The New York Times to Begin Charging for Web Use on March 28
nytimes.com
nytimes.com
So with that said, here are 3 links I received that shed more light on this:
"A Letter to Our Readers About Digital Subscriptions"
http://www.nytimes.com/2011/03/18/opinion/l18times.html
"Digital Subscriptions and Premium Products"
http://www.nytimes.com/content/help/account/purchases/subscr...
More Info
http://www.nytimes.com/subscriptions/Multiproduct/lp0145.htm...
I hope they prove useful and informative.
What is that paradigm? I think some news outlets, mostly business, have proven people are willing to pay for valuable news, the WSJ comes to mind.
The NY Times has a mix of hard news and soft opinions, their main problem is that almost the same news is available from many free sources around the Internet.
So I am genuinely perplexed as to what the paradigm is?
The only thing that guarantees that success, as Rupert Murdoch has pointed out, is sustainable profitability. I think the Times' move to charge people for their coverage will ultimately be successful, just as the efforts of the FT and WSJ have been and, to a degree, as NPR's has been.
http://www.nytimes.com/content/help/account/purchases/subscr...
With that said, I would consider creating an account and paying, a big selling point for me, (which is not mentioned in any of the articles presented would be, that as a paying customer, it would be great if no ads are visible, just premium content.
Pointing out the inferiority of less consequential papers doesn't absolve them. The point is that these guys consider themselves THE paper of record. You can't pride your self on a higher standard, then get defensive and angry when people actually hold you to it.
Because that is what I do currently just to get around the nagscreen.
So they could do it that way.
In other words, they could make it work, but only until they enable IPv6.
Most people have not used the web to become readers of many perspectives; rather, they've used it to find media outlets that conform to their preconceived biases. The web has allowed niche voices, who previously couldn't find a large enough audience to be economically viable when media distribution was geographically limited, to thrive. While paywalls might exacerbate this a bit most people are already de facto "identity subscribers."
Where I live, getting the NY Times paper delivered to me every day would cost me $5.85 a week (https://www.nytimesathome.com/checkout.php?step=1). So this is actually cheaper than a physical subscription.
Honest question, why did you wait until now to get a subscription?
I've waited until now because they've never forced me to pay before. But when a choice is required, it's a fairly straightforward decision.
Also, and this is not a small point, I recently graduated from grad school and got a real job.
I work in the news media (public broadcasting), and right now the public still sees reporting as an inexpensive commodity, especially online. Ironically, I think public broadcasting is set up much better to garner supporting revenue from the public than for-profit media, since we have a history of doing so, and people inherently understand and relate to our support model. We still give away our content for free, too, even if you don't pay. The NYTimes is never going to be able to guilt me into paying the way NPR or PBS will.
EDIT: It actually appears to be $15 "every four weeks" so $195/year http://nytimes.com/access
What people do care about is the value that the content provides them, and is that content worth the price. I think the NYTimes does a great job, but I don't know they provide so much more value than their competitor who gives their stuff away for free.
I know paper isn't as expensive as some might think, but most people see that as real value. By stripping that away and keeping the price the same, I think many people are going to feel ripped off by comparison.
Cost of delivery has gone to near 0 when amortized
I assure you it is not near 0.
As someone who can peak behind the curtain, I assure you that its not free. Maybe cheaper than physical home-delivery of thew newspaper, but its not cheap.
http://4.bp.blogspot.com/_djhOGl10yrQ/S9iTs3OOI5I/AAAAAAAAAE...
(The post is here: http://edpadgett.blogspot.com/2010/04/end-is-near-for-lat-or...)
This does not include the paper mills and the delivery trucks.
The point trying to be raised is that the infrastructure needed for print distribution is much, much heavier than that for electronic distribution. And much harder to scale.
Because of this, it seems like the online subscriptions are overpriced relative to print.
This problem's only going to keep getting worse as more sites start erecting paywalls, and there are plenty of people like me who have no interest in paying for an online news subscription and would appreciate the ability to completely hide those sites.
Not to mention there are certain news sites (Fox News, for example) which I have no desire to visit regardless of whether they are employing a paywall.
Clearly their pricing policy is off by an order of magnitude. Paying $35 a year for everything makes sense. Paying $35 a month, given economics and the market for online subscriptions, is nuts.
But it's still going to create a perception among the public that the online readers are subsidizing the print readers to a certain extent, and indirectly the printing and paper companies as well. And for those who care about such things, the ongoing consumption of about 100,000 (farmed) trees annually. If online readers get a better deal by subscribing to the paper version and putting it straight into the recycling bin every day, then the NYT is encouraging them to consume in the most wasteful way possible. This also reduces the value to advertisers, who are going to start discounting the subscription figures proportionally to 1/(web_traffic_growth/online_subs_growth).
