. everywhere!!!

Airakalanr

Do iPad users buy newpapers?
Papers only survived on the basis of adds not news.
The fall in newspaper sales correlates with the increase in division of wealth. Maybe poor folks read more papers.

BobFSez

The richer they get the less we can buy. Henry Ford knew better — and he was no liberal.

Steve L

The question is NOT whether news is, or should be, free.

The question is whether people will pay their fair share or be a parasite on society.

steve in nashville

Anonymous

Your commentators keep saying that “content can’t continue to be free” — but newspapers have been exceptions to the rule. Broadcast TV is free; commercial broadcast radio is free; public radio is free to most (and I contribute). People have always paid for delivery (cable, print newspapers, etc.), not content — and there’s no reason to think they’ll start now.

BHA in Vermont

The overhead of ‘printing’ and delivering the readable product is MUCH lower online. No paper, no ink, no printers, no delivery cost. No waste with papers printed but not sold. No problem delivering in a snowstorm. The online price should reflect that.

I guess I’m not digital enough. No tablet, no smart phone. I might hunt up an article from my computer here and there but I have no interest in spending hours sitting in front of the screen to read the paper. And it is a bit tough to eat breakfast with a keyboard in front of you or sit in the comfy chair, even with a laptop.

ThresherK

Anyone not worried about Comcast integrating vertically would be advised to read up on Barry Nolan. (And I’m not just saying this because he’s a regular on Says You!, the best radio quiz show out there.)

Airakalanr

What makes newspapers so expensive?
Journalists? Bottom line economics?
Grocery chains operate on 1-2% but of course the workers are not paid like prima donnas! Do journalists overvalue themselves? Why are they worth more than minimum wage?

Anonymous

I don’t mind paying, but $200/year is somewhat steep for me. However, I would like to see some changes. If they want to “go digital”, then I would like their articles to have more multimedia in it, instead of basically a copy of their print version.

Here’s some suggestions: In addition to video with articles, and maybe interactive charts, allow all articles to be pod-castable so that I can listen to the articles while I drive. Why not have a NYTimes internet radio? What about a NYTimes tv channel? There’s plenty of things that they can do to add more value and take full advantage of digital.

BC

Hello NYT, are you listening? I read the Times every day online and I would be proud to help pay for the work of your reporters. However, I was taken aback by the price of a digital subscription. It seems to me that if you charged $5 a month you would get more than three times as many subscribers.

Zak in Boston

I, for one, will be signing up for the $195 Sunday subscription with online access, probably later today. I’ve been reading the Times online (laptop and iPhone) daily for a long time, and I haven’t paid a cent. As someone who has worked in online media, and truly values being well-informed, it feels like the least I can do is to pay for the quality journalism I’ve come to expect from the NYT.

vermonter

I have a solution. Everyone who refuses to pay for online content that they use should do their job for free and see if they like that model.

Anonymous

I’m someone who would be willing to pay for NYT content — I’m a frequent reader — but the prices are out of line with reality. $5-10 a month for total access would be more reasonable. Charging separate prices for phones and tablet’s also reflective of a complete misunderstanding of the new media landscape. Look at Netflix for a successful model — $8 a month gets you unlimited streaming on any device.

The other thing I think the Times has miscalculated is people’s tolerance for advertising in a paid service. On the NYT website or iPad app, clicking on an article often pops up a full-screen ad that has to be played or manually skipped before getting to the content. Ads in a newspaper have never interrupted you as you try to read an article.

Personally, I find it absurd that the NYT thinks 4% profits are insufficient in this economy. Perhaps a nonprofit model is the end game here — NPR (to which I gladly contribute) seems to be thriving.

guest

Major problem with the new model. We subscribe to the print edition. Both of us from time to time wish to send an article to a colleague. We used to be able to do this. Under the new model, we get access under only a single email address. So, either my husband would have to send an article that looks as though it is coming form me, or visa versa.

The old gray lady is up to speed on the digital age.

