×

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!

Paywalled NYT Now Has 300,000 Online Subscribers

timothy posted more than 2 years ago | from the hopefully-you-won't-have-to-log-in dept.

The Media 179

An anonymous reader writes "It looks like the derided-on-slashdot paywall for the NY Times hasn't brought down the paper so far. The Times now reports 300,000 digital subscribers (to e-reader versions and the web combined) and digital advertising revenue for the part of the company that includes the paper has increased 6% this quarter."

cancel ×
This is a preview of your comment

No Comment Title Entered

Anonymous Coward 1 minute ago

No Comment Entered

179 comments

probably (0)

dredwerker (757816) | more than 2 years ago | (#37780434)

Ipad owners :)

Re:probably (1)

Synerg1y (2169962) | more than 2 years ago | (#37780812)

Kindle owners?

Re:probably (1)

X0563511 (793323) | more than 2 years ago | (#37780936)

I will say, having the International Herald on mine is freakin' handy.

Re:probably (1)

geekoid (135745) | more than 2 years ago | (#37781388)

Why do you want something that, by it's very nature, is substantial out f date by the time you get to it?

Which is fine, I'm just curious.

Re:probably (5, Insightful)

Tyler Eaves (344284) | more than 2 years ago | (#37781406)

Real news coverage is about depth much more than timeliness. I'd much rather have in-depth analysis of say, a proposed law, in a week or two than fluff in 6 hours.

Re:probably (1)

Anonymous Coward | more than 2 years ago | (#37782120)

Why do you want something that, by it's very nature, is substantial out f date by the time you get to it?

Hey, you have your reasons for reading Slashdot, and I have mine!

Re:probably (1)

Anonymous Coward | more than 2 years ago | (#37781152)

I got it for free on my ipad

Re:probably (3, Insightful)

Anomalyst (742352) | more than 2 years ago | (#37781698)

I got it for free on my ipad

No, you didn't. It was paid for by the outrageous markup you turned your head and coughed up for having PHB decide what you can and cannot run on hardware for which you were way overcharged.

Re:probably (1)

Pieroxy (222434) | more than 2 years ago | (#37781902)

I got it for free on my ipad

No, you didn't. It was paid for by the outrageous markup you turned your head and coughed up for having PHB decide what you can and cannot run on hardware for which you were way overcharged.

Why all the hate?

Re:probably (1)

Anthony Mouse (1927662) | more than 2 years ago | (#37781946)

You might notice that the truth of that statement does not dispute the argument that the number of subscribers is inflated by those who were not given the choice of declining the subscription in exchange for a price reduction on the iPad.

this just in! (1, Redundant)

Desler (1608317) | more than 2 years ago | (#37780450)

This just in: Slashdot is often wrong about things like this. The same way neither the iPhone or iPad failed.

Re:this just in! (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 2 years ago | (#37780486)

No wireless. Less space than a nomad. Lame.

Re:this just in! (0)

abigor (540274) | more than 2 years ago | (#37780590)

Slashdot's resident pundits are pretty much wrong about everything technology-related. It's pretty hilarious to compare this place to something like Hacker News.

Re:this just in! (3, Interesting)

Hijacked Public (999535) | more than 2 years ago | (#37781424)

Slashdot overall actually has about every opinion possible. Some of the most loved (ie - highly moderated) opinions turn out to be as wrong as they could possibly be.

Consider this gem [slashdot.org] , particularly "If Apple enters that market with a phone, they're fucked". Fucked with finding warehouse space to store pallets of money, as it turns out.

Though there were plenty of opinions contrary to that one the groupthink doesn't often push them to the top.

Re:this just in! (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 2 years ago | (#37782016)

That was a good find. Do you have a bookmark list of bad tech predictions on /. ? :D I just loved how he was so so so convinced of his opinion in that thread :D

Slashdot readers != targetted demographic (0)

Meshach (578918) | more than 2 years ago | (#37780476)

Yet another story that shows that a /. reader/commenter does not represent the typical customer of a major news outlet.

Re:Slashdot readers != targetted demographic (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 2 years ago | (#37780524)

Timothy is in full blown derptard mode today.

Re:Slashdot readers != targetted demographic (2)

ackthpt (218170) | more than 2 years ago | (#37780554)

Yet another story that shows that a /. reader/commenter does not represent the typical customer of a major news outlet.

Care to back that up with some facts?

