« House of the Day: 150 Bond Street Revisited Streetlevel: Ignazio's To Finally Open Next Month »

January 21, 2009

(Slightly) Off-Topic Poll: Paying for The Times Online?

Over on the Silicon Alley Insider today, Henry Blodgett makes the case that The New York Times needs to start charging a subscription fee for full access to the newspaper's extremely popular website. Given what a lifeblood of content it is for this blog (and most others), the answer is a no-brainer 'yes' for us, but we're curious to see where readers come down on the issue.

Trackback Pings

TrackBack URL for this entry:
http://www.brownstoner.com/mte/mt-tb.cgi/8064

Comments

Unfettered access to the New York Times online should only be granted to print or online subscribers. They cannot ignore this source of revenue.

Posted by: BrooklynIsHome at January 21, 2009 1:36 PM

Maybe the new Mexican owner, Carlos Slim, will implement that now.

Posted by: daveinbedstuy at January 21, 2009 1:45 PM

If they have a weekend online only option I'd go for it.

Posted by: dittoburg at January 21, 2009 1:46 PM

I wouldn't pay, but they should definitely start doint it.

Posted by: heck_of_a_job_brownie at January 21, 2009 1:48 PM

The Times did charge for access to certain content like the opinion columns for about a year or two. Then they discontinued that program and made everything available to everyone again. Seems like they have already run the numbers.

Posted by: Peter18 at January 21, 2009 1:48 PM

If I had to pay for on-line access, I would cancel my home-delivery, which is pretty expensive. I think they know a lot of their customers would do that.

Posted by: sam at January 21, 2009 1:50 PM

does the subscription model work for anyone anymore? isn't it about traffic, traffic, traffic and the ads that follow? I pay for the Times, but wasn't their "premium" online experiment was a giant flop

(do people listen do Henry Blodgett anymore?)

Posted by: Ringo at January 21, 2009 1:50 PM

It's a double edged sword. I pay for home delivery seven days per week so would expect to get full online access for no additional fees. I would (probably) be happy to just get the weekend papers delivered and read everything else online during the week (which I pretty much do anyway). If that were to happen in sizeable numbers then the loss of print buyers midweek would then decimate their (already declining) display advertising revenue.

The death of newspapers throughout the country, particularly in small cities and towns,is a sad thing. Yes, bloggers are picking up a lot of slack but unpaid bloggers can't sit in the courts, local government centers and so on and report what goes on there. It's that sort of community news which is going to be lost and I am not sure that that's a good thing.

Posted by: 99luftballons at January 21, 2009 1:58 PM

Personally I wouldn't pay for it (it annoys me to no end that they still make you register/log-in to view free content - pet peeve of mine).

They use to charge and must have had a reason to stop, I wonder why the change of heart in the first place...

... regardless, they'll get nary a penny outta me...

Posted by: christopher at January 21, 2009 2:02 PM

I would probably pay no more than $30. I already have a subscription to the Wall Street Journal primarily because it's $80 for the print edition compared to around $500 for the NYT's $500!

Posted by: McFly at January 21, 2009 2:04 PM

I would probably pay no more than $30. I already have a subscription to the Wall Street Journal primarily because it's $80 for the print edition compared to around $500 for the NYT's!

Posted by: McFly at January 21, 2009 2:04 PM

The disturbing part about Blodget's article is that he assumes that cutting costs 40% wouldn't hurt the Times substantially. How is cutting bureaus, reducting the number of editors per story etc. NOT going to kill the NYT's reputation for excellence?

The Times is great precisely because every word is scrutinized as much as possible. (not that errors don't get made, but I think The Times is held to much higher standards than even they can possibly meet.)

Besides, the hybrid free/pay has already been tried and rejected.

Posted by: Bolder at January 21, 2009 2:05 PM

I ... don't read the NYT website even though it's free. So I'm unlikely to pay for it.

Posted by: cwbuecheler at January 21, 2009 2:09 PM

Bolder - perhaps the Times can just revert to broker sponsored "advetorials" like last weekend's Real Estate Section fluff piece.

Posted by: dittoburg at January 21, 2009 2:12 PM

I sometimes find much more interesting articles in the freebie papers like A.M. than in the Times. Sad but true.

Posted by: sam at January 21, 2009 2:16 PM

When the NYT started the website, they charged for online access, as has been pointed out above. Then they decided attracting more people (eyeballs, remember that quaint term from the last boom and bust?)would result in higher ad revenue.

Posted by: denton at January 21, 2009 2:24 PM

I rely on the Times and read it all day long. I DO NOT want a paper subscription. By the time I read it in print, it's out of date.

