Beta
×

Welcome to the Slashdot Beta site -- learn more here. Use the link in the footer or click here to return to the Classic version of Slashdot.

Thank you!

Before you choose to head back to the Classic look of the site, we'd appreciate it if you share your thoughts on the Beta; your feedback is what drives our ongoing development.

Beta is different and we value you taking the time to try it out. Please take a look at the changes we've made in Beta and  learn more about it. Thanks for reading, and for making the site better!

NYTimes Confirms It Will Start Charging For Online News In 2011

Soulskill posted more than 4 years ago | from the bad-news-bears dept.

The Almighty Buck 368

jmtpi writes "The article is frustratingly vague, but the New York Times is confirming earlier speculation that it will start charging online readers who visit the site regularly. Occasional users will still get free access to a certain number of articles per month. Most of the key details are not yet determined, but the system is scheduled to be deployed at the beginning of next year." The Times is planning on rolling its own pay system, and it will doubtless use the rest of 2010 to look at how sites like the Wall Street Journal and the Financial Times fare before deciding on specifics. How often do you readers typically hit articles at nytimes.com in a given month? We try to avoid linking to stories behind paywalls when possible, and if the Times chooses a low monthly limit, you'll probably see a lot fewer links to their site — which would be a shame.

cancel ×

368 comments

Sorry! There are no comments related to the filter you selected.

Duh. (4, Interesting)

SatanicPuppy (611928) | more than 4 years ago | (#30832846)

Cue "OMFG They're so irrelevant!" whiners.

Frankly, it's about time. They spend millions a year to produce a product (written news stories) and they have two delivery formats for said product: One, a pay product printed on dead trees, which accounts for the vast majority of their revenue. And two, a free digital product that doesn't make shit, with the added bonus that it makes their paying product worthless.

Seems like a no-brainer. Now, the question becomes, will they charge a fair price, or will they pull a record company move, and try to charge the same for a physical and a digital product?

One thing is for sure. If it works out for them, you're going to see tons of print outlets following suit.

Re:Duh. (5, Insightful)

Attila Dimedici (1036002) | more than 4 years ago | (#30832912)

The problem is that the "pay product printed on dead trees" was losing subscribers at a steady pace before they started producing the free digital product. The NYT's problem is that there are not enough people who want to pay for what they are selling to cover thier costs.

Re:Duh. (2, Insightful)

SatanicPuppy (611928) | more than 4 years ago | (#30833124)

The problem with paper is paper itself. Paper costs have been doing up steadily for decades. Gas costs increase. Ink costs increase, and the demand for a high quality printed product increases.

It's too much. The physical print product has been getting more expensive, delivered to a smaller area, and at the same time, becoming a smaller product because the phbs have chosen to scrimp on content generation on top of everything else.

So yea, of course it's been shrinking. But that doesn't mean people aren't interested in the content. Doesn't mean people wouldn't be willing to pay for high quality content.

The best thing that could happen to the print industry is the death of the actual printed product. It is the source of at least 75% of their costs.

However a quality ad supported product is a pipe dream. And even if you could support a product on that tiny revenue stream, it'd be a crap product, utterly beholden to its advertisers.

Re:Duh. (1, Insightful)

Attila Dimedici (1036002) | more than 4 years ago | (#30833330)

Doesn't mean people wouldn't be willing to pay for high quality content.

And there is the NYT's problem in a nutshell, most people who have been exposed to its product don't believe it is high quality.

Re:Duh. (1)

SatanicPuppy (611928) | more than 4 years ago | (#30833606)

The 1,000,665 people who pay for it every weekday, and the 1,438,585 people who pay for it every sunday probably would disagree with your assertion.

Re:Duh. (1)

Pojut (1027544) | more than 4 years ago | (#30833394)

I think they should charge per section while offering a discount if you want access to everything. While I don't read the Times, if I did I know that I would likely be ignoring half of it (style sections, etc.) That way, they can truly see how much revenue each section brings in and I don't have to pay for something I won't read.

Thoughts?

Re:Duh. (1, Flamebait)

Pojut (1027544) | more than 4 years ago | (#30833126)

You mean people don't want to hear opinions presented as facts? Huh...sounds like Fox News has us fooled -_-

Re:Duh. (1)

Monkeedude1212 (1560403) | more than 4 years ago | (#30833332)

But they're too big to fail! How will people live without their news!

If this move fails, its time for a bailout.

Re:Duh. (1)

cronco (1435465) | more than 4 years ago | (#30832918)

True that. And advertisement-backed journalism doesn't really smell all that nice. The information market is still a market, and people still seem to forget.

Re:Duh. (5, Insightful)

tomhudson (43916) | more than 4 years ago | (#30832938)

It won't work. They already know this - they've tried it before. Stupidity is doing the same thing you did before and expecting different results.

"This time it's different!"

Yes, it is. Much more competition, the Great Recession, high unemployment. 3 more reasons to fail.

The industry needs massive consolidation - like maybe 90% of the print papers folding.

Re:Duh. (1)

SatanicPuppy (611928) | more than 4 years ago | (#30833036)

They tried to do it...in 1995. Big deal. No one cared about the internet version then. It wasn't a viable delivery platform for 95% of the world.

Now, things have changed. People pay fees for internet sites all the time. It's that stupid 5 dollars a month to Pandora, or wherever, for "premium" content.

Shrug. I think we're already seeing plenty of papers folding. The mistake you're making is thinking that what pops up to take their place is going to keep generating free content. That model just doesn't work. Some kind of pay model is going to have to arise.

Re:Duh. (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 4 years ago | (#30833174)

They aren't just fighting with internet news. When news is available on TV 24 hours a day with up-to-date reports for free (just about)
its hard to compete with a paper product that will always be 6 hours old or more.

Re:Duh. (1)

SydShamino (547793) | more than 4 years ago | (#30833228)

It's that stupid 5 dollars a month to Pandora, or wherever, for "premium" content.

I've found that I can switch to last.fm when my Pandora time runs out each month, so there's no need to pay Pandora. (Or I *gasp* listen to my bought music.) I like Pandora for the music they've brought me, sure, and I show that by giving them referrer credit on every Amazon MP3 purchase.

I've asked them to find a way to track referrer credits, but they don't have the capability to do so right now.

Re:Duh. (1)

Alinabi (464689) | more than 4 years ago | (#30833242)

Back when I paid for my subscription to The Economist, that included the delivery medium. Now I already pay $45 per month for the new delivery medium (my cable internet connection), so I feel justified to expect some free content to come with that. That is, in a nutshell, the reason why I (and most people) will rush to pay Murdoch or anyone else for news. I wish them good luck with their plans. Over and out.