RickV

Maybe the ProPublica model is the way to go for long-form journalism

Tom

I don’t mind paying, in fact I think we should. But I already pay for the NYT through a Kindle subscription – and this new model does not provide me online access, even though I am paying. This seems to be a missing link in this new model.

Plowshares Cathy

I believe that across the country there are many public transportation users that want a paper copy of a newspaper. I moved from Boston to a rural town ten years ago, but unless things have changed, you don’t get wireless reception in the subway tunnels. The number of public transportation users in the country is only going to increase, so I believe newspapers should continue to make a hardcopy. Many people whose mass transit doesn’t use tunnels don’t want to carry their laptops around everywhere they go.
“Free” papers are not free; they will, and to some extent, already do, come at the expense of our democracy. We will only get the information that the advertisers want us to get. Access to hard hitting information is too valuable for people to refuse to pay for it.
Cathy, Sunderland, MA

Michelle from Iowa

The problem here is that anyone paying for the Times will now feel like a sucker. Consumers are already used to paying for apps–why not use that model?–a cheaper price point, even if once a month, would bring in more customers who get convenience for paying a smaller amount, and who feel good about paying for the extra convenience of not having to get around firewalls.

Tina

Ya KNOW… MANY journalists RISK THEIR LIVES to GET US the news we get … and some guy thinks it’s okay to HACK into the paper?!? AND people think THEY DESERVE someone else’s work for FREE?

W H A T is WRONG WITH THIS SOCIETY?!?

leahb

Shame on you, Tom Ashbrook! You were positively CHIPPER talking to this guy who, by most people’s definition, is a creep! He’s a hacker, he’s breaking the law, you didn’t even ask him if his conscience bothers him. Waaay to easy on that guy. And to hark back to the Times, what would Randy Cohen have said? Is hacking now just a hobby that we all have to chuckle at?

ThresherK

Speaking of the NYT charging for content, has the Times making money on their crosswords, and is it considered successful?

Dave

This will work out in some way as the Times is one of the few sources of good journalism and news junkies like me will pay or as has already happened have access sponsored by an advertiser. My first months access is now sponsored by an advertiser. So the Times will sell discounted access to advertisers who will then offer it to potential customers. Secondly I would expect that sites like the Huffington Post, whose real news consists largely of links to NYT articles, will soon have pay to re-post.

http://www.facebook.com/tekelg2 Tekel Gayle

I’m for paying a subscription service for NY Times and others. I think we forget what reporters do to bring us the information they find. We forget corruption in business and government is usually put to the public through news organizations. When it is delivered it’s not a 20 second glance over from television, its in depth and informative. Without the newspaper organizations we, as citizens, really lose an advocate for the people.

With that said, I think the NY Times can come up with a better subscription plan, tiered and based on device. With an increase of signed subscription the NY Times can go back to their advertisers and negotiate a better deal.

heather?

Are we going to become a society where only the wealthy have access to reliable news and information?

Anonymous

Thing is they aren’t going to be able to have access at a certain point. It won’t matter there are only so many rich people. It’s sad for the rich but as there is increasing stratification they are going to lose services that can’t be supported by meager audiences no matter how well heeled.
Grady Lee Howard

No, we are going to become a society where news and information become even more unreliable in order to flatter wealthy subscribers.
And where the reporters who repeat more accurately what they are told to say by the powerful receive disproportionate rewards.
- ThresherK
  
  Amen to the “liberal reporters get trumped by conservative publishers” bit.
  
  But maybe we should separate “news” and “information”.
  
  News will flatter the wealthy, but the bald-faced information, the worldview, the working assumptions, will put a chill down one’s spine that all the image ads in the world can’t hide.
  
  The hoi polloi can read FT or IBD almost anywhere and find out what the rich think of us, and everything we’ve based our middle-classness on.
  
  And it ain’t pretty.
  - Grady Lee Howard
    
    Disinfotainment.