But I hugely support them, and I would gladly donate $80 a year to support their excellent service. They should start taking donations a la NPR. Also wouldn't hurt if they became a nonprofit.

Unfortunately, the closed-sub route doesn't really work since it locks out casual readers.

Posted by: mopar at January 21, 2009 2:25 PM

I hate reading the papers on-line. My eyes start to burn.

I get the NY Times delivered 7 days a week. I love opening my apt. front door slightly, sticking my head out to make sure no neighbors are in the hall, then opening my door all the way, stepping out to the middle of the hall in my PJ’s, curlers and night cream on my face and reaching down to grab the paper. God forbid they put it right in front of my door.

I like plopping down on the sofa, sometimes with my breakfast or in bed and unfurling it section by section. I like feeling the paper in my hand as I fold like origami and make it manageable to read. I read my favorite sections first and than the rest. I sometimes cut out articles to save or to mail to family and friends.

In the summer, on Sunday’s, Hubby and I sometimes take the paper with a blanket and snacks and go to the park and just sit there and read.

Call me old-fashioned, but I can’t read the paper on-line!

Posted by: bayridgegirl at January 21, 2009 2:26 PM

DoubleClick founder suggests NYT charge for content.

Hey! Maybe we could call it NYT Insider!

Hilarity ensues...

Genius, that one.

Posted by: BoerumHill at January 21, 2009 2:38 PM

BRG, if you're wearing pajamas, why are you worried about your neighbors? Now if you weren't...

There was a really funny scene like that at the beginning of a German movie years ago... if only I could remember the name.

Posted by: denton at January 21, 2009 2:42 PM

The New York Times is a rag, I lost count of how many times the paper printed outright lies. This is why its slowly going out of business. I want a paper I can rely on for the facts, not its ideaology. Save your money within the next 3-5 years the NY Times will be out of business, nobody can trust it any longer.

Posted by: harrythehat at January 21, 2009 2:43 PM

I'm surprised by how many people today think they deserve content for free. Blogging has had an enormous impact on the print industry, and it had indeed allowed people to access information immediately. However, ad revenue doesn't always cover the cost of content creation. I'd miss the free site like hell, but I would understand why they were charging.

Posted by: lesterhead at January 21, 2009 2:50 PM

Henry Blodgett isn't saying anything the Sulzbergers don't already know. If The Times could convince people to pay for complete online access, they would have done it years ago. As Peter18 pointed out, the Times (along with a number of other news and information sites) have tried to establish pay-for access and it simply hasn't worked. Readers will forego the paper online if it costs money. Now that the paradigm has been established, it's going to be very difficult to change the system. The Wall Street Journal is the only daily newspaper that has succesfully maintained a pay-for-online-access stance.

In any event, the Times had better figure something out, and quickly. In the immortal words of Michael Ray Richardson, "The ship be sinkin'":

http://www.theatlantic.com/doc/200901/new-york-times

Posted by: East New York at January 21, 2009 2:55 PM

"bloggers can't sit in the courts, local government centers and so on and report what goes on there."

It's more. Bloggers don't have foreign bureaus covering developments in the far corners of the world. Bloggers don't have the resources to maintain "beats" that are staffed for years by experienced professionals. Bloggers tend to specialize and as a result can't offer the broad coverage found in newspapers. Most importantly, bloggers, for the most part, base their posts on topics covered in traditional media. If we lose traditional media, we (and the blogosphere) lose the original reporting on which we all rely.

Posted by: East New York at January 21, 2009 3:03 PM

They should charge a small fee. Content is worth it. Bloggers makes money out of it by taking part of the content and the traffic to their own site.

Posted by: crimsonson at January 21, 2009 3:03 PM

Moreover, bloggers rely on newspapers and wire services for much of their content. They generally provide commentary on the news, rather than original reporting. We need real investigative journalism to keep people honest.

Posted by: geekyfemme at January 21, 2009 3:29 PM

This already failed once. With so many new possible mistakes, why make the same one again?

Posted by: SnarkSlope at January 21, 2009 3:37 PM

There's too much free content out there for it to work. Most people get news differently than they used to, they don't spend blocks of continuous time consuming the news. The reality is that the unique value that the NYT brings to a shrinking audience won't pay for itself, and people who get benefit out of the "free" content will quickly subsitute into something else if they charge for it. There's an interesting article about the NYT website in NY Mag - it's free http://nymag.com/news/features/all-new/53344/

Posted by: jawbreaker at January 21, 2009 4:01 PM

I read the Times online all the time.

Yet, I vowed, and continue to vow, to never give that company one cent.

The reason is simple - two words, actually.

WILLIAM FUCKIN KRISTOL

OK, three.