Re:Duh. (1)

tepples (727027) | more than 4 years ago | (#30833476)

Now I already pay $45 per month for the new delivery medium (my cable internet connection), so I feel justified to expect some free content to come with that.

You're reading that free content. Consider these premium news sites to be more like HBO.

Re:Duh. (1)

QRDeNameland (873957) | more than 4 years ago | (#30833688)

They tried to do it...in 1995. Big deal.

Actually, their last attempt to construct a pay wall was called TimesSelect, and debuted in Sept. 2005. (see wiki page [wikipedia.org] ). They abandoned it after only lasted two years, until Sept. 2007. How much have "things changed" since then?

Re:Duh. (1)

Ferzerp (83619) | more than 4 years ago | (#30832962)

You may call them "whiners", but they have a point. Why would I pay for content that I can get for free anywhere else? Why would I pick the NYTimes over any of the free sources of similar information? You are forgetting who the customer is in regards to news. The customer is the advertiser. How much are you paying for your network news exactly (not that I personally watch the news, but still)?

Re:Duh. (1)

schnell (163007) | more than 4 years ago | (#30833170)

Why would I pay for content that I can get for free anywhere else?

That's the whole point of the New York Times model - they do provide original content and in-depth reporting. Columnists, sure, but that's not really the value for most readers. What you typically find on "news aggregator" recycle-AP-news-endlessly sites is a basic "what happened" account. The NYT hires many of the best reporters in the business and gives them the time and resources to write longer analysis pieces that seek to provide context, explain what's happening behind the scenes and what it may mean in the longer term. That's the kind of NYT-exclusive reporting which gives them a differentiated value but which is expensive to produce.

That being said, I personally find the NYT's content worth reading but not worth paying for. (I have discretionary budget for one news source that I find really valuable, so that will continue to go to a subscription to The Economist [economist.com] .) So the NYT will lose me as a reader, but I wasn't making them much money anyway so I doubt they'll care much. The bet they're making is that they will get more money in subscriptions than they will lose on ad impressions from people like me. Their bet may be wrong but it's their content to decide what to do with. Time will tell.

Re:Duh. (1)

MBGMorden (803437) | more than 4 years ago | (#30833318)

What you typically find on "news aggregator" recycle-AP-news-endlessly sites is a basic "what happened" account.

For better or for worse, that basic "what happened" account is all that most people really give a shit about. That level of content is fine under ad support, and since most people want that, then it will survive.

For any product you can have a luxury version and a mere functional version. The luxury version will ONLY survive if there are sufficient customers willing to pay extra for it. I just don't see the customers being there for pay news sites. If NY Times goes pay I suspect that within 15 years they will have either reverted back to a free, ad-supported model, or they'll be out of business all together.

Re:Duh. (1)

pz (113803) | more than 4 years ago | (#30833186)

You may call them "whiners", but they have a point. Why would I pay for content that I can get for free anywhere else? Why would I pick the NYTimes over any of the free sources of similar information? You are forgetting who the customer is in regards to news. The customer is the advertiser. How much are you paying for your network news exactly (not that I personally watch the news, but still)?

And you're forgetting that the NYT typically has better reporting, based on many criteria, than any other news outlet in the US, which is why it might be reasonable for the reader to pay for it, and why there really isn't another free source to replace it. Furthermore, while advertising provides substantial revenue for the NYT, if advertising were sufficient to cover all production costs, the NYT wouldn't be seeking revenue from their readers.

Personally, I'd be much happier paying full price for my news and not having any advertisements at all.

Re:Duh. (1, Insightful)

Anonymous Coward | more than 4 years ago | (#30833012)

Unless I'm mistaken papers don't make shit when you pay for them, that is just helping to offset the cost of the paper/ink itself. A paper really makes its money on ad space, how many eyeballs can they tell an advertiser will see their ad.

When things started migrating to the internet the powers that be didn't really think that the eyeballs that would see their ads on the web would be worth as much as those that saw it in print. Because of this they priced themselves too low. When papers started declining and the web took off they lost a lot of revenue, even though they have the same or probably even more eyeballs on the ads.

Also, most news organizations don't do shit unless it's very local. All they do is scrap stories from AP or from Bloomberg, reword it and then print it as their own. Hell sometimes they don't even do that and just print the story exactly as it is in AP, byline and all.

And don't forget bugmenot.com

Re:Duh. (2, Insightful)

zippthorne (748122) | more than 4 years ago | (#30833112)

They don't charge to pay for the ink. They charge to establish the value of the eyes. "Free" papers are valued less by advertisers because the think the readers aren't invested enough in the product to read it as much as "paid for" papers.

This "free/paid-for" model absolutely extends to web operations.

Subscribing to turn off ads (1)

tepples (727027) | more than 4 years ago | (#30833514)

This "free/paid-for" model absolutely extends to web operations.

I disagree. As I understand it, people who pay for text on the Internet expect, as a condition of such payment, not to see animated advertisements alongside that text.

Re:Duh. (1)

SatanicPuppy (611928) | more than 4 years ago | (#30833530)

They charge to offset the hilariously expensive printing and delivery process. The "having paying customers to show to our advertisers" angle is just a bonus.

Re:Duh. (1)

arogier (1250960) | more than 4 years ago | (#30833094)

Even with the printed newspaper I was under the impression that advertisers were still the most relevant revenue stream. News has always been about selling advertisements. The issue is the rapid expansion in venues in which are open to advertisers. Conde Nast has the same problem.

Re:Duh. (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 4 years ago | (#30833296)

Print ads are priced based on the number of copies of the paper are sold. Somewhere along the line, web advertisers decided that wasn't good enoughfor web ads. Not only must the ad be presented to the reader, but the reader must actually follow the link and that ad, and possibly even buy something when they get there. Since most people don't follow many ads when they're reading a newspaper, the advertisers get the previous product (reader views ad) pretty much for free. So selling online ads makes much less money than it should.

Re:Duh. (1)

arogier (1250960) | more than 4 years ago | (#30833528)

Most ads are pay per click, and advertisers seem to prefer paying for people to actually go to their site. Pay for impression ads on do still exist on the internet. Pepsi and Gillette don't really need to get you to their site in the way that an online store does. Big brands paying for awareness are among advertisers who will pay per impression.

The problem is that to continue to do business revenue must be greater than expenses. The question is how well prepared is the New York Times to balance subscription revenue and advertising revenue.

Over time the questions are will the limited free views satisfy light to moderate readers and how long can they sustain a population of subscribing heavy and local readers.

My prognostication is that Gawker Media in the next year starts going after some of the audience that reads the times for its editorial and higher brow coverage, probably opening another New York blog or sub blog.

