NYTimes.com to ignore the fact that information wants to be free

256 colors · #1 01-20-2010, 07:47 PM

Totally ignoring the fact that information wants to be free, both literally and figuratively, the New York Times announced today that access to its website, NYTimes.com, will be limited to paid subscribers starting in 2011.

CNN reports that the deluded management of the declining newspaper is under the mistaken impression that "[t]his will enable NYTimes.com to create a second revenue stream and preserve its robust advertising business."

Quote:

Originally Posted by CNN

Through its new "metered model," readers will be able to freely view a set number of articles per month, but after reaching that monthly limit, they will have to pay per article. Print subscribers will continue to have free access to NYTimes.com.

According to CNN, "[t]he publisher plans to [waste] 2010 building a new infrastructure for implementing the pay structure."

Reporting on its imminent demise, the New York Times stated "they could not yet answer fundamental questions about the plan, like how much it would cost or what the limit would be on free reading."

LadyShea · #2 01-20-2010, 07:49 PM

Well, the people that write the stories and such don't work for free (and IIRC the NYT has had a lot of layoffs), so I don't see a problem with them trying to make some money.

This may not be the best way to do so, but really it's not horrible or anything.

Watser? · #3 01-20-2010, 07:50 PM

They tried this before, didn't they? I thought they had figured out that was not working.

It might, if they still had journalists. But they don't have anything to offer you can't find elsewhere.

Adam · #4 01-20-2010, 07:53 PM

They did try this before and, no, it didn't work. I guess they might have some crazy idea that will make it work the second time around, but I doubt it.

256 colors · #5 01-20-2010, 08:05 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by LadyShea

Well, the people that write the stories and such don't work for free (and IIRC the NYT has had a lot of layoffs), so I don't see a problem with them trying to make some money.

This may not be the best way to do so, but really it's not horrible or anything.

It is not horrible for anyone except the NYT employees, I suppose. The market is saturated with writers who will work for free, and thousands of alternative news sources. I think they are not going to achieve the financial success they are hoping for with this new plan.

LadyShea · #6 01-20-2010, 08:06 PM

I agree the plan will probably fail, but I see the demise of actual investigative journalism, with you know expenses paid and such, as a bad thing in the long run.

Watser? · #7 01-20-2010, 08:13 PM

Yeah, but the point is that this is not the cause of that demise. Rather the other way around: because of that demise the NYT has nothing to offer that others have not.

Anyway news sites can still make money from advertisement (just like tv channels have for decades). And also anyway it is not like the writers' wages are the main expense for the NYT or other newspapers.

Adam · #8 01-20-2010, 08:18 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by LadyShea

I agree the plan will probably fail, but I see the demise of actual investigative journalism, with you know expenses paid and such, as a bad thing in the long run.

I agree, but that doesn't change the fact that trying to charge for access to something that's free elsewhere isn't a valid business model.

viscousmemories · #9 01-21-2010, 02:30 AM

I think last time they did this you had to pay for access all the time, whereas this time only regular readers will have to pay. Seems like a pretty good idea to me since I read it infrequently.

Watser? · #10 01-21-2010, 10:47 AM

Ok, so they will have no more regular readers then.

viscousmemories · #11 01-21-2010, 11:10 AM

I don't see why that'd be the case; they've always found people willing to pay for a subscription to their print edition.

Watser? · #12 01-21-2010, 11:14 AM

Because some people are willing to pay for a print edition. And then they find the newspaper they like.

Very few people are willing to pay for internet news.

viscousmemories · #13 01-21-2010, 11:19 AM

That's true as far as it goes, but the NY Times isn't just news. It's got a lot of original content that people seem to like. I'm not saying they'll be successful with this model, maybe they won't. I'm just saying it's not a complete mystery that they're trying it. I gather they don't have many other options short of going under.

ImGod · #14 01-21-2010, 10:10 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by viscousmemories

That's true as far as it goes, but the NY Times isn't just news. It's got a lot of original content that people seem to like. I'm not saying they'll be successful with this model, maybe they won't. I'm just saying it's not a complete mystery that they're trying it. I gather they don't have many other options short of going under.

Look at most blogs and news programs. They are nothing original, just some guy trolling news sources, adding some opinion or spin, and posting links to them or calling themselves breaking news.

The AP wire was once the only source like this. Now google or yahoo pulls everything to their door.

Most people who are writing for free wouldn't if they actually had to think up something or do legwork that involve more than looking at their google alerts in between downloading porn.

The NYTimes may gain readers looking for the currently free content to comment on. Like how most of the international news on ABCNNBC comes from BBC correspondents. Lucky for Fox they can still pull stuff out of their ass for free.

livius drusus · #15 01-21-2010, 10:25 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by ImGod

Most people who are writing for free wouldn't if they actually had to think up something or do legwork that involve more than looking at their google alerts in between downloading porn.

