New York Times mulls $5/month online subscription fee

Fri Jul 10, 2009 10:32AM EDT

See Comments (12)

How much would you be willing to pay to read the New York Times online? That's the question the Gray Lady is asking in a new reader survey. Personally, I'm ready to pony up.

First, the basics: Bloomberg reports that the Times recently sent out a survey to its print subscribers, asking if they'd be willing to fork over $2.50 a month for "discounted" access to the NYT Web site. The access fee for non-print subscribers, the survey said, would be $5—and that would include "all [the] articles, blogs, and multimedia."

For now, of course, the entire Times Web site (the most-visited news site on the Web, Bloomberg notes) is free, although the paper flirted with for-pay access to its editorials and other content ("Times Select") a couple of years back. The Times also used to charge for its archived articles, but those are now all free, as well.

So, why is the NYT again considering charging its online readers? You guessed it: plunging revenue (down 27 percent the first quarter of the year, according to Bloomberg), right along with the rest of the newspaper industry, forcing the company to shed both jobs and assets at an alarming rate.

Now, I like "free" as much as anyone, but as a former print reporter myself, believe me: it takes money to run a newsroom and generate original reporting. I got paid twice a month (not a lot, but it paid the bills), there was an office, computers, phones, photographers, editors, and (most importantly) time for investigative reporting when the circumstances called for it. And that was just for a small, local newspaper, while the Times is pretty much expected to cover the world.

So yes—I'm ready and willing to cough up $5 a month for online access to the Times (which is actually a bit cheaper than the Wall Street Journal's $1.99/week online subscription fee), and I think other online papers should seriously consider follow the NYT's lead. It's a move that could save the journalism industry that all us bloggers rely on, and if you ask me, it's an industry worth saving.

What about you—would you pay a subscription for online news sites like the New York Times? And if so, how much?

Related:
New York Times Considers $5 Monthly Web-Access Fee [Bloomberg]

 

 

Comments on New York Times mulls $5/month online subscription fee

Post a Comment

Join in the discussion. Here you'll see the comments in the order they were posted.

  • 6 Posted by f_l_dyke on Fri Jul 10, 2009 1:34PM EDT Report Abuse

    I, too, suspect much of their financial woes can be attributed to the paper's views separating from its reader's and advertisers'. True, good reporting requires money, but it also requires objective reporting without the baked-in assumptions that seem to permeate every printed word. I read the Times often to keep a broader perspective, but would I put $5.00 towards it? No.

  • 7 Posted by stevieosmosis on Fri Jul 10, 2009 3:41PM EDT Report Abuse

    They have to figure out some way to stay linkable & searchable and still make a buck. $5/mo is a reasonable fee, but how to make it work with the existing models? Firewalling their op-ed writers at the nadir of the Bush admin reduced the influence of those writers.

  • 8 Posted by cwombat@sbcglobal.net on Sat Jul 11, 2009 3:05PM EDT Report Abuse

    I WOULD NEVER PAY! I NEED TO KNOW HOW TO ELIMINATE NYTIMES OFF OF MY COMPUTER NOW, SO I WILL NEVER BE TEMPTED TO CONSIDER PAYING FOR SOMETHING SO VERY USELESS. NO, NOT NOW, NOT EVER!

  • 9 Posted by emarr3 on Sun Jul 12, 2009 1:01AM EDT Report Abuse

    forgetting the pro and cons nof whether to charge. i think an important question is how do we address the nuisance and security factor of everyone website nickel and diming you for content? i don't want to pull out a credit card everytime something catches my attention for $1.99 or $5. could the solution be to charge it through your cellphone account like in europe? or maybe bring back those smartcards from years back that never caught on.

  • 10 Posted by victorrp on Sun Jul 12, 2009 4:40PM EDT Report Abuse

    We need honest reporting. Many outlets today are free, including Yahoo! and Google. Why should we save an industry that has not been honest with the people. An industry that has abused its media power and toyed with the choice of the people to push for candidates that benefit them? Let them rely on advertising like Google and Yahoo! Sale a product people want or offer information people want. Fair is fair. Welcome to the 21st Century. V;-)

  • 11 Posted by c4bchief on Mon Jul 13, 2009 9:31AM EDT Report Abuse

    I just want to point out that Yahoo and Google aren't really news sources, as in they're not creating news. They're simply pulling it in from other sources, ie. Newspapers, Reuters, AP, etc. Next time you read an article in one of these spots, look at the source of the article. News has to come from somewhere.

  • 12 Posted by marymac2829 on Mon Jul 13, 2009 5:52PM EDT Report Abuse

    Yup. I'd pay. Not happily, but in desperation. Our local paper (owned by a national chain) has all but eliminated any real coverage—national, international, even local. I've come to depend on NYTIMES.COM as an important information source. I'm tired to death of biased blogs from ignorant people. My life and my understanding of the world requires cogent, professional reporting, and the Times provides that. As my contribution, I've begun to watch the ads. But if the Times wants me to pony up an affordable $5 per month, I'll think it's worth the effort.

More Posts: First Prev 1 2 Next Last

Post a Comment


My Tech

Please enable your browser's cookies to activate the My Tech column.

Also on Yahoo! Tech

Computers Home Office Wi-Fi & Networking Phones & PDAs Cameras & Camcorders TV & Home Theater Portable Audio
 

Question and Answer content at Yahoo! Tech is written by Yahoo! users at Yahoo! Answers. Yahoo! does not evaluate or guarantee the accuracy of any Yahoo! Answers content. For more information, read the Full Disclaimer.

Opinions expressed by the Advisors are their own and do not necessarily reflect the views of Yahoo! Inc. Yahoo! receives no compensation from any manufacturer or distributor nor does it compensate any Advisor for the coverage of any product or service in any Advisor's content.