Re:Duh. (1)

TOGSolid (1412915) | more than 4 years ago | (#30833114)

I see nothing wrong with charging for a service like this, but it would kind of help if the newspapers in this country would actually start enforcing some level of journalistic integrity and stop being sensationalist wastelands with articles written by paid off and/or self-righteous journalists.

You know, honest reporting? (yeah, yeah, I couldn't keep a straight face when I reread that either).

Re:Duh. (3, Insightful)

poetmatt (793785) | more than 4 years ago | (#30833118)

the reason they are losing relevance is because they chose to give up relevance in doing their newswork.

Instead of articles covering issues with the government we get tiger woods, britney spears smeared all over the front page. That would be, you know irrelevant as a news company yet every one of them, times included, does that.

So really, they're just speeding up the result of their own decision. good riddance.

Re:Duh. (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 4 years ago | (#30833348)

> And two, a free digital product that doesn't make shit, with the added bonus that it makes their paying product worthless.

O RLY? They have about 5 million visits at nytimes.com with more than 18 million pageviews - per day.

Say, they show 40 million ads daily (in fact they show a lot more) with _extremely low_ eCPM of 0.05 USD - that would be just 2'000 USD daily, 60'000 USD a month.

In reality you can usually double these numbers, given that they show quality targeted ads - so it's just 120'000 USD a month by advertising revenue - 1'440'000 USD a year.

Of course there are running costs - servers, bandwidth and salaries. Say, it's 20'000 USD per month. Still neat profit.

If yearly profit of more than a million USD is "doesn't make shit" for you - what are you doing here? Go ride your Porsche or something.

Re:Duh. (1)

fooslacker (961470) | more than 4 years ago | (#30833480)

Actually I think their problem is that they think their product is more valuable than it is. Specifically when the world was less connected, they performed a service that few could and were a method of connecting people and information over great distances. The world is no longer as disconnected. Additionally, they can provide a very high quality service compared to competitors but if that difference in quality is not valued by the consumers it's just wasted.

Do they still provide value, absolutely, but it's not nearly as much value as they previously provided. Unfortunately they still have a cost structure in place that assumes that historic high value and hence revenue. If they don't change that somehow they're going to eventually die off. It's not really about relevance it's more about basic economics and the declining value of a service and the cost required to produce that service. They can charge all they want for online articles but its not going to help them if they don't have significant differentiators in value of their product and so far (at least to the casual observer) it seems like they're in denial about this fact.

Re:Duh. (4, Insightful)

FileNotFound (85933) | more than 4 years ago | (#30833544)

"Fair Price" is exactly what will determine if this fails or succeeds.

NY Times Select would have been ok if it was say $12 a year instead of $50.

The problem is that the media seems to be happy to perpetuate the image that "people do not pay for media online". It's just not true.

How many people here pay for Pandora or Slacker? What about Fark? What about the new Ars subscriptions? What about forum accounts from SomethingAwful?

Frankly, what I really want would be a micro-transaction sort of system. I would be happy to pay 5 cents per article I read on NY times. Sounds tiny right? I'd say I read at least 5 articles on a week day. That's a quarter a day, $5 a month. More than the $50 they ask for.

Yet I'm sure more people would be attracted to the 5C per article model vs the $50 upfront subscription.

Re:Duh. (2, Interesting)

rinoid (451982) | more than 4 years ago | (#30833704)

Agreed about the pricing structure ... I don't recall what the "view archived article" cost used to be but IIRC it was over a buck. For a researcher OK I guess a few articles here and there would be fine but for the average reader the news is ephemeral -- I very rarely want to pay .99 for an old article I will read once. .99 for a song -- you betcha, I'll have years of enjoyment for that one dollar.

Re:Duh. (1)

MightyMartian (840721) | more than 4 years ago | (#30833586)

To be honest, I stopped reading NY Times articles when you started having to sign in. I haven't been back since. I get most of my news from the BBC and CBC websites. Don't tell either, but I'd probably pay a monthly subscription for their sites.

The Problem is in the Implementation (2, Interesting)

ideonexus (1257332) | more than 4 years ago | (#30833622)

I'm okay with paying for the New York Times. I agree the quality of their articles makes it worth it. Lengthy, well-researched content costs money to produce, and people like myself and the rest of the Internet thrives on the professionally-produced news. Without it, Slashdot and my blog would have much less to link to.

Where I am against this is the implementation. New Scientist magazine and the WSJ have both gone the metered/subscription route. So if I want to access their content, that's two sets of usernames and passwords to keep track of, and payment for content I'm only reading incidentally because I got referred to it from another site. Add the NYT's to this, and it's three sites I have to manage and pay for.

The proper solution was for the newspapers to establish a single-access paid-for system where we can access all their content and have the papers get paid a percentage based on the popularity of their content. They are apparently shunning this logical strategy for an anarchy of individual strategies that will confuse, frustrate, and drive away consumers.

I love newspapers, I want them to succeed, and I think this old push-media strategy is going to drive away more readers than it will convince readers to pay for content.

Re:Duh. (1)

hodet (620484) | more than 4 years ago | (#30833650)

I also welcome this, just sit back and let "Supply and Demand" take its course. If the model is sound and delivers value to those who read the Times then its a good thing for them. If not, readership goes way down and they have other problems they need to address. I still can't wrap my head around the whole online news business model. There are tonnes of news outlets easily accessible to all for free. I don't see much differentiation out there, and those that have differentiated themselves are able to implement paywalls and thrive. We'll see, but to succeed you have to be more then just the usual noise.

Re: Full article text for you theiving bastards (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 4 years ago | (#30833694)

Fuck the NY Times and their revenue stream. Fuck copyright infringment. After all, this is Slashdot, godammit. Information should be free, right?

Here is the full article text for all of you fucking thieves who would actually agree with the above statement:

The Times to Charge for Frequent Access to Its Web Site

By RICHARD PÉREZ-PEÑA
Published: January 20, 2010

The New York Times announced Wednesday that it intended to charge frequent readers for access to its Web site, a step being debated across the industry that nearly every major newspaper has so far feared to take.

Starting in early 2011, visitors to NYTimes.com will get a certain number of articles free every month before being asked to pay a flat fee for unlimited access. Subscribers to the newspaper's print edition will receive full access to the site.

But executives of The New York Times Company said they could not yet answer fundamental questions about the plan, like how much it would cost or what the limit would be on free reading. They stressed that the amount of free access could change with time, in response to economic conditions and reader demand.

Any changes are sure to be closely watched by publishers and other purveyors of online content who scoffed at the notion of online charging until advertising began to plummet in 2007, battering visions of Internet businesses supported solely by ads. Few general-interest publications charge now, but many newspapers and magazines are studying whether to make the switch.

Still, publishers fear that income from digital subscriptions would not compensate for the resulting loss of audience and advertising revenue.

