[Dork.]

Starting Monday, the New York Times is putting up a paywall. $195/yr for unlimited access on the Web and your cellphone. Twice that for web, phone and iPad access. Does anyone care?

Prior to the announcement last week, I read the NYT regularly online. Recent world events may have increased my news consumption, but in the 30 days prior to the announcement I read approximately 170 articles (according to the info on my NYT account). Take away the 20 articles they give you in a month without a subscription, and they want me to pay almost 11 cents an article. Is that too much? I think so.

I've figured out what I'd be willing to pay for:
- $100/yr to get past the paywall
- Ability to use that on all devices my family owns (so my wife could get access too).

In the meantime, I took the last week to see how I could survive without the NYT, and I did pretty well. I think I can manage. And after my self-imposed exile, I'm letting myself go back to the NYT again, with one change: I've logged out of my NYT account on all my devices, and I plan on never using it while the paywall is up, and I deleted all my NYT cookies. Maybe that will give me 20 articles on each device.

Am I totally off base? Should I be more willing to support the NYT at the price they are asking? I already subscribe to the local paper (in print) to get my local news fix, even though it's all available online, because I value news and am willing to pay the price they offer. But the new Times plan seems too rich for me, since it is digital-only and does not involve the logistics of delivering newspapers daily.

A few years ago, the Times put certain content (like the op-eds) behind a similar paywall, and not enough people subscribed, so they relented eventually. I'm willing to wait them out until they get cheaper.

(And please, to keep this out of the PL, please do not comment on the perceived political leanings of the Times. We all know about it, and some of us find their content valuable anyway....)

[andi*pandi]

It's too much. I won't pay, and if someone sends me a link to a story I want to read, I will use bugmenot to get by.

[Cold Warrior]

It's way too much. Most of what I read in the Times shows up elsewhere in my RSS feeds. The NYT does some excellent investigative and expose pieces, but those should be <20 month.

Between 20 per month, and additional allowances through google news and (I assume) bing news, I should be able to keep left of paywall.

[Doofy]

The free ride is over, kiddies. Expect a lot of paywalls and bandwidth metering real soon.

[turtle777]

Unfortunately, Doofy is right.

But there are still a lot of good alternative news sources on the web that are free.
Heck, all the big media houses are far from objective. It sucks to have to pay to get a skewed opinion.

-t

[mduell]

I'm glad the NYT finally agrees with the world that the website is worthless.

[imitchellg5]

$195 is INSANE. I wouldn't mind paying a premium, because the NYT is generally very high quality, but $195 is way too much.

[Dork.]

I pay close to that for my subscription to the local paper, but they print that and hire a guy to deliver it every day, including holidays. It's not cheap to run a news website either, but I find it hard to believe that my share of the operations cost of the Times website is equivalent to the cost to print and deliver a daily paper to a subscriber. (Even taking into account the fact that print ads probably bring in more money than web ads.)

By the way, any print subscription gives you a magic ticket through the paywall on any device, including iPads. And right now, they have a promotion going where I can get the Sunday times delivered here in Rochester, and the first 12 weeks are at the exact same rate ($3.75/wk) they charge for the digital subscription. (It is even cheaper in the NYC area, of course). Quite a coincidence!

[Eug]

Something tells me that NYT is gonna run into financial troubles soon.

So, is their advertising and subscription revenue suffering? Cuz otherwise I'm not sure why they'd be resorting to such a bizarre pricing structure for their online service.

Perhaps it's time to short NYT...

EDIT:

Here we go.

http://www.thestreet.com/story/10994...r-results.html

- Total revenues decreased 2.9 percent in the fourth quarter of 2010 compared with the fourth quarter of 2009 as advertising and circulation revenues declined 3.1 percent and 3.6 percent, respectively. Increased digital advertising revenues, which rose 11.1 percent, partially offset a 7.2 percent decrease in print advertising revenues.

- Operating profit excluding depreciation, amortization, severance and the special items discussed below declined 7.1 percent to $146.4 million in the fourth quarter of 2010 compared with $157.6 million in the fourth quarter of 2009. On a GAAP basis, the Company had an operating profit of $111.6 million in the fourth quarter of 2010 compared with $136.0 million in the fourth quarter of 2009.

---

I suspect that if they do go to this online subscription model, their digital advertising revenues could go down too. In other words, they could be hastening their own demise.

[Kerrigan]

$195 comes out to 53 cents a day.

Home delivered, it's $1.05 a day.

Seems pretty reasonable to me. Even the New York Times understands that corporations require profit.

[Eug]

^^^ Yup. Something that seems to be dwindling for them.

Oh well, I'll just get my news elsewhere. It will be interesting to see where NYT will be in 10 years.

[SpaceMonkey]

I'm more optimistic that it will work out for them. They've made the paywall trivial to get around (for example, any visit through a search engine doesn't apply), so I don't expect their ad numbers to suffer much relative to the additional income generated. They have priced it at a point that makes sense for the particular, relatively affluent audience they are targeting (sort of like Apple).