Aside the few clowns on /. it is a highly literate audience - which is what the NYT caters to.

Re:Slashdot readers != targetted demographic (1, Redundant)

bberens (965711) | more than 2 years ago | (#37780594)

Highly literate audience with disposable income for things like ipads/nooks/whatever.

Re:Slashdot readers != targetted demographic (0)

ackthpt (218170) | more than 2 years ago | (#37780650)

Highly literate audience with disposable income for things like ipads/nooks/whatever.

And coffee. Don't forget coffee.

and the coffee maker is about 12 feet from my desk.

Re:Slashdot readers != targetted demographic (0)

ColdWetDog (752185) | more than 2 years ago | (#37781278)

I get the distinct impression that the generic Slashdot user doesn't want to pay for anything. They should be able to make most objects out of recycled Linksys routers and old televisions with a pair of pliers and a soldering iron given to them by their father in fifth grade. Clothes are recycled from various dumpsters or Goodwill stores. Coffee comes from... well, you don't want to know that.

More like highly left-wing audience (0, Troll)

Anonymous Coward | more than 2 years ago | (#37780762)

The NYT is biased lefty trash.

Re:More like highly left-wing audience (1, Informative)

h4rr4r (612664) | more than 2 years ago | (#37780878)

Not at all. It is maybe center or center right. Only compared to Fox news and other so far right they might as well be fascist news outlets is NYT lefty. If you want to see an actual leftist/lefty newspaper check out http://socialistworker.org/ [socialistworker.org] .

Re:More like highly left-wing audience (-1)

Anonymous Coward | more than 2 years ago | (#37780910)

Reality has a well known left-bias.

Re:More like highly left-wing audience (1)

0123456 (636235) | more than 2 years ago | (#37780960)

Reality has a well known left-bias.

Indeed. That's why communism was such a success.

Re:More like highly left-wing audience (0, Insightful)

Anonymous Coward | more than 2 years ago | (#37781200)

You think "communism" is left-leaning? Maybe you mean Marxism. Or socialism. Or maybe you're throwing terms out there that you don't understand, like "reality" or "success". It's okay, no one knows the difference anyway. All forms of anything except the perfect "free market" that exists perfectly in reality (has always existed, and will always exist) are pinko claptrap schemes that have no value.

Carry on.

Re:More like highly left-wing audience (2)

Galactic Dominator (944134) | more than 2 years ago | (#37781208)

Funny how the extremes of Left and Right both end up in exactly the same place: Totalitarianism. Maybe Left and Right aren't very accurate labels.

Re:More like highly left-wing audience (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 2 years ago | (#37781266)

Or maybe there's more than one dimension to the political landscape.

Hey, I have this great idea. You should add a second dimension, make some questions to determine where someone is, and put it online. Then graph their responses in 2D. Maybe make it shaped like a diamond.

Re:More like highly left-wing audience (-1, Troll)

0123456 (636235) | more than 2 years ago | (#37781618)

Funny how the extremes of Left and Right both end up in exactly the same place: Totalitarianism.

That's because the left define anything they don't like as 'right-wing'. The people the left claim to be 'far right' are mostly just far lefties who don't subscribe to precisely the same interpretation of Marxist dogma.

There's no sensible definition by which both Hitler and Ron Paul can be 'far right', whereas both Hitler and Stalin can easily be placed at the far left of the scale with only a few small differences between them.

Re:More like highly left-wing audience (1, Insightful)

Galactic Dominator (944134) | more than 2 years ago | (#37782036)

Really? Next I suppose you'll tell me Fascism is also some form of Leftism plot and the entire right-wing Christian coalition bringing it along were actually disguised liberals there to give the extreme conservatives a bad name. Let's be morally serious here and objectively assess the evidence. I would hope Coulter/McCarthy-like liberal paranoia could be reserved for a less educated audience where it can prey on ignorance and illusory superiority to gain popularity.

Re:Slashdot readers != targetted demographic (1)

LibRT (1966204) | more than 2 years ago | (#37781670)

Good point, and I suspect most /. readers further realize that you can bypass the paywall by entering the site via google, including via rss feeds of stories in google reader.