This isn't helped the options of NYT + smartphone edition, NYT + tablet edition, and NYT + everything edition (crossword puzzles and other NYT products excluded). Where is the NYT + no frills edition? I do read news on my phone, but I prefer a bare minimum summary of important events in that context. But apparently I must purchase a mobile app I don't want and would never use in order to have subscriber access via the browser.
[update]
Though:
wget -qO- 'url' | less
[summary]
Beginning March 28, visitors to NYTimes.com will be able to read 20 articles a month without paying, a limit that company executives said was intended to draw in subscription revenue from the most loyal readers while not driving away the casual visitors who make up the vast majority of the site’s traffic.
Once readers click on their 21st article, they will have the option of buying one of three digital news packages — $15 for a month of access to the Web site and a mobile phone app; $20 for Web access and an iPad app; and $35 for an all-access plan.
We usually have delayed launch dates in Canada (like iPhones and iPads). Really caught the fuzzy end of that lollipop.
That said, I'm almost certain I'll start paying.
I paid for TimeSelect before, but I'm not sure I'd pay again: I just don't read enough from the Times to justify the cost. If I find that I need more, then I'll happily pay it (and it looks like it'll be pay-as-you-go).
After March 27, 2011: "All the News thats Fit to Find Somewhere Else for Free"
Also, it won't be long before all the news fit to read is behind some sort of paywall (or something similar), unless drastic change takes place.
They want to support a cost structure that's archaic, and centered around their print product. They need to charge 50-60% less, and cut costs accordingly. That's probably what will happen in the long run.
There is no easy band-aid fix for the disruption of the traditional news media. A successful "newspaper" equivalent in 2020 will bear little resemblance to what we consider a newspaper to be today. That alone should be obvious. But instead of changing with the march of history the NYT has decided to change as little as possible and hope that things work out for the best. They may stave off immediate doom but their plan is too shallow to stave off long-term doom.
What do you envision the "newspaper" of 2020 will look like? HuffPo? Please. That rag is 75% unadulterated opinion pieces and biased claptrap.
To me, you sound like someone who is complaining that you're now going to be expecte do pay for a high-quality product that up until now you've been receiving for free.
I /pay/ for the WSJ, The Economist, and Forbes on Kindle. Before that option was available to me, I paid for those subscriptions to be mailed/delivered to my home. I'm /exactly/ the kind of customer that they want, because I have money to spend and I will hand it over if I find value. I think their advertisers appreciate the difference. Compare the quality of reporting between your average local "free" newspaper and the NYTimes (or almost any other major newspaper).
Personally, I applaud the folks at NYTimes. They've been dealt a tough hand and they are doing their best to stay relevant.
Fix those issues and I pay.
Also, this hits a bit too close to reality: http://www.theawl.com/2011/01/the-most-emailed-new-york-time...
http://www.nytimes.com/2008/03/07/nyregion/07prostitution.ht...
2 two years ago
almost certainly not the worst thing that has been done (and not even very close either)
If I knew what the newspaper of 2020 was going to look like I'd be building a business around that (and I may do so regardless). I know for damned sure that the newspaper of 2020 won't be dominated by material that is unnecessarily rebroadcast, and unfortunately that includes a lot of what's in the NYT today.
As for HuffPo, that's not a source of news, nor is it the future of journalism (it may not even outlast the NYT). As to "paying for a high-quality product" I dispute the notion that the NYT is anything of the sort. It's as much a rag as HuffPo, it's just a lot better at maintaining "production value".
Personally I think the future of journalism will be in smaller, more focused groups who are subject matter experts first and journalists not by training per se but by practice.
Well then, you're in luck. The content you don't care about will not longer be free to you. Enjoy your full refund.
Seriously, I can't take you seriously if you don't suggest an alternative. Print and other broadcast media were the most efficient way to reach large numbers of people. The internet changes that somewhat because you no longer have (much of) a marginal cost to differentiate your information product. The long tail works for information products as well.
UNFORTUNATELY, this means that those things (classifieds, ads, coupons/inserts) aren't going to be available to subsidize the higher-cost things (investigative eporting, foreign bureaus). Craigslist and eBay did more to hurt newspapers than "bloggers" ever did. Free NYtimes content online was a way to stay in the game until they could figure out the new business model. Which they will or they wont.
What I don't get is your anger over this. Why do you care? Either they'll do OK or they wont. The only difference to YOU that I can see is that you'll no longer have access to that "rag" for free. You've already stated that you dont like the articles. It's clear to me that you're not going to be taxed on them either.