[Eug]

Apple doesn't target just the affluent. Apple targets consumers. They sell iPads at Wal-Mart after all.

[SpaceMonkey]

Originally Posted by Eug 

Apple doesn't target just the affluent. Apple targets consumers. They sell iPads at Wal-Mart after all.

Relatively affluent. People who are buying based on perceived value, not exclusively price.

[Eug]

. .

[Eug]

Originally Posted by SpaceMonkey 

Relatively affluent. People who are buying based on perceived value, not exclusively price.

iPod owners for example are about as affluent as Walkman owners were... and everyone owned a Walkman. In fact, more iPods have been sold than Walkmans.

Meanwhile, very few affluent people I know (outside New York) actually subscribed to the NY Times. Now that NY Times will be charging for the online access, I suspect a huge chunk of those same affluent people will simply stop reading it online and go elsewhere.

The problem here is that the perceived value is likely pretty low to most people IMO, affluent or not.

BTW, as far as name-brand tablets go, iPads are actually amongst the cheapest.

[SpaceMonkey]

Good lord. Forget the tangential Apple analogy then. Obviously our opinion of the value of NYT's content differs. I don't expect them to be making gobs more money out of this, but I think it is probably an important hedge for them going forward.

[Eug]

Obviously our opinion of the value of NYT's content differs.

Indeed. I read NY Times cuz it was free.

BTW, my favourite Canadian newspaper tried this a few years ago... and failed miserably. They finally relented and made it free again. I suspect the reason was for advertising revenues, but I'm not sure.

In fact, the NY Times had this free registration thing going that people hated. And they finally relented and made it free without registration. If they fail with free but just requiring registration, how can they expect to succeed at nearly $200 a year? This almost seems like a Hail Mary lob to me.

[SpaceMonkey]

Originally Posted by Eug 

Indeed. I read NY Times cuz it was free.

BTW, my favourite Canadian newspaper tried this a few years ago... and failed miserably. They finally relented and made it free again. I suspect the reason was for advertising revenues, but I'm not sure.

I suspect that the NYT is smart enough to figure out how much of its traffic comes through search engines (again, exempt from the paywall) and how much doesn't, and what the subsequent hit to ad revenues might likely be.

[SpaceMonkey]

Lest I sound like too much of a cheerleader: I haven't decided if I will send the NYT my money. But I don't think this is the business disaster that some seem to be implying. With all of the built-in loopholes, I think they will be capturing most of their existing revenue anyway. It's a hedge for a potentially more strict future.

[Spheric Harlot]

Originally Posted by Doofy 

The free ride is over, kiddies. Expect a lot of paywalls and bandwidth metering real soon.

That's not the issue.

I'd have absolutely no problem with paying a subscription to excellent news sites - same as with newspapers. And it's obvious that this is necessary, and good - international offices, professional reporters and decent editors cost real money. I don't think anybody really has a problem with that, even if not everybody will see reason to subscribe.

The issue here is that there are sensible ways to go about subscription pricing (see "The Daily", which unfortunately is hampered by shitty software and bad content), and COMPLETELY ****ED-UP, BONEHEADED, ASS-BACKWARDS DICKWAD JERKOFF SCHEMES that make anybody who can't just write it off as a business expense feel like a complete ripped-off idiot for wanting their iPad to replace the bundle of paper hitting their doorstep every morning.

The NYT's pricing scheme is aimed solely at DIScouraging users from cancelling their paper subscription, as that is what actually nets advertising revenue - for now, until advertisers figure out that nobody's actually reading it.

Frédéric Filloux's comprehensive and detailed analysis of their business model here:

NYTimes’ “Fair” Prices | Monday Note

The New York Times’ pricing structure, the fact that it is also designed to protect the paper’s physical circulation, the paywall’s porosity all complicate projections. One thing is sure: $35 a month ($420/year — $455 year for 52wks) to view the online paper on three devices is ridiculous, not matter how elitist the target group is fantasized to be. You simply don’t charge such an amount in a (US) market where services like Hulu or Netflix cost $7.99 per month. The Times would have been better inspired to go for a simple $15 a month on all devices. Such a price would allow to shoot for a goal of 2 or 3 million digital subscribers worldwide within three years. This would yield $360m-$540m in extra revenue, corresponding to between 5% and 8% of the regular digital readers mentioned above. For a global brand of the NY Times’ stature, such numbers are not unattainable.

(emphasis is the author's)

[Dork.]

Originally Posted by Eug 

BTW, my favourite Canadian newspaper tried this a few years ago... and failed miserably. They finally relented and made it free again. I suspect the reason was for advertising revenues, but I'm not sure.

Newsday, the local paper on Long Island, is trying this too, at $260 for the year, except they let both print subscribers and Cablevision cable customers bypass the paywall (both Newsday and Cablevision are owned by the Dolans), and don't give any free articles otherwise. As of January, they have sold precisely 35 digital subscriptions. Granted, a good chunk of Long Island already has access, but I doubt that their initial business plan when they rolled out the paywall counted for less than $10k in annual paywall revenue. I don't know their financials, but I have to assume that the online ad revenue they would have gotten from the general public linking from social media, blogs, or search would have counted for more than $10k/year.