NYTimes.com is by far the most popular newspaper site in the country, with more than 17 million readers a month in the United States, according to Nielsen Online, and analysts say it is easily the leader in advertising revenue, as well. That may make it better positioned than other general-interest papers to charge -- and also gives The Times more to lose if the move backfires.

The Times Company has been studying the matter for almost a year, searching for common ground between pro- and anti-pay camps -- a debate mirrored in dozens of media-watching blogs -- and the system will not go into effect until January 2011. Executives said they were not bothered by the prospect of absorbing barbs for moving cautiously.

"There's no prize for getting it quick," said Janet L. Robinson, the company's president and chief executive. "There's more of a prize for getting it right."

This would not be the first time the company has attempted an online pay model. In the 1990s it charged overseas readers, and from 2005 to 2007 the newspaper's TimesSelect service charged for access to editorials and columns. TimesSelect attracted about 210,000 subscribers who paid $49.95 a year but it was scrapped to take advantage of the boom in online advertising.

Company executives said the current decision was not a reaction to the ad recession but a long-term strategy to develop new revenue.

"This is a bet, to a certain degree, on where we think the Web is going," Mr. Sulzberger said. "This is not going to be something that is going to change the financial dynamics overnight."

Two specialized papers charge already: The Wall Street Journal, which makes certain articles accessible only to subscribers, and The Financial Times, which allows non-paying readers to see up to 10 articles a month, a system close to what is planned by The Times.

Most readers who go to the Times site, as with other news sites, are incidental visitors, arriving no more than once in a while through searches and links, and many of them would be unaffected by the new system. A much smaller number of committed readers account for the bulk of the site visits and page views, and the essential question is how many of them will pay to continue that habit.

Executives said the computerized subscription service must work smoothly and communicate seamlessly with the computer systems that handle the database of print subscribers. The Times will not use one of the pay systems being marketed by other companies, like Journalism Online, led by Steven Brill, or the News Corporation, instead choosing to create the system essentially from scratch.

"There's a lot of technical work that we need to do over the next year to get this right," said Martin A. Nisenholtz, the company's senior vice president for digital operations. "And I think if you were to benchmark this against other, similar implementations, you would find that a year is not excessive."

Bill Keller, the executive editor, embraced the plan.

"It underscores the value of what we do -- trustworthy, aggressively reported professional journalism, which is an increasingly rare and precious thing," Mr. Keller said. "And it gives us a second way to sustain that hard, expensive work, in addition to our healthy advertising revenue.

Company executives would not release estimates of how many subscribers and how much revenue an online system would attract, how many visitors the site might lose because of it, or how much ad revenue would decline.

The Times Company looked at several approaches, including a straightforward pay wall similar to The Journal's; various "metered" systems, including the one they chose; a "membership" format similar to the one used in public broadcasting, with rewards for supporters but little or no limit on access to the site; and a hybrid among those options.

The approach the company took is "the one that after much research and study we determined has the most upside in both" subscriptions and advertising, Mr. Nisenholtz said. "We're trying to maximize revenue. We're not saying we want to put this revenue stream above that revenue stream. The goal is to maximize both revenue streams in combination."

Why would it be a shame? (0)

Cornwallis (1188489) | more than 4 years ago | (#30832856)

There are plenty of sources that are as reliable - if not moreso - than the Times. It is not the paper it once was IMO.

Re:Why would it be a shame? (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 4 years ago | (#30833188)

The New York Times - All The News That Fits, We Print

As opposed to Fixed News (1)

tepples (727027) | more than 4 years ago | (#30833554)

The New York Times - All The News That Fits, We Print

As opposed to News Corporation - When News Breaks, We Fix It. (Why else would MSNBC's Keith Olbermann call it Fixed News?)

Re:Why would it be a shame? (5, Interesting)

Soulskill (1459) | more than 4 years ago | (#30833240)

It's not a matter of being the most reliable; it's a reliable, content-generating, influential news source.

A very small percentage of our summaries link to the NYTimes. Regardless, we're always disappointed when a site we occasionally link turns into a pay site. Some stories we can pick up elsewhere, some we can't.

The bigger problem is that it's one less source -- not just a link target, but a source -- that provides tech news. And other sites are assuredly watching and taking cues from the NYT, the WSJ, etc., to see how they can either turn a profit or turn a bigger profit. A drop in the bucket, perhaps, but enough drops will fill the bucket. As more and more sites put up paywalls, news junkies will have less free news to read.

On the other hand, nobody reads the linked articles anyway, so maybe it's not so bad!

Re:Why would it be a shame? (1)

causality (777677) | more than 4 years ago | (#30833462)

A very small percentage of our summaries link to the NYTimes.

An even smaller percentage of the summaries link to the NYTimes with its "registration required" deal when no other news source that covers the story was available. I know there are ways around that registration requirement, but that isn't really my point.

In other news.... (1)

headkase (533448) | more than 4 years ago | (#30832862)

The New York Times sees a massive drop in readership. What the market is actually willing to provide with advertisements wasn't good enough for them...

Re:In other news.... (1)

MBGMorden (803437) | more than 4 years ago | (#30833428)

The New York Times sees a massive drop in readership. What the market is actually willing to provide with advertisements wasn't good enough for them...

Indeed. It reminds me of a friend of mine a few years back. He was unemployed at the time (not eligible for unemployment) and had no income whatsoever - nor did he really have any marketable skills. He kept applying to jobs that he wasn't qualified for and getting no results. At one point I kind of nicely suggested that, for a while, he try to get a job at a fast-food place or in retail or something. That was beneath him though. "That won't even pay my bills!" he shouts. Apparently he preferred to have no money and dream of making lots rather than taking the pay of jobs that were available to him and REDUCING his bills a bit to live within the salary that was available.

If I subscribe to paper version? (3, Interesting)

blahbooboo (839709) | more than 4 years ago | (#30832876)

I hope and wonder if people who subscribe to print/paper version will get free online access. If they don't it will be pretty greedy. I believe Wall Street Journal provides free online with a paper subscription.

Re:If I subscribe to paper version? (2, Informative)

blahbooboo (839709) | more than 4 years ago | (#30832898)

Oh crap, duh, in article it says it's free. Next time read before writing!!

Re:If I subscribe to paper version? (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 4 years ago | (#30832978)

It's OK, don't panic! It won't stop some jackass moderator from modding you up, so everything is alright.

Re:If I subscribe to paper version? (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 4 years ago | (#30833100)

RTFA? You must be new here.

Re:If I subscribe to paper version? (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 4 years ago | (#30833716)

So to get pure online access, I can subscribe to the paper version and give the address of a paper recycling plant?

Re:If I subscribe to paper version? (1)

Interoperable (1651953) | more than 4 years ago | (#30833316)

If they don't it will be pretty greedy.