Posted by: Come Clean at January 21, 2009 5:06 PM

I agree with geekyfemme. Most blog do not do much original reporting. There would hardly be anything left on Gawker if it could not link to mainstream media: magazines, newspapers, and clips from tv.

Posted by: Carol Gardens at January 21, 2009 6:51 PM

Oh yeah, I would probably pay about $50 a year if I really could not read the NYT any other way.

Posted by: Carol Gardens at January 21, 2009 6:51 PM

I have been reading the NYTimes since I had a high school subscription. I remember having to read the supreme court decisions for social studies class. I continued to read through college and beyond.

No Longer.

The paper took a far left turn around 2004, combined with shoddy reporting practices (think the Blair incident), followed by more than 40 front page stories about Abu Gharib prison (for God's sake, the Kennedy Assassination didn't get that kind of coverage), followed by leaking of intelligence at the risk of US security (as in the report on wiretapping of known al quaeda operatives), etc. etc.

I cancelled my subscription and don't miss it.

Perhaps if they can prove to be objective in their reporting, to do thorough analysis and commentary on issues of national importance without having their editor in chief act as a shill for the Democratic party( one too many dinners with the Clintons on the upper East side), perhaps I would consider paying for this shell of a paper again.

Not likely though. The paper is getting what it deserves, let them go down in bankruptcy for their hubris.

Posted by: Legion at January 21, 2009 8:34 PM

Legion, that's my husband's rant word for word; I, like BayRidgeGirl, love the physical reading of my morning paper, and to save our marriage we compromised; we now get the paper paper Fri-Sun, and I have to read it online the rest of the week. The NYT bias, while overt, is so predictable that by now I just tune it out like static. What I find more annoying is their ridiculously self-referential, and self-reverential, arts criticism. Oh, and their incredibly boring waste-of-dead-trees Sunday magazine. And their hilariously gay-o-centric Style section. And the smug, ponderous book review section. Oh, dear...that would be all the weekend stuff...why am I subscribing, again? Of course...for an excuse to linger over bagels and coffee and NOT sit in front of this bloody computer!

Posted by: Brenda from Flatbush at January 21, 2009 9:03 PM

I gave up buying the paper the last time they raised their prices. Too much money for less and less news and more and more inserts. I still much prefer the physical paper, for its completeness and for the serendipity of articles I probably would not otherwise read. Now, I read it online (mobile and desktop), and pay $30 a year for a subscription to the crossword puzzle (downloaded to my iphone).

Posted by: WBer at January 21, 2009 10:41 PM

I find it ironic that most people, myself included, won't pay for a NYTimes subscription but will still log on to Brownstoner and read NYTimes (and NYPost, NYDN, etc.) articles. What if Brownstoner had to pay to link those articles?

FWIW, lesterhead posted "I'm surprised by how many people today think they deserve content for free." No one said we deserved free content. But, it's there so why not take advantage of it?

Posted by: i_heart_brooklyn at January 22, 2009 12:41 AM

$80 a year is not that much, I would pay it. The changes to the NYT people are complaining about here very likely came about because of dwindling profits over the years. To not buy newspapers, this one or any others, and justify it by pointing out the changes and compromises that occur because those publications are struggling, that's a little funny to me.

Posted by: traditionalmod at January 22, 2009 11:18 AM

I'm out of state but used to have it delivered daily. I now read it online, but its not really the same as having the print version. However, I would gladly pay $80 - for ideology and all - to continue the important function the NY Times provides. I'm in Seattle, and our newspapers are just not that interesting. And it looks like one of them will be out of business shortly.

Posted by: Uppergeorgetowner at January 22, 2009 12:15 PM

I get the Times M-F on my kindle, which is fantastic, as I can easily read it on the train. It's $13/month. My husband reads the Times during the week on his IPod Touch.

We still get the paper paper delivered on the weekends.

We are both happy to cut way down on our paper recycling, and my husband would pay for the IPod content if it came to that.

We both have our problems with the Times, but as others have said, the world will be a much scarier place if news reporting budgets continue to get smaller and smaller--we need investigative journalists as well as reporters in far-flung places. AM New York ain't gonna pick up the slack.

There are news sites and blogs I read all the time, but they are frequently linking to stories from newspapers or the wire services. It's unfair to expect that we can get high quality news content for free. If journalism's main source of support becomes online advertising, we're in deep trouble.

Posted by: tinarina at January 22, 2009 12:45 PM

« House of the Day: 150 Bond Street Revisited Streetlevel: Ignazio's To Finally Open Next Month »

January 21, 2009

(Slightly) Off-Topic Poll: Paying for The Times Online?

Trackback Pings

Comments

Post a comment

Latest Restaurant Additions