Paywall easily defeated (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 2 years ago | (#37780504)

In your address bar just delete the junk following the .html (or in some cases folowing the trailing slash) and then reload.

close and reopen browser resets month count (1)

peter303 (12292) | more than 2 years ago | (#37780744)

must be in a cookie somewhere

Re:close and reopen browser resets month count (1)

dkleinsc (563838) | more than 2 years ago | (#37780990)

It is, but AC is right that another way around the paywall is to just remove the &gwh=... from the URL. Works like a charm, and I think there are even automated tools to do that.

Interestingly, I can also browse freely at work without having either cookie issues or monkeying with URLs. I'm guessing that somebody with the same public IP has a subscription, so NYTimes just assumes everything's fine.

Re:Paywall easily defeated (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 2 years ago | (#37780756)

Just delete the cookie and you can read for free forever.

Well... (4, Interesting)

rjstanford (69735) | more than 2 years ago | (#37780566)

Keep in mind that every print subscriber gets a free top-of-the-line digital subscription. Its actually cheaper to get the paper edition and recycle it then it is to just get the online, in fact, which is annoyingly stupid.

Re:Well... (-1, Offtopic)

ackthpt (218170) | more than 2 years ago | (#37780680)

Keep in mind that every print subscriber gets a free top-of-the-line digital subscription. Its actually cheaper to get the paper edition and recycle it then it is to just get the online, in fact, which is annoyingly stupid.

Cheaper to have a single home land-line phone, too. Odd how many people have mobile phones, isn't it?

Re:Well... (3, Informative)

Sekine12 (2482412) | more than 2 years ago | (#37780726)

Keep in mind that every print subscriber gets a free top-of-the-line digital subscription. Its actually cheaper to get the paper edition and recycle it then it is to just get the online, in fact, which is annoyingly stupid.

Cheaper to have a single home land-line phone, too. Odd how many people have mobile phones, isn't it?

Did you skip the reading part? If a single home landline came with a mobile phone for less than the price of a mobile phone alone, you'd have a landline.

Re:Well... (2)

h4rr4r (612664) | more than 2 years ago | (#37780792)

You don't get a free cell phone with a land line.
In this case the paper edition is cheaper comes with the more expensive on line version free. That seems pretty backwards/

Re:Well... (-1)

Anonymous Coward | more than 2 years ago | (#37781026)

You don't get a free cell phone with a land line.

Yes, I do. My cell phone is free with the land line. I just have to pay an $80 service charge per month. Blew your argument out the window, huh?

Re:Well... (2)

Anthony Mouse (1927662) | more than 2 years ago | (#37782080)

In this case the paper edition is cheaper comes with the more expensive on line version free. That seems pretty backwards/

It isn't particularly backwards when you realize that they make more from print advertisers to have one additional 'paid' print subscriber than it costs them to actually print and deliver one additional copy.

If you buy the online-only subscription you're costing them ad revenue.

Re:Well... (1)

StikyPad (445176) | more than 2 years ago | (#37780806)

Unless your single home land-line phone comes with free mobile service, your analogy is way off.

Re:Well... (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 2 years ago | (#37781214)

It's cheaper to be a fucking idiot too. See above.

Actually not. (-1)

Anonymous Coward | more than 2 years ago | (#37781752)

Contract free plans from Cricket start at $25. It costs at least $35 for a landline. And if you have a relative on Sprint, they can get a second line that uses a fixed cell modem that lets you plug in any landline type phone into the device. Unlimited minutes for a grand total of...$20. Sprint even throws in the modem for free.

The only way to get a low cost landline for $18 monthly is to be poor. There are subsidized plans for such people, but you must have low income.

Shows how little you know about landlines AND cell plans.

Re:Well... (1)

93 Escort Wagon (326346) | more than 2 years ago | (#37780968)

Keep in mind that every print subscriber gets a free top-of-the-line digital subscription. Its actually cheaper to get the paper edition and recycle it then it is to just get the online, in fact, which is annoyingly stupid.

Subscription prices for my local paper follow that same model, actually. It is silly - I save a few bucks a month over a digital-only subscription by subscribing to the weekend (Friday through Sunday) print editions, which comes with free access to their everyday digital edition.

The digital edition sucks, and was obviously designed by people who only understand print... but that's another matter.

Re:Well... (1)

Talderas (1212466) | more than 2 years ago | (#37781164)

It has to do with the fact that they're getting twice the advertising revenue out of you if you get the paper version and don't both reading the paper.

They get paid for the ads in the paper that you do read and paid for the ads embedded on the online pages you do read.