Claudiak

My first comment is that it smacks of “bait and switch” which does make your subscriber feel like a sucker.
Secondly, if you expect payment for professional journalism, then be professional, i.e., unbiased. I lean conservative and I have to work very hard to get balanced, unopinionated reporting. We are a larger audience than you know, and a lot of us have been turned off, and have tuned out.

ThresherK

Judith Miller was well paid.

Jes’ sayin.

Carol

As a senior citizen online reader (computer only), I just cannot afford to pay the subscription fees. It isn’t a matter of value for money or whether or not journalism should be supported; my budget just won’t stretch any further. I guess I will just have to search a bit harder online for the news or read The Washington Post. The introductory rate ($.99 for the first month) would be acceptable if continued for senior citizens. I read far more than twenty articles a month, particularly in the health section (retirement, New Old Age Blog, etc.) and the news section, a few theater and movie reviews….It doesn’t take long to count up. My suggestion: a senior rate through AARP which would keep the $.99 per month permanently. Twelve dollars a year times the millions of AARP members would be quite a nice chunk of change for the Times.

Anonymous

Why doesn’t the NY Times follow NPR’s example and devote 20% of its pages to begging several weeks a year?

VW

On current prices: Newspapers claim that a lower price is not possible given cost of producing news. I’m originally from India where a very vibrant & unbiased press exists and national newspapers cover not just local but international topics in detail every day. The cost of subscription to the full newspapers on Web + Print(home delivered) 7 days a week? $1/month!

For analysis: lets take out the print and take cost of online only – such that we’re only looking at cost of producing news (not printing it). We can also assume that cost of labor(reporters etc) in US is 3-5x that of India (the actual figure is closer to 2-3x). Given this – any newspaper wanting to charge more than $5/month for online access needs to stop whining and analyze newspapers around the world.

Airakalanr

Newspapers, like Travel agencies, have been over-run by the Internet tsunami. Newspapers had adopted the entertainment format of living high on the hog off advertising revenues, not off their news content. News is everywhere on the Internet. Folks pay for their cable access and feel that’s adequate. A few years back you stuck an antenna on your roof and watched TV. Now you pay for cable. Opinions a dime a million. Journalists can bring perspective to that content. Magazine journalists survive because they provide value added content. News papers consider ads to be value added content and the general public no longer want to read ads, they see enough on telly!

Drtsc

Thank you to Ms Wilkerson, who put the fear factor back in the great migration equation. You, or your brother, or your father, or your husband could be lynched for just existing in the South before 1970, and your life may well have been a living hell as you attempted to raise your children with some self-respect.

John

“Are online readers willing to pay for news that was once free?” This is a total misrepresentation of the facts. Online news is not “free” — one pays for the ISP and for the hardware (whether PC or Tablet) device. Furthermore, one is free from the substantial waste involved in all that volume of paper. Newspapers are 19th-century tech and should be allowed to die off.

Ellen Dibble

The revenue from advertisers is the missing piece of the puzzle. One hears about NBC merging with Comcast and for them the profits will be generated when the equations for revenue flows from the internet clarify. What revenue flows? All these video ads that demand that I watch them when I visit a site? All these sidebars that promote this or that? And by the way, TARGETED ads, that know (from cookies or what have you) that I’ve been surfing for B&B’s in the northern Alps or something like that.

Dainbug

Seasoned Reporters? Judith Miller? I’m not excited about paying for “copy and paste” journalists.

Ellen Dibble

I get e-mails from something called COTO reports, which always offers a counterpoint to whatever more mainstream media hypothesizes — I mean, addresses. COTO can jump the gun or misfire — they can be mostly wrong. But they tend to take the lead, trying out perspectives and issues that ought to be considered before “seasoned professionals” take it on — with the administrative/corporate baggage of larger institutions. I don’t know anything about their financing.
If NPR/PBS were a larger part of our national news footprint, with Congress allowing something like the TV access licensing fees that the UK provides to support the BBC, then the NYT could define itself as something other. Right now, it is not regarded as fair to conservatives (who therefore have to rely on, what, Fox?), but not allowed to be all-out liberal either. A website can be a lot more than print media, but the New York Times has archiving and accessing and linking capacities, as well as news-generation capabilities, and the potentials are only beginning to be tapped.