You say that as if they're offering a public service and the management is trying to skim a little of the top for themselves. The fact is, they're a publicly traded company (or are owned by one) and have a responsibility to the share-holders to make as much money as possible. Why would you ever expect a company to not make the most money possible within the confines of ethical business practice?

The question is simply whether an online pay system will work. The product is certainly of high quality but ad revenues seem to work better online.

I have news for you (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 4 years ago | (#30832886)

Like, you won't be in business by 2011.

So, this statement is irrelevant.

Plenty of other sources (1)

HEbGb (6544) | more than 4 years ago | (#30832896)

There are plenty of other sources of free (decent) content available on the internet, at least of similar quality. Obviously, we'll see what the market thinks of all this.

Of course, I'm sure it will be trivial to game the website anyhow.

Re:Plenty of other sources (1)

causality (777677) | more than 4 years ago | (#30833022)

There are plenty of other sources of free (decent) content available on the internet, at least of similar quality. Obviously, we'll see what the market thinks of all this.

Of course, I'm sure it will be trivial to game the website anyhow.

Regarding "gaming the website", why scheme to illegitimately obtain what you can legitimately obtain for free? It's not like news is difficult to obtain. If the NY Times had anything like a monopoly on news sources, this move would make a lot more sense. As it is, it seems their goal is to enrich the advertising revenues of competitors who offer no-charge news sites with ads.

Re:Plenty of other sources (2, Interesting)

avilliers (1158273) | more than 4 years ago | (#30833098)

Actually, there are only a handful sources of similar content of similar quality, and the two that immediately spring (WSJ and the Economist) are behind pay walls.

God knows the NYT has its flaws (WMD and Whitewater, as high-profile examples), but in terms of original national (US) reporting it's way above the AP or the BBC. I think the WSJ is (was?) better, but their big stories (Enron, back-dating options, Vioxx, for example) are obviously business related. McClatchy seems to have an edge documenting issues with the 'official unnamed' sources, but doesn't do as much elsewhere. Most other quality sites simply do different things altogether.

Personally, I pay for the WSJ and browse the NYT free on line. This will probably make me switch to the NYT for a year and see how I like it as a daily news source. So, yeah, in my one case their strategy will work.

Bug Me Not (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 4 years ago | (#30832924)

Yeah, I don't care that much if and absolutely positively have to read a story in the Times. I've got a button for that.

Do they seriously think they'll cover their costs? (1)

Rogerborg (306625) | more than 4 years ago | (#30832936)

That they'll make a hojillion dollars [penny-arcade.com] more than they'll lose in setting up and maintaining their paywall, and in reduced advertising revenue from all the eyeballs that they'll lose?

Really? That's some serious hubris they're pitching there.

I was considering a subscription (2, Insightful)

FlyingBishop (1293238) | more than 4 years ago | (#30832960)

But the big issue with the NYT is that despite being a global player, it still has this New York focus that makes it less useful for those of us not in New York. The BBC does truly global coverage, and there's no American equivalent. NYT is the closest we have, but they're going to have to do more to prove that they're a global player and not just a regional paper with really good national and international coverage before I pull out my wallet.

Re:I was considering a subscription (2, Informative)

maxume (22995) | more than 4 years ago | (#30833488)

Their global page shows less of that focus:

http://global.nytimes.com/ [nytimes.com]

Re:I was considering a subscription (1)

nomadic (141991) | more than 4 years ago | (#30833758)

But the big issue with the NYT is that despite being a global player, it still has this New York focus that makes it less useful for those of us not in New York. The BBC does truly global coverage, and there's no American equivalent. NYT is the closest we have, but they're going to have to do more to prove that they're a global player and not just a regional paper with really good national and international coverage before I pull out my wallet.

If you're not in New York, then why bother going on?

But seriously, I've found the BBC isn't quite as cosmopolitan, and American newspapers not quite as provincial, as people seem to think. The New York Times has strong global reporting as good as anything the BBC does, in addition to the NY stuff which you can filter out quite easily if you want.

Key Details (4, Funny)

Rik Sweeney (471717) | more than 4 years ago | (#30832970)

Occasional users will still get free access to a certain number of articles per month. Most of the key details are not yet determined

Wait, is that key details in the ARTICLE?

Scientists warn of a deadly meteor that will hit the earth in 3 days striking the state of (register to read more)

I never access NYTimes. (3, Insightful)

autophile (640621) | more than 4 years ago | (#30832996)

Back when NYTimes had set up a paywall/registration-required site, I never wanted to go through the hoops to get to an article. After they stopped doing that, it was just sort of habit not to read articles on the site. So why change now?

Who cares? (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 4 years ago | (#30833006)

NYT's narrow focus and fraudulent (Duranty, Blair) reportage have made it a paper for morons.

Good riddance. Good fucking riddance!

For Sale (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 4 years ago | (#30833016)

It was just confirmed that in 2012, the NYTimes will be out of business and for sale!

About time... (1)

adosch (1397357) | more than 4 years ago | (#30833026)

Maybe it's different for a bigger news outlet like NYT, but I'd say it's about time. Dozens of News paper printing companies have long and done this many years ago (including Wall Street Journal many years back) and even the podunk news outlets in my midwest state. Anymore, I can't even read local news around here unless I pay for it online or catch it on the 6 o'clock or 10 o'clock news. I've long grown tired of dipshit delivery kids throwing my paper in a snow bank, at the end of my 30ft driveway or leaving the paper on my doorstep without a plastic bag in the rain.

A word of thanks and a request (5, Insightful)

peterwayner (266189) | more than 4 years ago | (#30833040)

Let me first thank everyone who's submitted an article to Slashdot with a link to something I've written. The comments are almost always a great gift and I look forward to reading most of what people write, especially the ones who RTFA.

My only request is for everyone to be open to new ways of paying for the synthesis of information. It is very difficult for humans to compete with the robot link farms and the casual content created on places like Facebook. If we want people to synthesize we have to find some way to come together as a society and fund them.

I realize that it's attractive to look at the almost non-existent distribution costs of digital content and imagine a world where information can be completely free, but this avoids dealing with the costs of creating it in the first place. We need to find a good way for everyone who consumes content to effectively share the costs of creating it. If we don't, the information ecosystem will collapse.

Please be open to the writers and publishers who are going to try out more mechanisms for distributing the costs among the consumers. Try them out and reward the ones that deliver something of value. Ignore the ones that aren't worth your time. But please don't dismiss them out of hand.