Re:Well... (-1)

Anonymous Coward | more than 2 years ago | (#37781938)

What if I don't read the ads in the paper and only use the subscription to access online content? Blows that logic out of the water.

Re:Well... (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 2 years ago | (#37781028)

is it? or are YOU stupid for not realizing it's business-savvy pricing? I think YOU'RE stupid.

Re:Well... (1)

Anonymous Coward | more than 2 years ago | (#37781046)

Just because it's not true, don't let that get in the way of your stupid comment:

https://www.nytimesathome.com/hd/101/form/

  Daily Delivery (7 Days) – $5.85 per week More Details
  The Weekender (Friday–Sunday) – $3.80 per week More Details
  Saturday–Sunday – $3.15 per week More Details
  Weekday (Monday–Friday) – $3.10 per week More Details

Home delivery subscribers get free digital access to NYTimes.com **
and the NYTimes smartphone and tablet apps.
Plus, home delivery subscribers can share their digital access with a family member
at no additional charge.

I pay $15/month for digital access 7 days a week.. I'm no math major, but last time I checked 4 * $5.85 > $15

Re:Well... (1)

h4rr4r (612664) | more than 2 years ago | (#37781180)

Hmm, neither am I but 3.10 * 4 seems to work out to less than $15. I thought all home delivery folks got free 7 day digital subscriptions.

Re:Well... (2)

rjstanford (69735) | more than 2 years ago | (#37781204)

Just because it's not true, don't let that get in the way of your stupid comment:

...

  Weekday (Monday–Friday) – $3.10 per week More Details

Home delivery subscribers get free digital access to NYTimes.com **
and the NYTimes smartphone and tablet apps.
Plus, home delivery subscribers can share their digital access with a family member
at no additional charge.

I pay $15/month for digital access 7 days a week.. I'm no math major, but last time I checked 4 * $5.85 > $15

Yup. However, 4 * $3.10 < $15. But than you for playing.

Re:Well... (3)

Talderas (1212466) | more than 2 years ago | (#37781210)

Unless of course getting the Sat/Sun or Mon-Fri editions and you get the online subscription as well.

In which case $15 > $3.15 * 4 or $15 > $3.10

Re:Well... (3, Insightful)

flooey (695860) | more than 2 years ago | (#37781148)

Keep in mind that every print subscriber gets a free top-of-the-line digital subscription. Its actually cheaper to get the paper edition and recycle it then it is to just get the online, in fact, which is annoyingly stupid.

Stupid, but economically sensible given the environment. Print advertising rates are set based on circulation, so simply sending a paper to someone earns money for the Times, whether they read it or not. If you assume that (advertising income per paper subscriber) - (cost of printing a paper) > (web subscription cost) - (paper subscription cost), the Times makes more money when you sign up for the cheaper paper edition than when you sign up for online only.

Re:Well... (1)

Tyler Eaves (344284) | more than 2 years ago | (#37781438)

You have to understand their revenue model. They make money delivering you that paper. More home delivery subscribers = higher ad rates.

Re:Well... (5, Informative)

poemofatic (322501) | more than 2 years ago | (#37781646)

This is easy to explain from a business point of view, although difficult to explain from a logical point of view.

Print eyeballs are about 10 times more valuable [publishing2.com] than digital eyeballs.

Therefore the main concern is expanding print subscribers.

One way to do that is to offer digital previews that are effectively teasers to entice users to get the print edition. In order to ensure that you get the print edition, and not the digital edition, they charge more for digital alone than for digital + print. Note that the NYT has no problem if you only access their content online. There are no "print monitors" that track which printed articles have been read. As far as the NYT is concerned, you can burn the print paper as soon as it hits your door, as they will get paid by the subscription numbers. So the NYT has a single goal -- to sell more print editions, but the consumers of the NYT want the easiest access to NYT times data, which may be online. The solution is to require the purchase of a print edition in order to access the data online, and to discourage customers from only accessing the data online.

Underlying all of this is a very broken business model on the part of the paper as well as on the part of advertising companies. We have much more data about online advertising than other forms of advertising, and this data describes how ineffective digital advertising is. But instead of assuming that this applies to all forms of advertising, through sheer inertia, advertisers have determined that this is an odd quirk of online advertising only, which means all other forms of advertising, for which we have less reliable data, continue to be able to command a premium over online advertising.

All of this is a detriment to the development of rich content online sites, and a subsidy to tree and television based sites.