That's a common slur used against bloggers, but the sad truth is that for years now blogs have been breaking stories, doing analysis, examining original data, calling newsmakers on their inconsistencies and falsehoods more effectively than the old media has.

And I say that as one of the half-dozen people who actually did pay for the NYT Select Service when they tried that 4 years ago.

ImGod · #16 01-21-2010, 11:19 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by livius drusus

Quote:

Originally Posted by ImGod

Most people who are writing for free wouldn't if they actually had to think up something or do legwork that involve more than looking at their google alerts in between downloading porn.

That's a common slur used against bloggers, but the sad truth is that for years now blogs have been breaking stories, doing analysis, examining original data, calling newsmakers on their inconsistencies and falsehoods more effectively than the old media has.

And I say that as one of the half-dozen people who actually did pay for the NYT Select Service when they tried that 4 years ago.

That's why I go to the Drudge report each morning.

Waluigi · #17 01-21-2010, 11:25 PM

I subscribe to the Kindle edition of the NYT, so this won't really affect me.

I have mixed feelings on this... the NYT does provide a lot of original content, and their stories tend to go much more in depth than the standard AP wire article. It sounds like they're trying to charge for content that only their reporters can provide.

I'm not sure it will work, though. I'm not sure how many people still care to read in-depth reporting, and whether there is critical mass to support bedrock news institutions like the NYT.

It seems like these days, if it doesn't fit in a tweet, people aren't interested.

Admittedly, I'm a little biased. In college, as a political science minor, we were required to pay for a Mon-Fri subscription to the Times. I fell in love with it, because their International section was about 10 times larger than my local paper's, and I learned so much.

Yes, a lot of that content is now available for free, but I still feel like I should pay for content that is worth paying for.

Too bad the Times is bankrupt, and although I commend them for trying to make money on online content, I think this plan will ultimately fail.

Waluigi · #18 01-22-2010, 01:42 AM

Alright, I've now read the NYT article about this, and I have to say, of all of the schemes to charge for content, this one seems to make the most sense.

Infrequent visitors that are brought to the site by news aggregators or other external links can still read the articles for free. The regular visitors that comb the whole web site for news are the ones that will be metered. They're trying to get loyal users to pay.

Will this piss off some loyal users? Probably. But it will also attempt to recoup some of the hosting/writing costs by passing them on to the people who get the most benefit from the site. Which, as a concept, isn't that absurd.

BTW, for those that are curious what the $13.99/mo. Kindle edition gets you, here are the sections and number of articles in the Thursday edition, which is pretty representative of what I get every day:

Front Page (7)
International (18)
National (16)
Editorial/Op-Ed (11)
Business Day (30)
Sports Thursday (17)
The Arts (18)
Home (12)
Thursday Styles (9)
New York (13)
Obits (1)

256 colors · #19 01-22-2010, 01:51 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Waluigi

Infrequent visitors that are brought to the site by news aggregators or other external links can still read the articles for free. The regular visitors that comb the whole web site for news are the ones that will be metered. They're trying to get loyal users to pay.

Will this piss off some loyal users? Probably. But it will also attempt to recoup some of the hosting/writing costs by passing them on to the people who get the most benefit from the site. Which, as a concept, isn't that absurd.

Thanks for that viewpoint.

Adam · #20 01-22-2010, 03:07 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by livius drusus

And I say that as one of the half-dozen people who actually did pay for the NYT Select Service when they tried that 4 years ago.

I was one of them, too. I mostly paid because I wanted to read Krugman's column. I also used to pay for Saloni when it was a pay site, but that was mostly because I wanted to support a news source with an actual, up front, liberal bias.

viscousmemories · #21 01-22-2010, 03:43 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Adam

I also used to pay for Saloni when it was a pay site

Is that Salon with a side of pork?

livius drusus · #22 01-22-2010, 03:59 AM

I think it's salt-cured Salon.

ChuckF · #23 01-22-2010, 04:03 AM

I figured it was some Pasolini fapn site.

naturalist.atheist · #24 01-22-2010, 04:03 AM

Of course information that I want should be free and information that I have that other's want should be paid for dearly. How could it be any other way?

ChuckF · #25 02-17-2010, 01:52 PM

Turf War at the New York Times: Who Will Control the iPad? - ipad - Gawker

Quote:

On one side, a Times source explains, you have print circulation, which thinks it should control the iPad since it's just another way to distribute the paper. They'd like to charge $20 to $30 per month for the Times' forthcoming iPad app, basically the product already demonstrated on stage with Steve Jobs, the source said. Why so much? Because they're said to be afraid people will cancel the print paper if they can get the same thing on their iPad. Nevermind that iPad distribution comes with none of the paper or delivery costs associated with print, or that there's already a free electronic edition available to subscribers who cancel.

On the other side, you have the Times' digital operation, which is pushing to charge $10 per month for the iPad edition and is said to be up in arms over print circulation's pricing.

I think the NYT should listen to those print circulation guys, because print circulation has been doing really well.