Finally, I want to point out a piece I've written about some of the downsides of the free ecosystem for information. Perhaps this might suggest that there are some advantages in embracing a paywall, at least occasionally.

http://www.wayner.org/node/67 [wayner.org]

Re:A word of thanks and a request (1)

Richard Steiner (1585) | more than 4 years ago | (#30833250)

I have access to so much high-quality news and editorial information for free that it's hard to justify paying for more information that doesn't have much to differentiate itself except the name of the source.

What makes the New York Times worth paying for that I can't find from 100 or 1000 free sources via news.yahoo.com or news.google.com?

Re:A word of thanks and a request (2, Insightful)

Da Fokka (94074) | more than 4 years ago | (#30833550)

There ain't no such thing as a free lunch. Maybe it's free to _you_, but someone is paying, in this case someone with a good old-fashioned newspaper subscription. Google doesn't have correspondents around the world, they just aggregate news form sources who do. Currently, these sources are being paid by their subscribers but subscriber numbers are falling.

Re:A word of thanks and a request (1)

Sir_Lewk (967686) | more than 4 years ago | (#30833674)

If the money isn't coming out of my wallet, then for all I care, it is free.

Re:A word of thanks and a request (1)

houghi (78078) | more than 4 years ago | (#30833602)

My only request is for everyone to be open to new ways of paying for the synthesis of information. It is very difficult for humans to compete with the robot link farms and the casual content created on places like Facebook.

Open to it? Sure. Just like I am open to getting stuff WITHOUt paying for the synthesis of information.
Sure, competition is hard. We will see in the end what happens and it might be some third option we have not even yet thought about.
I will be open for anything as long as you are also open to alternatives, which might mean that your income will go away as it happens now. Just like Gutenberg put a lot of people out of a job, now Internet might do the same. Only in a few years will we see what the result was.

Re:A word of thanks and a request (4, Interesting)

MaraDNS (1629201) | more than 4 years ago | (#30833618)

Mod parent up! :)

Seriously, people here love to talk about how the "new economy" makes it possible to remove "artificial scarcity" and make it so everything is free.

What these people ignore is that, even if it costs no money to copy something, it still costs money to create something. There is still, in this "new economy", the very real economics that the majority of content people use (Computer programs, movies, music, television programs, written articles, etc.) is content that would not exist if someone wasn't being paid to make it.

I enjoy reading all of the articles on the New York Times' front page [nytimes.com] every morning, and understand I soon may need to pay for the privilege of reading the quality journalism and writing the the NYT offers.

Now, I'm sure someone will point to open source software and say "Mr. MaraDNS, you don't know about open source software and how this proves that we can have all the compelling content we want for free in the 'new economy'". I will point out to people who think like this that I am, in fact, a developer of open-source software [maradns.org] .

People who think open-source software (OSS) makes it possible for all content to be free don't understand how OSS changes the relationship between the developer and the user. A lot of people think an OSS program is like a commercial program, but free, and that they can ask for features or get support for free, and it gets pretty tiring to have people email me asking for free support, even though I make it clear that I don't provide free email support for my program [samiam.org] .

The thinking behind OSS is that I donate some of my coding time and effort to the greater community. In return, people are free to contribute bug fixes or improvements to the program, or supply support on the mailing list. For example, someone wanted better IPv6 support, supplied patches, and now MaraDNS has good IPv6 support. Another person wanted better Windows service support, and supplied patches to make MaraDNS' new recursive core be a full Windows service. Other people answer user's questions on the mailing list or translate documentation. Webconquest [webconquest.com] very generously provides me a free Linux shell account and hosting for the web site.

Likewise, I found an OSS Doom random generator I liked and provided bug fixes and improvements to it [samiam.org] ; when I lost interest in it, another person became the maintainer and improvements continue to be made even though I no longer work on that code. And, there is a Free Windows Civilization clone [c-evo.org] for Windows which I have provided a bug fix and extended the documentation with [samiam.org] .

OSS doesn't mean we have the right to demand all content be free or are justified in pirating media and software. OSS means that we can, together, make free content which complements the for-pay content out there.

Re:A word of thanks and a request (2, Interesting)

AB_Rhialto (1490817) | more than 4 years ago | (#30833638)

I think this is the great information age challenge; how do content producers (and I am not necessarily talking about the publishers here but potentially the 'artist' themselves - more on that in a following paragraph) receive compensation and how do I as a consumer support them. This is not a new topic since single sign on and micro-payments have been a topic discussed for quite a few years.

Personally I would like to support the creators of content, however, bulk payment (i.e. monthly subscriptions) just doesn't work in the newly connected world where potentially anyone can be a content producer (how many monthly subscriptions would I have to have, and how economical would that be). If I could pay per article so that I could support the newspaper or the blogger, then the content providers have incentive to continue and I get the greatest number of possible sources for news and entertainment (currently, advertising is the only way most of these content producers get paid today and that is definitely not ideal on multiple levels).

There is another industry that is undergoing a similar transformative process and that is music. How long until the artists can skip the labels entirely (for some, that day is already here, for others it is very close). If we consider a song to be somewhat equivalent to an article, then there is an existing model out there that, with modifications, can support the information industry.

I have a feeling that Apple and their iTunes ecosystem might just be headed down that path, since they provide a type of single sign-on (my iTunes account) and they provide multiple forms of media (and if we believe the rumors, books and other information media is coming soon). They would be in a position to create a micro-payment environment for all content producers to get paid directly with out the reliance on advertising.

Now, I don't actually believe iTunes will become the new internet, just pointing out that it can be used as something of a template for the greater internet.

As George Carlin once said... (1)

dburkland (1526971) | more than 4 years ago | (#30833056)

"There's a lot of things you could use to kill a guy with. You could probably beat a guy to death with a Sunday New York Times!"

Newsworthy (1)

thelonious (233200) | more than 4 years ago | (#30833076)

Does the Times ever actually contain timely news articles that slashdot would need to link to? I can't remember the last time I even looked on their site

It won't work, and it is unlikely to be tried... (2, Insightful)

paulsnx2 (453081) | more than 4 years ago | (#30833082)

I don't pay for access to news (unless looking at ads counts as paying). Few single news sources cover a high enough percentage of the kinds of stories I am interested for me to allocate actual money to said sources. I'd like access to Nature, and New Scientist, and a number of technical sources, but rely on "second hand" access as other free sources report on *their* stories. Given that I rarely complete covering these summaries in a day before I have to actually deal with life in the real world, I don't think it is worth my money to get access to things I don't have time to ready anyway.

The Fate of any news service behind a pay wall or limited free pay wall is obscurity. No news story in the NY Times can remain exclusive to the NY Times unless nobody cared about that story in the first place.

But I like the idea that they are going to "wait and see" how others will fare over the year. I don't have to wait, I can tell them their growth and revenue will be flat at best. Them kind of returns are not going to excite the NY Times, and I'd bet in the end this will never really happen.

an offer they can't refuse? (2, Insightful)

squidfood (149212) | more than 4 years ago | (#30833084)

- which would be a shame.