The rest of us who are willing to pay (because we find value) will probably do so. I'm thankful that someone else is willing to do the hard work and write this stuff up. I've got precious little time as it is and the premium I am willing to pay for smart, relevant content is some value substantially greater than zero.
The internet has pulled the rug out from under newspapers by taking away the value of all that fluff, because broadcasting is now effectively free and ubiquitous. That means that the only substantive value newspapers have anymore (outside of tradition, which will only maintain for so long) is in their original reporting and the quality of their opinion. Even in the off chance that there are news institutions with substantial value in these areas it's unlikely that the public is willing to pay enough for that to also support paying money for editing wire reports and redistributing beetle bailey. But newspapers are generally fundamentally incapable of redefining themselves as anything other than the bloated institutions they've been, they would rather go down with "dignity" than to change who they are.
Why do I care? Because I care about the news and I hate to see it continue to be dragged down by these failing corporate behemoths.
I think the future of journalism is, as I said, in much leaner institutions who put the focus on the subject and the quality of reporting first, are not burdened by the bloat of outmoded institutional conceptions of what being a "newspaper" means, and who have financial incentives which align with the incentives to produce better reporting.
"start toggling all the levers"
It allows them continue to make ad revenue as well as get subscription money from people who really like their service (unless I'm not understanding it clearly).
The only thing I'd suggest is prominently displaying a counter for the user saying 'you have x pages left before you must subscribe to access this site' or something like that .. that way they're not taken by surprise when they can't access a story any more.
I definitely will miss reading the paper but I am betting in less than six months the wall will disappear. Any takers?
Readers who come to Times articles through links from
search, blogs and social media like Facebook and Twitter
will be able to read those articles, even if they have
reached their monthly reading limit. For some search
engines, users will have a daily limit of free links
to Times articles.Or are you also checking those referrer links somehow, to make sure they're legitimate?
I also take it from your other reply about curl (http://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=2336371) that you're using ip address, as opposed or maybe in addition to cookies to enforce the 20 articles per month limit.
I will say this much; its expected that many people will find away to get around the paywall via plugins, curl, whatever. There are no illusions about that.
However this is not typical of your average user - that much I've seen. While I'm sure this will happen, and it might be easy for many, it will not be something I'd expect of most users and no something that will impact subscriptions IMHO.
(And unless Twitter whitelists all URL shorteners, the referrer likely wouldn't point back to Twitter anyway. But many of my friends use custom URL shorteners, and the Times wouldn't know to whitelist those… and the list of problems goes on.)
I wish them the best of luck, although I don't think it will work out.
Won't this get them dropped from the search results for presenting different content to users versus Googlebot?
They only have one competitive risk: government regulation. The only way that happens is if their PR as cuddly bunny hugging geeks in bathrobes made of organic llama hair get destroyed. People hoping for good PR cannot afford to be an existential threat to the NYT.
Now if you or I did it, on the other hand... well, maybe their First Click Free policy covers us, but I wouldn't bet my business on it.
It is accepted and known that if people are determined to get around the paywall they'll find a way. For that reason its deliberately porous - a convenience factor or sorts.
Edit: To clarify, by scraping I mean if you are logged in and can see the article the bookmarkelet will grab the contents of the page.
Instapaper honors access. If you have access to that Article it will save it, if not then you won't get it.
To the best of my knowledge, Instapaper will continue
to work perfectly well after the NYTimes' paywall
goes up, if you pay for it.
You will need to save NYTimes paywalled links from
the bookmarklet or in-app browser. Links from
Twitter/RSS apps probably won't work yet.2. Learn how to use their proxy for patrons working from home.
3. Browse NYT site like normal.
I will go a step further, reading paywalled content for free at the public or university library is exactly the same, especially for content providers, as checking out materials for free.
If you don't love libraries with all your heart I don't think there is much more for me to say.
Edit: Also, off-campus access to electronic resources using a proxy is standard in the licenses for these sort of products.
Not all visits to NYTimes.com will count toward the 20-article limit. In an effort to ensure that as many as possible of the Web site’s more than 30 million monthly readers are not deterred from visiting, The Times will allow access to people who visit through search engines like Google and social networking sites like Facebook and Twitter. There will, however, be a five-article limit a day for people who visit the site from Google.
If I don't, then this change won't matter at all.
Edit: Although there is a pretty big loophole..
From the article: Not all visits to NYTimes.com will count toward the 20-article limit. In an effort to ensure that as many as possible of the Web site’s more than 30 million monthly readers are not deterred from visiting, The Times will allow access to people who visit through search engines like Google and social networking sites like Facebook and Twitter. There will, however, be a five-article limit a day for people who visit the site from Google.