Dainbug

Why doesn’t NYT contract with Comcast to provide access for their subscribers? Why am I telling you this? Why is it so hard to market in a digital age for some people? How is Huffingtonpost making money and NYT not?

http://pulse.yahoo.com/_YMDVEJX6OOESZB64QH6RJVCKL4 MarkB

I get my news from many sources, most overseas. I compare bias and self interest to gage the truth. The New York Times is a small fish in my portfollio of news sources.

Alaska Dave

I am happy to pay a reasonable amount to gain access to NYTImes.com. Living in Alaska, we appreciate quick access to excellent news and opinion.

Charlie from NC

I started paying for PANDORA Radio when they offered advertisment free listening. Could the Times do the same with their content?

Billy

If most of the nytimes cost are associated with the print version of their paper (according to the guest) not the online version. Why should I have to subsidize their print newspaper if I only read the online version?

u2?

The Wonderful thing about the internet is that it is placeless and free. If paywalls go up, with a few keystrokes, users can migrate to another website which remains free and be up and running in a few seconds. We are not limited to domestic web sites.

I am curious which web sites listeners can recommend to offer comparable content to NYTimes.com? I would suggest BBC.co.uk, TheEconomist, Slate.com, Drudgereport, al jazzera, and the Huffington post.

Michael

Guardians, haaretz and RIA news also tends to buck the cowtoe behavior the NYT,WP and NPR engages in when the government tells them too.

The Common Dream is pretty interesting as well
Grady Lee Howard

The Internet or web is becoming the subconscious of the corporate computer brain.

Ken

I am willing to pay $5-10/month for complete access to the NY Times online via PC/laptop, but I resent having to pay more than that for additional access on a wireless device that I won’t use. I just want the PC/laptop access, not PC plus a wireless device, but that is not provided alone (i.e. a la carte) for a separate price.

bc

I revere the journalists at the NYT. But I don’t care for this new business model. On any Sunday morning here, you can go out at 9 a.m. looking for a NYT Sunday edition – and they are sold out everywhere. Anecdotal – however, the folks at Starbucks and other places tell me me consumers complain about the same issue. So if I were the NYT Circ manager – I would rather toss 3 away from overstocking, than have 20 buyers unable to find the item…
The Times also recently went up on the print edition. This doesn’t even account for the ad revenue – and the ads are online as well as in print. If they were sold to advertisers as a package, (online + print), I would think the times would want as much exposure to the ads as possible, for their advertisers. Open access = lots of eyeballs. Behind the paywall = not so many views. Even magazines count on their pass along readership (4.2 or whatever) when pitching ad buying…

Irene Moore

Please distinguish between non-profit services and services for profit when having this discussion.

http://profiles.google.com/rickevans033050 Rick Evans

I resent the epithet “free riders”. Are people who read the newspaper in the library “free riders”. That rant said.

Last year my 86 year old mother tried to subscribe to the Times Weekender. She lives in the Bronx. The NY Times gladly accepted her credit card but was chronically unable to deliver the paper. The NY Daily News has no problem delivering. After several weeks of frustration we finally cancelled.

The NY Times needs to cultivate its OLD business model before trying to harvest green from a new unproven one.

One last point. Maybe the times should stop whining about “free riders” and consider that it may have sold its website cheap to the ad man.

PJ

I cannot understand the attitude that a newspaper should be free or any other service, just because it is on the web. How are people going to earn a living, if they cannot charge for their services? I would rather pay and not have to see advertising. The same with TV. I would pay to not have to watch any commercials on TV. I tape every show, just so that I do not have to sit through commercials. You get what you pay for. If you want great news that you can trust, those bringing us the news need to get paid for their service.

http://pulse.yahoo.com/_X3Z6OE5BMIXVJTBKLRJL2JOUMU HiltonE

TV was free with ads before most Americans were brainwashed into paying for cable with ads. I’m old enough to remember Manhattan Teleprompter pay TV advertising it’s commercial free TV.