Is this the slashdot mafia coming out? "Nice article. Shame is something were to... happen to our link to it."

Wot? No slashdotting? (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 4 years ago | (#30833128)

Seriously, Slashdot hasn't been able to slashdot anyone for years. Stories that would have thousands of comments a few years ago receives maybe a hundred today. Do you think not linking to NYT from Slashdot will make them reconsider? Hehehe

Buggy Whips (1, Informative)

Archangel Michael (180766) | more than 4 years ago | (#30833152)

Most people are missing the point. What we're witnessing is the buggy whips in the age of automobiles transition.

Newspapers and Magazines are the buggy whips of our times, fighting to stay relevant in an age that has passed them by.

When Katie Curic asked Sarah Palin what newspapers and magazines she read, Palin should have responded "I don't read Newspapers, I read the news on the internet", and mentioned that all the news stories of the day have been driven by sites like Drudge, LittleGreenFootballs and Daily Kos, and Huffington Post, not by NYT or Washington Post.

The traditional "National News Media" is fast becoming irrelevant, because information dissemination is faster than a Newspaper can be printed.

Information is moving (literally) at the speed of light (Internet). By the time NYT puts it on the front page, it is often 24 hours too late to be of much use.

Same goes for nework TV (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 4 years ago | (#30833434)

One of the last times I watched TV, I saw Curic ask Sully Sullenberger if he prayed while he was ditching his plane into the river. He was gracious - I, on the other hand, was shaking my head in disbelief at such a stupid question. She gets over $15 million a year to ask stupid questions and read the news?!? Life is not fair. Say what you will about Fox and CNN, but at least they get babes to read the news - they make no pretense about the talking heads being "journalists" - any asshole can read copy.

My parents and in-laws look at me in disbelief when I say I get my news off of the internet. In five minutes, I can skim the headlines, get a days worth of HLN, and I don't have to watch advertisements. As far as content, and this goes for the papers too, they dumb it down so much as to make it BS.

Re:Buggy Whips (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 4 years ago | (#30833490)

Palin should have responded "I don't read Newspapers, I read the news on the internet"

Yeah, but... she doesn't even read the Internet either. Her response was truthful: she could not answer as she does not read any publications regularly.

Re:Buggy Whips (1)

slimjim8094 (941042) | more than 4 years ago | (#30833574)

Why not both? I don't trust Drudge or any of that other crap you were talking about, but they do admittedly break the story first. I'll wait to make up my own mind until I read the high-quality nuanced story from the New York Times, or another quality newspaper. They'll reliably talk about the context of the issue, or implications for other news.

That, and the NYTimes is pretty damn fast. I read the article about the GOP winning Massachusetts a full 12 minutes after the race was conceded.

Re:Buggy Whips (1)

Inda (580031) | more than 4 years ago | (#30833616)

Some of us still enjoy buying a paper paper.

1. The internet is too slow at lunchtimes, what with everyone and their dog buying package holidays at the moment.

2. I can't take this PC to Trap 1, but the paper opens nicely.

3. I sit staring at this bloody LCD all day, getting away from it for 30 minutes is bliss.

4. I'd get the sack for look at Page 3 tits on the internet.

5. People borrow my paper and chat about the content afterwards. It's nice. Nicer than a link in an email.

Re:Buggy Whips (1)

locallyunscene (1000523) | more than 4 years ago | (#30833648)

The internet is not the main problem for newspapers(in terms of news). Newspapers have forgotten what they are good at. Internet news isn't much different from the morning, afternoon, and nightly news on T.V. You can get quick headlines, and LOTS of opinions easily. What newspapers are good for is investigative journalism. But they don't DO that anymore. They try and cater to specific crowds like the news channels and blogs.

The New York Times is a decent paper in a time of mediocre papers. It would still be considered far too run by its advertising and getting more quick fluff stories than it's 1970's version.

Re:Buggy Whips (1)

houghi (78078) | more than 4 years ago | (#30833658)

When Katie Curic asked Sarah Palin what newspapers and magazines she read, Palin should have responded "I don't read Newspapers, I read the news on the internet", and mentioned that all the news stories of the day have been driven by sites like Drudge, LittleGreenFootballs and Daily Kos, and Huffington Post, not by NYT or Washington Post.

From what I heard here tell, she did not read any of the sites you mentioned and gets her info mainly from The Onion.

Re:Buggy Whips (1)

Colonel Korn (1258968) | more than 4 years ago | (#30833676)

"I don't read Newspapers, I read the news on the internet", and mentioned that all the news stories of the day have been driven by sites like Drudge, LittleGreenFootballs and Daily Kos, and Huffington Post, not by NYT or Washington Post.

The traditional "National News Media" is fast becoming irrelevant, because information dissemination is faster than a Newspaper can be printed.

Information is moving (literally) at the speed of light (Internet). By the time NYT puts it on the front page, it is often 24 hours too late to be of much use.

What you're describing applies almost exclusively to celebrity gossip and irrelevant political rumors. News that doesn't matter after 24 hours tends not to be real news. At best you get early results of elections or public announcements. Real reporting isn't simply a list of the obvious facts given by a single source. It means checking the source, describing differing viewpoints and evaluating those sources, and providing a reader with real insight, not just information. Real reporting still has its place, and not one of those sites does any. They're sensationalist aggregators, sort of like Slashdot but with angry political themes. Bloggers and tweeters also don't do real reporting, either. They're, at best, sources to be evaluated in a much broader context by real reporters.

Re:Buggy Whips (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 4 years ago | (#30833682)

You do realize that Drudge, Kos and LGF just link to the newspapers, right? And HuffPo is mostly opinion and analysis.

TV news is tripe. The blogs are just commentary. Newspapers are still the only place that real reporting is going on. Sure, their days may be numbers, but there is nobody replacing them.

Re:Buggy Whips (1)

ideonexus (1257332) | more than 4 years ago | (#30833736)

When Katie Curic asked Sarah Palin what newspapers and magazines she read, Palin should have responded "I don't read Newspapers, I read the news on the internet", and mentioned that all the news stories of the day have been driven by sites like Drudge, LittleGreenFootballs and Daily Kos, and Huffington Post, not by NYT or Washington Post.

Of course, this overlooks the fact that 80-90% of what these sites are linking to is content hosted on the NYT's, WP, WSJ, and other professionally-produced sources.

This is not so bad (1)

fermion (181285) | more than 4 years ago | (#30833180)

This will keep content open to search engines. Occasional readers will not be effected, so there will not be the issue of the draconian pay wall. For those who wish to read it regularly, there will be an option to pay. I hope it will be $50 a year rather than $150-200. I must admit that more than $10 a month would put me off. I am sure that physical subscribers will get a free online subscription.

