(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,…
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.
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.
DoubleClick founder suggests NYT charge for content.
Hey! Maybe we could call it NYT Insider!
Hilarity ensues…
Genius, that one.
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!
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 By the time I read it in print, it’s out of date.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.
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.
I sometimes find much more interesting articles in the freebie papers like A.M. than in the Times. Sad but true.
Bolder – perhaps the Times can just revert to broker sponsored “advetorials” like last weekend’s Real Estate Section fluff piece.
I … don’t read the NYT website even though it’s free. So I’m unlikely to pay for it.
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.