I have never paid to watch TV. I use an antenna. The cable and satellite companies brainwashed the public into believing the DTV over the air doesn’t work. If I really felt a desire to watch a favorite sports team I would subscribe to an online service like MLBTV and watch online.

They have even brainwashed Americans into the idea that 800 channels represents choice when many of the choices are 24/7 shopping channels, religious channels and other junk channels they would never watch.

Regarding the NY Times. They’re in trouble because they made stupid business decisions like buying the Boston Globe for $1.x Billion only to see it plummet 80% in price AND for offering up their content for advertisers for pennies on the dollar and click-throughs.

My local paper is free and totally supported by ads in a small town. Maybe the times should go under its tutelage.

Nathan

I am a journalist in NYC and cannot do without my NYT, ordering the print subscription means you get unlimited net access, it is a no brainer order the print version and get all the online content free across all platforms. I just wish I could stop getting the print delivery and my print copy get halted or go to NY schools, think of the savings in print costs, however I believe they need to deliver my NYT everyday so they can please their print advertisers . Nathan

http://www.dogoodgauge.org The Do Good Gauge

In pursuit of commonality, I would gladly pay to participate. Internet brings forth a new media for bi-directional communication. It provides an opportunity for convergent solution. Unlike the oldpaper’s monopolistic control of information, internet technology can bring forth opportunity for unfiltered public resolution.

Commonality – We Can Work it Out

Rlord69

Does my annual crossword subscription apply? in order to fulfill my rightful access, I would hit 32 articles a month.

Mfulton168

The people who are saying they don’t want to pay for their news on the Web–are they members of their local NPR stations? Don’t we suppose most of us who listen to NPR make some sort of annual contribution to hear their content?

Jordan

I would like to see an a la carte option. I’m a semi regular reader, and I will probably go over the 20 article per month level. The thing is, I don’t always read the NYT. I also don’t want to spend fifteen dollars a month if I read 22 articles. Give me a pay as you go option. I would gladly pay a quarter per article, more for an in depth piece of reporting. Let me set up a debit account, and pay for what I use.

Flawrenc

Why not start the price lower? I would easily pay a little, but $8 a week seems like a lot!

Ljhkay

I’ll sit in my armchair and read at least 4 British papers, each with US sections-giving better details of facts and more commentary if I wish to read it..free…and have to struggle to find US outlets with the same quality to detail and newsworthiness.

Eve Sheridan

I have had the Times delivered for 18 years. I spend a lot of time working on a computer, and I will continue to have the paper delivered on dead trees, because it is a great pleasure to read non digital formats. I prefer to read books and papers, for many reasons, some sentimental, some for creature comfort, some because, as a graphic designer, the paper Times is a great paper just to look at, (I could go on & on-)
So I will be able to read online(which I do also, but with somewhat less pleasure), as will all the print subscribers.
It will be interesting to see what percentage of those who are not accustomed to paying for great news will step up and share the bill. I

Richandyana

I work for a small-town local paper in Wyoming. As has been stated a million times before, small-town local papers are pretty safe, since they are the sole source of local news. There are dozens of sources for national news and I get my national news from many of them. I’ll gladly pay for access to the NYT, especially for its fine opinion, analysis and arts/culture/science coverage. Gladly.

Rosie935

I would not mind paying a reasonable subscription fee like $80, but $195 a year YIKES!!!!!!!!!!!
Guess we will have to hack the pay wall

Craig in St Louis

Don’t we worry that the dependence on ad revenues has some effect on the coverage we read. I listen to NPR because it depends on quality driving listener contributions, not ad revenue. The Times decision makes me more likely to read it, but I suppose I’m in a minority on this.