By the way, Hulu faces the same problem with obtaining add revenues for shows online versus the add revenues that networks can charge. This is why the networks would rather you watch a show on television than watch the same show online. They use the online shows as a teaser or advertisement for the on-air shows, doing things such as delaying programs or limiting the availability of programs while giving the online audience a sample of their content.

Re:Well... (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 2 years ago | (#37781820)

Not stupid to the NYT. Print ads bring in a lot more money than digital, so they'd much rather you be both a print and digital subscriber than digital-only. If they priced digital subscriptions cheaper than print, many print subscribers would drop the dead-tree product and the company would lose a ton of print advertising revenue.

Quality seems to have improved (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 2 years ago | (#37780606)

In recent months I've seen a lot of news sources citing the NYT as a source, particularly where actual research was concerned. While I was one of the many that denounced the paywall move, I'm reasonable enough to admit I was wrong.

Dunder Miflin Infinity (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 2 years ago | (#37780620)

Double counting anyone?

Re:Dunder Miflin Infinity (1)

sexconker (1179573) | more than 2 years ago | (#37780746)

Double counting anyone?

Probably.
As rjstanford pointed out:

Keep in mind that every print subscriber gets a free top-of-the-line digital subscription. Its actually cheaper to get the paper edition and recycle it then it is to just get the online, in fact, which is annoyingly stupid.

So yeah - every paper subscriber is a digital subscriber, even if they:
Haven't actually set up an account.
Don't care.
Don't know.

They also get access to all the various "app" versions of their shit AND they have the ability to share access to a friend/family member.

Re:Dunder Miflin Infinity (1)

Desler (1608317) | more than 2 years ago | (#37780832)

The 300000 quoted are just the people with only a digital subscription. So no they aren't double counting.

Re:Dunder Miflin Infinity (1)

h4rr4r (612664) | more than 2 years ago | (#37780928)

How many of those did they give away?
I remember when the paywall thing started they were giving tons of those away.

If the digital version includes ads I will never buy it.

Re:Dunder Miflin Infinity (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 2 years ago | (#37781056)

How many of those did they give away? I remember when the paywall thing started they were giving tons of those away.

If the digital version includes ads I will never buy it.

Of course you won't buy it. First, you're too stupid to read. Second, everything should be free! Just like your mommy gives you - breakfast, lunch and dinner. And, of course it's all free!

Re:Dunder Miflin Infinity (1)

h4rr4r (612664) | more than 2 years ago | (#37781078)

No, just stuff that has ads. Either you get me to watch advertising or I will pay. You can't have both.

I pay for netflix, which has no ads. I use only the free Hulu since it has ads.

Re:Dunder Miflin Infinity (1)

Desler (1608317) | more than 2 years ago | (#37781802)

If the digital version includes ads I will never buy it.

And I'm sure the people at the ny times can't sleep at night knowing this.

drop in the bucket... (1)

Lumpy (12016) | more than 2 years ago | (#37780628)

Compared to even obscure little slashdot.

Honestly, they should be over 1,000,000 already if they were to be as successful as they claimed to be. and how much you want to bet they are counting the paper subscribers that logged in to set up their online account, so the real number is far lower.

Re:drop in the bucket... (1)

Baloroth (2370816) | more than 2 years ago | (#37780674)

They aren't. There are 800,000 people who've done that. The 300,000 are just digital subscribers.

Re:drop in the bucket... (1)

AdamJS (2466928) | more than 2 years ago | (#37780710)

I'd be willing to assume the majority of Slashdot accounts don't even sign in once a year.

Re:drop in the bucket... (1)

Jeng (926980) | more than 2 years ago | (#37781298)

And I assume that the majority of the traffic that goes though /. hasn't actually signed up at all. Far more visitors than accounts.

Re:drop in the bucket... (0)

westlake (615356) | more than 2 years ago | (#37781262)

Compared to even obscure little slashdot.

The New York Times, like The Economist or The Wall Street Journal, is considered a must-read for the professional, the decision-maker. Slashdot is light entertainment.

Re:drop in the bucket... (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 2 years ago | (#37781712)

The first two, sure. WSJ continues the groupthink of corp execs.

Taco and the iPod (3, Interesting)

AdamJS (2466928) | more than 2 years ago | (#37780662)

Anywho, I can access NYT articles with no problem from both work and home. Am I missing something here?

