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.
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.
-
2 Posted by bautbr on Fri Jul 10, 2009 11:24AM EDT Report Abuse
The revenue model for newspapers in this era has shown a significant fall in readership to the site if it is pay only. I think the only way the NYT is going to fix this is with abandoning either the printed or the web version outright. This would most likely mean that the Times would vacate the print side which is expensive and not current news. What papers need to do now is reinvent the digital paper and come to some agreement on digital devices that would work well for reading the paper online. This in turn can be a subscription model. The kindle is a great start yet, there is still something missing to the reading experience. If they can effort this, I think the woes of the newspaper will begin to fade away. With both mediums, I think they are going to die a slow and painful death. Eventually, someone will bite the bullet and make the switch fully and that will usher in the new ear of news media.
-
3 Posted by maclingman on Fri Jul 10, 2009 12:00PM EDT Report Abuse
I'd be willing to pay, because it's such a prominent newspaper. However, there's no way I'd pay to read my local paper online and free news portals like Yahoo make it less likely most people will decide to pay.
-
4 Posted by shutrbug@sbcglobal.net on Fri Jul 10, 2009 12:33PM EDT Report Abuse
The New York Times is the only online paper that I'd pay for. The quality of reporting and editorials make it worth it.
-
5 Posted by stan_colley on Fri Jul 10, 2009 12:46PM EDT Report Abuse
It's a commie liberal news paper anyways. They don't do any TRUE reporting. Why do you think they are going in the tank? Because of there total political BIAS!!
-
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;-)
1 Posted by cbatman333 on Fri Jul 10, 2009 11:23AM EDT Report Abuse
No I would not be willing to pay for it untill no outher source of news was free. And even then I would have to think twice about it.