Craig
St. Louis, MO

https://www.google.com/accounts/o8/id?id=AItOawmEOnpsu-Qd7fJ1ReL0VdMp3CALgZ1aFTk drc

High DPI newspaper-esque layouts designed to be aesthetically pleasing on their target platforms can sell for current print prices, particularly on eInk devices. Access to disparate archives of individual articles with auto-scaling device independent layouts will not. Eventually even these newspaper-grade layouts will become free, or cease to exist. Information wants to be free, in the same way that gravity attracts, you can fight it, but doing so is unnatural, and requires a disproportionate amount of effort. How this is ultimately rectified with financial goals is unclear, but this is the reality. I don’t want to see the end of journalism as we know it, but the decay of that profession started long before the popularity of the Internet. Savvy netizens are already distrusting of any individual news source. We are our own intelligence gathering sources, we read and process from as many sources as we can to form our own opinions, we get our information or disinformation direct from our own sources, we are own own reporters.

Steven

I think part of the problem is that the NY Times’s paywall system is so complex. The paywall has many different levels and is confusing.

Eric

NPR expects people to pay for the service!!! I am a Los Angeles news photographer and have been layed off before. Nike does not say if you go to our website you can have a pair of shoes for free!!!

Jon Herman

I’m willing to pay for news content because I know how much work it takes to produce it, and how valuable the press is, especially to local communities. That being said, the rates should be comparable to or less than regular hard-copy subscription rates if such a model is to succeed.

Meanse

This just goes to show like music industry, and movie industry (which went from crazy boom to struggling) the NYTimes is run by old out of touch folks that have no clue about how things have changed or how to turn a profit with this “new” fangled technology the youngsters call the Internet…

They have no concept that the days are gone where you can charge insane prices and get away with it because the consumer is naive.

Lets look at the reality:
$15 – unlimited access ANY device – special note smart phone apps
$20 – unlimited access ANY device – special note tablet PC’s
$35 – unlimited access ANY device – special note includes both tablet PC’s and smart phones.
(for a group that prides themselves on clear communication they sure do not know how to communicate prices… perhaps someone at the NYTimes should crack a dictionary to look up the term ANY and explain why they have limitations right after the statement… is that a good advertisement? lol)

$8 a month I get all the movies/tv I want
$5 a month I get backup of files to the cloud
$10 a month download as many songs as I want
Hulu/network sites watch TV for free just have to watch commercials (just like the NYTimes)
Rent a move online $2 – $4 per movie

So which one is overpriced and does not understand the consumer???

If it is not clear to you then I suggest you are over a certain age and should recognize that the amount of time you have to work is dwindling fast so as any good business person you should grasp quickly if they want the business to continue after they are gone… they need to know who the customer is and they need to appeal to the majority in order to be profitable or you basically run the risk of hastening your demise and everyone’s view that you are a relic and open the door to the person who can do it better and charge a reasonable price for the work they put out that consumers are willing to pay…

It is not about getting it for free, everyone understands pay for quality however only an idoit would pay those crazy prices and if it is a stunt so they can offer an ipad subscription for a year $99 they just do not understand the mentality of the current consumer we do not like to be played… we have no patience and you screw it up once you have to work hard to win a second chance…

I am shocked that such a respected organization could bungle this so bad it’s like they are living in a bubble… sad.

Well like most others when they are being overcharged like the music and movie industry I will just simply get around the paywall such a poor implementation.

The person who thinks that they will not have ads like NPR if you pay is mislead. It is not ad free. Think you pay $50 to have NYTimes delivered does it have ads? answer: yes – why because that is how they make the big money in selling the number of eyes that read the paper to advertisers.

BobFSez

Let me get this straight. It’s 20 articles free per month PER BROWSER?

I have three browsers, including AOL, Firefox and Safari. And there are others.