And for those who love the paper, and want to read it, but hate to pay(I am talking about those who read it every day but refuse to even register) I am sure there will be a way to scramble the data so it can be continued to be read for free.

OTOH, one can a promotion such as a free year to the NYT with the purchase of an Apple branded reading device.

The grey lady should look before leaping (5, Interesting)

onyxruby (118189) | more than 4 years ago | (#30833224)

Slate did this, the NYT should talk to their management about lessons learedn.

They used to be a popular well read site that decided that a paywall was the way to, regardless of what their readers told them. They later added an interactive ad that you had to get through as a means of allowing people to visit without paying. By the time the word they changed back to an ad based site for free the damage was done. By then it was too late and a fair part of their user base had been alienated and simply moved on.

How many people would be surprised that Slate is no longer a pay site, and you can simply read it without any hoops? I would imagine a fair number of people as they probably haven't visited the site in years. For the meanwhile, the damage has been done and Slate is a shadow of their former self.

I've said before, and I'll say it again, the news is a commodity, if you want visitors you have to differentiate yourself against Reuters and the Associated Press. You can either do that with original reporting and or a better experience. Adding a paywall only works with a substantial investment in one or both, witness the Wall Street Journal which has original repoorting of high quality for an example and has been behind a paywall for years.

Re:The grey lady should look before leaping (4, Insightful)

slimjim8094 (941042) | more than 4 years ago | (#30833634)

Most would argue that the NYTimes has both original reporting and a better experience. Their website is nice and clean, and they're still one of (if not the) premier newspaper in the world. For example, they broke the NSA wiretapping story.

It would be highly damaging if they were to disappear. It's not like they could just be replaced.

Vivian Schiller (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 4 years ago | (#30833238)

I wonder if this is the result of Vivian Schiller leaving to head NPR. When she was the head of nytimes.com, she pushed to make all the content free (getting rid of Times Select). And now that she's been gone for a little while, it looks like they're reverting back to their old ways. Too bad.

Aggregation (2, Interesting)

macintard (1270416) | more than 4 years ago | (#30833292)

It's either this or continue the slow boil. However, I would be more willing to spend my cash for an aggregation service like Google News or something similar. I use the Internet to get my news not just because it is convenient, but also because the number of sources I can easily review gives me broader coverage. I have no idea if the Times play will be successful, but I do think they need to examine their business - they aren't just a newspaper company anymore, nor is CNN television news anymore - they're both in the business of news and opinion in general, and are thus competing on similar playing fields. Perhaps the answer lies in "partnerships" - I would pay for a news partnership that included World, National, and Local news that consisted of, say, MSNBC, The New York Times, and the Denver Post. I have no idea how feasible it is - this is just my $.02 on what I would pay for.

Some people will pay, most won't (2, Funny)

Burnhard (1031106) | more than 4 years ago | (#30833312)

I regularly read The Times, The Telegraph, The Daily Mail (I apologise in advance; it's just that I like to know what Fascist Britain is getting up to from time to time) online. I wouldn't read any of these if they were behind a pay wall. I did subscribe to the FT for a month (a free month) but what was contained therein was not compelling enough for me to actually give them a monthly sub. I can get free news elsewhere, e.g. the BBC online website (leftist, ethnic-peace bicycle politically correct news I grant you, but news nonetheless) and various blogs.

The fact of the matter is that most people when compelled to pay, will simply move their viewing elsewhere. As long as there are places to get news online free of charge, pay-walls won't work for the masses. I guess the next step of course, once the pay-walls have gone up, is to claim copyright over any and every story to prevent publication in blogs!

Four words: (1)

Khan (19367) | more than 4 years ago | (#30833398)

"Good luck with that!"

I try to avoid the NYTimes website as much as possible since there are so many other available resources that are IMO better.

If the NYT was more specialized it could work (1)

BlueTrin (683373) | more than 4 years ago | (#30833440)

The Economist, the FT and the WSJ are not free. However these are specialist magazines aimed toward people who need opinions and news in finance. I do not see how the NYT will find a niche of people who are willing to pay a subscription.

What the analysis is probably missing is that, like many people, although I am subscribed to The Economist, the FT AND the WSJ:
- 1 - I am more or less forced to read these since it is a part of my job
- 2 - The average reader of these magazines is earning more money than your average NYT reader
- 3 - I am not paying for these, my company is paying the subscription so I do not care about the price

In finance, you have specialized magazines such as Risk and Credit which subscription is about a thousand quids a year, and the price of the subscription to the FT is almost irrelevant (except it cannot be higher than the printed version).

I do not think that many NYT reader will get a subscription trough their job.

However they may succeed to implement a system of micropayments to get a bunch of articles, although my intuition tells me that most of people will just switch to a different news source. As long as there is not a monopoly (an oligopoly to be exact) and someone is willing to provide news for free, you will not be able to sell them, it reminds me of the music industry and piracy although the system of low payments from iTunes worked.

YES! fP (-1, Troll)

Anonymous Coward | more than 4 years ago | (#30833470)

at deatH's door Fear the reaper all know we want. to this. For

Paynews failed in Canada already (1)

flyingfsck (986395) | more than 4 years ago | (#30833566)

What will happen is that readers will get their news from other sites, e.g. theglobeandmail, cbc, bbc, cnn...

More details (1)

Tea-Bone of Brooklyn (828337) | more than 4 years ago | (#30833620)

Here's a link to some more coverage [paidcontent.org] - a couple more details about what they're planning.

NYTimes Announcement (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 4 years ago | (#30833626)

The NYTimes just announce they will start charging in 2011. They went on to say they will begin bankrupt proceedings in 2012.

It's all about advertising (2, Interesting)

wiredog (43288) | more than 4 years ago | (#30833660)

As this article at The Atlantic [theatlantic.com] points out, the NY Times makes more money from subscriptions than from advertising. If they can get enough money from subscribers then they don't need to worry about page rank, hits, click-throughs, etc.

Workaround? (1)

bobdotorg (598873) | more than 4 years ago | (#30833702)

I'm curious how they intend to implement this. A workaround might be as simple as deleting some cookies, a trip to bugmenot, or using a leaked university / company-wide password.

Load More Comments
Slashdot Login

Need an Account?

Forgot your password?

Submission Text Formatting Tips

We support a small subset of HTML, namely these tags:

  • b
  • i
  • p
  • br
  • a
  • ol
  • ul
  • li
  • dl
  • dt
  • dd
  • em
  • strong
  • tt
  • blockquote
  • div
  • quote
  • ecode

"ecode" can be used for code snippets, for example:

<ecode>    while(1) { do_something(); } </ecode>