Re:Taco and the iPod (1)

Baloroth (2370816) | more than 2 years ago | (#37780708)

Am I missing something here?

Ads, most likely. Adblock (in Opera at least and I think Firefox too) seems to allow you to go right through the paywall (although it did block me twice. Weird.)

Re:Taco and the iPod (1)

nairnr (314138) | more than 2 years ago | (#37781302)

Most of the content is accessible, but they count how many articles you read in a month. If you go over you need to be a subscriber.

Re:Taco and the iPod (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 2 years ago | (#37782160)

Most of the content is accessible, but they count how many articles you read in a month. If you go over you need to be a subscriber.

But they only know if I'm reading more than X many articles a month if I keep their damn cookies. Just set them to delete when you close your browser'n your golden :p

Need more numbers (1)

itwbennett (1594911) | more than 2 years ago | (#37780666)

Is 300k subscribers good? What percentage of total online readers is that? Also, sure, a 6% increase in digital advertising revenue is good, in that any increase is good. But what sort of increase did comparable websites see?

Re:Need more numbers (1)

heptapod (243146) | more than 2 years ago | (#37781294)

C/P from Alexa

Statistics Summary for nytimes.com

Nytimes.com is ranked #87 in the world according to the three-month Alexa traffic rankings. Approximately 12% of visits to it are referred by search engines, and the site has been online since 1994. Nytimes.com is located in the US. Visitors to the site spend approximately 80 seconds on each pageview and a total of five minutes on the site during each visit. Ranked 29 in the USA. 325,546 sites linking into the New York Times's website.

the devil's bike shed (0)

epine (68316) | more than 2 years ago | (#37780734)

Over all, I think they've handling this well. I just wish they would display the number of views remaining where it greats me every day with the phrase "Welcome, ohsupremeleader".

Actually, my NYT user name is from the Slartibartfast school of almost filthy. Refer to someone that way in the joint, they'd carry you out in a box. It combines the adolescent directness of fartface with the oozitude of sloppy seconds. I guess I was none too thrilled about the mandatory sign-up.

But honestly, they have pretty good content, and deserve to stay in business.

As a person who typically isn't of /. hivemind (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 2 years ago | (#37780818)

I knew this would happen.

It is cheap enough and common enough to the readers that they were willing to fork over such a small, completely disposable, income towards hopefully more quality, even if there are more reporting groups out there who are completely free.
People find more quality in things they pay for, even if it is cheap. (well, generally)

As I have said a few times in the past though, having a mix of free and premium services is always the best idea.
Premium services could have things such as preview articles, first view at the hopefully more exclusives, discounts for longer subscriptions, priority commenting, more priority in bandwidth on the servers, exclusive "top" discussion section for subscribers to weed out typical "youtube" levels of idiocy, and countless other ideas you can think of.

I can see this happening more in the future since these numbers are coming out. I'm quite surprised they posted it, in fact, since it gives incentive for more people to do this as well.

Freemium services, while ideal, are becoming harder to operate since advertisers have abused their positions and more and more people block them all regardless of content or decency, even though there are decent advertisers out there. (and as you remember this caused a huge argument over allowing advertisers to flag their site as "honest" wrt advertising and threats of forking extensions and so on...)
The only advertisers I block are people who abuse the hell out of Flash and GIFs... or those who still use pop-ups... seriously why?! (and that is by proxies so it is global, since I tend to use several browsers at the same time due to web development)
It is also in part due to site operators also abusing ads by having them absolutely everywhere too.

Clearing Cookies Paywall (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 2 years ago | (#37780830)

Maybe I'm cheap but I just clear my cookies to get another 20 free articles a month.

Paywall only works for large papers (2)

Aereus (1042228) | more than 2 years ago | (#37780864)

I'm glad to see the NY Times is able to make some good revenue off their site, but this probably only works for the larger papers.

Large influential papers like the NY Times and Wall St. Journal have a certain level of clout and original content that people are willing to pay for. It's highly unlikely that your local newspaper is going to make any reasonable amount of money off of creating a paywall. Most local papers feature largely wire stories you can find online from thousands of other papers. More circumstantial -- but it's also been my observation that the "younger generations" increasingly don't care about local interest stories or Prep Sports that may be in the local papers -- which is usually the only original content they offer.

So in the long run, I can see this saving a handful of the largest national papers, but I feel most local papers will be in even more trouble in the future.