Vickels

I’d gladly pay too, but in this economy? no way can I afford this price! I feel sick to think of living without my nytimes perspective and scope. I go elsewhere too, but the times is the times.

http://www.facebook.com/j.corbett.hix J. Corbett Hix

Waaaaaay to complex pricing scheme and prohibitively expensive.

How about $5-$10 per month available on all platforms. (I pay 10 a month for my local NPR membership).

Make up high premium in volume.

I was a Times Select subscriber too.

stupid. stupid. stupid.

Kurdtz

The problem with the pay wall is that the money that americans used to pay to the newspaper to recieve information about the world has been co-opted by the cable/internet industry. In 1975 The local news was available for free from 4 channels maybe 3-5 times a day and mostly the same times.. 6, 10, 11.. However they did invest in a newspaper subscription and a few magazines. Here is where I am not able to run numbers but I have a feeling that if you took % of family income spent on subscriptions to print in 1975 and compared to what today is spent on internet and cable tv subscriptions, I am sure that we now an equal or higher % of family income on these digital sources.

One could argue that the cable tv/internet industry has successfully defeated an outmoded business in the arena of capitalism. In doing so they even have had the help of the news paper industry. How often when you log into yahoo, aol, google, comcast.net, warner, or other do you see news articals front and center. Many choose a homepage based on the quality of the news feeds. More people reading, more clicks, more ad $$. Cable is now enjoying the joys of a subscriptions/advertising model going at full force. (and even dabling in the whole chain with production of content and resale to other providers)

Newspapers… Pay attention to that third revenue stream.. ORIGINATION OF CONTENT… How much is paid by the sites for those news streams?….The newspapers drive some of the best reporting. The funding needs to come from the cable/internet industry, because they have all the money that average Joe/Jane american used to have to buy the newspaper.

Lee

Here is my plan to save the newspaper industry:
The papers do not understand what portions of their services are valuable to which customers. They are attempting to sell a five course meal to a number of consumers who only want a sandwich. Itunes has taught the online customer that we don’t need the whole album if we only want one song.

Using platforms such as e-readers and tablets let us create (in an Itunes like format) our own paper. For example, I don’t live anywhere near NYC so I don’t want the metro section but I love their national section, so sell me just that for $5. Let me get my state news from the Albany Times Union for $3. Let me get local sections from my local paper.

Then sell me threads of news. I like the Boston Bruins but don’t care about the rest of the news from Boston. Have the Boston Globe sell me a Bruins only thread of news stories for a couple bucks a month. When a major news story happens in Cleveland, let me buy a onetime package of stories from a local paper there.

The value is in the local reporter creating a quality piece of writing in each individual area, as well as, the convenience of having all of my personal pieces of news collected and distributed to me.

Individual news papers can continue to sell whole paper subscriptions. However, they have to understand that their market for that product is likely to be limited to local consumers.

Lee

Here is my plan to save the newspaper industry:
The papers do not understand what portions of their services are valuable to which customers. They are attempting to sell a five course meal to a number of consumers who only want a sandwich. Itunes has taught the online customer that we don’t need the whole album if we only want one song.

Using platforms such as e-readers and tablets let us create (in an Itunes like format) our own paper. For example, I don’t live anywhere near NYC so I don’t want the metro section but I love their national section, so sell me just that for $5. Let me get my state news from the Albany Times Union for $3. Let me get local sections from my local paper.

Then sell me threads of news. I like the Boston Bruins but don’t care about the rest of the news from Boston. Have the Boston Globe sell me a Bruins only thread of news stories for a couple bucks a month. When a major news story happens in Cleveland, let me buy a onetime package of stories from a local paper there.

The value is in the local reporter creating a quality piece of writing in each individual area, as well as, the convenience of having all of my personal pieces of news collected and distributed to me.

Individual news papers can continue to sell whole paper subscriptions. However, they have to understand that their market for that product is likely to be limited to local consumers.

http://www.bootland.nl/ bootland.nl

I do believe that news as we knew it has lost it’s momentum so to say.