A Month In, New York Times Paywall has 100K Subscribers

What I'd be very interested in knowing is how many people have decided to get print subscriptions because of the paywall.

Doesn't it seem like the digital offerings are priced so that readers who want to become subscribers will choose a comparatively cheap print subscription and get the digital access as well? The least expensive paper delivery option (Sunday only) is less expensive than the digital all access that gets thrown in for 'free' when you sub to the print.

Don't misunderstand, the Times is my paper - has been for 15 years now, but I'm deeply dissappointed that rather than find a way to embrace digital, they're using it to prop up their print rate card.

I was surprised how easy it was to circumvent by deleting the cookies. I'm a big news reader so I might have been tempted to pay but now I probably won't. I don't know if that makes me a scumbag but I'm ok with it.

I think it's important to note that the Times had an intro offer of only 99 cents for the first month.

Wonder how many will continue paying once they're charged $15 or $20.

So, how has people's experience been with the pay wall?

I've clicked on plenty of links to NYT articles, and have yet to be asked to pay. If they are making enough money from it to support themselves, then it looks to me like they've achieved a good balance.

I got the email from Lincoln offering the free online subscription, so I haven't been affected by it. I was a subscriber back in the day of their original paywall before they discontinued it, so I'm sort of glad because I wouldn't pay right now if I hadn't gotten the free offer.

Hmm well that was not what I would have guessed a few months ago to say the least.

But if you look at the article it does include a $0.99 promotional offer.

I wonder how many people paid that.

That subscription fee is rooftop level stuff, I know it's NY Times and all, but they need to slash that fee!