[Cold Warrior]

There is actually a daily limit of 5 through 'major' search engines as well. Climbing the Times paywall

I suppose someone could get the articles they want through google news (site:nytimes.com works well to find articles or load all results, probably even a customized rss feed). If/when that hits the paywall, there's Bing and probably other sources.

[andi*pandi]

If all the major newspapers do this, we may go back to a one-paper mentality. Before the internet, you got your local paper and maybe the big city paper near you. With the internet, you could read the news all over.

I subscribe to The Boston Globe Sunday, and this gets me a free account with them.

[turtle777]

Well, I have a paper subscription to the WSJ, but I don't get full online access.

I would have to pay I addition. Fukc that.

-t

[lpkmckenna]

A daily newspaper is worth $1 or so per day. Almost $200 per year? Ridiculous.

[imitchellg5]

Originally Posted by lpkmckenna 

A daily newspaper is worth $1 or so per day. Almost $200 per year? Ridiculous.

Wait a minute...

[Big Mac]

Haha.

[hart]

In my book it's way too much. I never read newspapers in paper form (because I find the feel of the paper off-putting) and I'm not going retro now just to get an online subscription as an add-on. The search engine link aspect is useless in terms of my NYT usage since I used the NYT itself as a kind of search engine for things I might want to know about.

To me I think it would be worth about what I've paid for other subscriptions which is maybe $40, especially since the website is still covered with ads. That feels like paying double: if I'm looking at ads all the time, dealing with those annoying drop-down things and other advertising irritations why am I also paying a subscription fee? I don't think it's comparable to Hulu since the information is largely available elsewhere with a little work. In any case $200 is simply out of the question. I wouldn't pay that for a paper subscription either.

I have used the NYT intensively on and off for my daily info fix for quite a while but for the last week I've been using the BBC. It's different but still usable.

[OldManMac]

It's a little steep, and I'm still weighing what I'll do. I read the online version daily, and I like it, but I'm not yet sure I want to pay for that, when there's so much else available.

[Dork.]

I've been mostly using the sources that Google News takes me to. The Economist is pretty much the only news source I go to without finding it on Google News first. (Although I am surprised at the quality of reporting in the Christian Science Monitor, I may start goign there as well.)

I've thought about subscribing to The Economist in the past, since it is very, very good, and worth the $110/yr they charge for access. (And if you pay for two years at a time, you can get the print magazine basically for free.) But every single person I know with a subscription only got one because they wanted to break into Management and thought it would impress their bosses. I'm afraid if I subscribe it might give my boss the idea I'm out for his job.

(Also, being a weekly instead of a daily, The Economist is a much different beast than the NYT.)

[Cold Warrior]

I subscribe to Stratfor, that's $300+ per year, so I'm not averse to paying.

[Shaddim]

Meh, I get the local paper and the Atlanta JC. The WSJ, NYT, and all the rest are crap. The Times is actually decent, but last I checked it was outrageous here in the colonies.

[Eug]

I just started receiving my local paper, The Toronto Star, in print form. It just started showing for free on my doorstep. I guess they're trying to drum up subscriptions. After a week, I have only read part of one copy, and that was because we brought it with us when we went out for brunch.

The weird part is actually read The Star each day, but I only read it online, for maybe 5-10 minutes, for the local news and the real estate section. Could I live without it? Most definitely. The news (including the local news) is available all over the place on the net.

[The Godfather]

I always find that the NYT is as objective as both my local news rags. As for investigative pieces, I am taking a big loss, but I'd like to hear what other news sources you will replace NYT with.
The Times, as it offers subscriptions, is obligated to offer the same deal in the iTunes store, and relinquish 30% of the gross earning, almost $60 to Apple. So, if you want to mess with NYT, you know what to do.

[Eug]

Originally Posted by The Godfather 

I always find that the NYT is as objective as both my local news rags. As for investigative pieces, I am taking a big loss, but I'd like to hear what other news sources you will replace NYT with.

CBC, BBC, CNN, Globe and Mail, Onion, etc.

P.S. It's interesting to see that three of those I sites listed are actually television websites. I think that's a reflection of media these days.

[Dork.]

Originally Posted by Eug 

The weird part is actually read The Star each day, but I only read it online, for maybe 5-10 minutes, for the local news and the real estate section. Could I live without it? Most definitely. The news (including the local news) is available all over the place on the net.

Like I said earlier, I subscribe to the local paper in print form (Rochester Democrat and Chronicle), but at this point it's mostly for the coupons and the comics. I frequently read news in the morning on my laptop (including from the D&C's website), with my laptop resting on the morning's freshly printed (and unopened) copy of the D&C.

[turtle777]

Originally Posted by Eug 

CBC, BBC, CNN, Globe and Mail, Onion, etc.

P.S. It's interesting to see that three of those I sites listed are actually television websites. I think that's a reflection of media these days.

CNN is such a horrible site, I visted it once in the last 5 years.

-t