Re:Paywall only works for large papers (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 2 years ago | (#37781254)

Exactly. Is 300,000 really so many for the biggest newspaper in the US?
This says to me almost no one else can make this model work.

Re:Paywall only works for large papers (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 2 years ago | (#37781738)

My local paper is paywalled ... you get 15 pageviews per month, then the paywall kicks in. However, the paywall is only a problem if you don't know where your browser's "stop loading" button is.

Cookie (1)

Anonymous Coward | more than 2 years ago | (#37780874)

LOL. All you have to do to get around the pay wall is to delete the cookie they send over or just block it using no-script. Works like a charm every time. I will not pay for something they make obviously simple to get around.

It is a payrope (4, Insightful)

MLCT (1148749) | more than 2 years ago | (#37781024)

It isn't a paywall, it is a payrope. You can just wander right over it (without any underhand tactics). I have been a reader before and after (5-10 articles per day) and have not noticed any difference. I don't know what the article cut-off is, but unless you plan to read the thing cover-to-cover every day you aren't going to notice. I suspect a lot of the 300k subscriptions come from ipads and kindles, because I can't see how it would be easy to get value for money from a PC subscription.

Paywalls block all content, and are flawed (and are what the /. crowd say will fail). The NYT payrope is a sensible hybrid model, that finds enough people (willing or stupid depending on your prerogative) to pay, while the rest go free. Now if we get figures on The Times of London's subscriber figures (blanket solid paywall) then I suspect they would be a lot more in-keeping with the /. predictions.

Re:It is a payrope (1)

Lucidus (681639) | more than 2 years ago | (#37782044)

The NYT allows me 20 free articles a month, so your numbers are suspect.

However, that limit does not include articles linked from, for example, Google News or any Google search. Which makes it fairly easy to get around.

Re:It is a payrope (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 2 years ago | (#37782216)

I pay my suscription to the NYT for the same reason that I'm a member of the Metropolitan Museum of Art: I think it's an institution with an important public function.

They could learn something from Slashdot (1)

igreaterthanu (1942456) | more than 2 years ago | (#37781118)

I was surprised to find out that they still show advertising to paid subscribers, in particular annoying Flash based advertising.

Luckily there is Adblock.

Re:They could learn something from Slashdot (1)

rudy_wayne (414635) | more than 2 years ago | (#37781314)

I was surprised to find out that they still show advertising to paid subscribers, in particular annoying Flash based advertising.

And this is surprising ....... why? Perhaps you have never read an actual newspaper, which is not free, and contains lots of advertising.

Re:They could learn something from Slashdot (2)

geekoid (135745) | more than 2 years ago | (#37781486)

The costs barley cover wha it take to get the newspaper to you.

If you remove the delivery charge and printing costs, you would think it would be free w/ Advertising, or cost with no/ advertising. Not both.

Plus my newspapers ads don't move, flash, bing , ding, blink or honk.

Hard to resist subscription (1)

bbasgen (165297) | more than 2 years ago | (#37781130)

I have struggled mightily to resist paying the high rate and absurd model (pay more for access on the ipad? Seriously?) that the Times charges. I've tried to find other news sources that compare in depth, editorial insight, and quality independent reporting. Everything I've used to date has been half as good at best. I haven't caved yet, but I can see it coming on the horizon...

Good grief. (3, Insightful)

cornface (900179) | more than 2 years ago | (#37781460)

Nobody on slashdot would care about stupid paywall sites if you would do the most basic of editing tasks and stop linking to them.

That LITTLE? (1)

gurps_npc (621217) | more than 2 years ago | (#37781768)

This is NY times.

The article says they don't included the 100,000 Ford Motor gave away for free. Nor does that number included the 800,00 paper delivery people that got it for free. Considering that they about 35 million homes get paper deliver, that means over 34 million people get the paper delivery and REFUSED the electronic one.

OK, so 900,000 people got it for free and 324,000 people to actually buy? Out of a potential market of 35 million people? If you give away 9 to get 3 people out of every 350 to buy your product, it is a failure.

The real problem is they don't know what a success is.

I would really like to know how many of their 324,000 paid electronic subscribers are actual individuals living in America, as opposed to libraries, colleges, and people living outside of the US.

Load More Comments
Slashdot Account

Need an Account?

Forgot your password?

Don't worry, we never post anything without your permission.

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>
Sign up for Slashdot Newsletters
Create a Slashdot Account

Loading...