Gothamist: Good News For The Times; Bad News for Cheapies

James

Wed, 25 Jan 2006 18:55:09 -0500

CORRECTION: "...I even read the NY Times 'online' is..."

James

Wed, 25 Jan 2006 18:48:11 -0500

The ONLY reason I even read the NY Times only is because the print edition got too expensive for what they were giving me content wise. If the NY Times goes all paid, they will definitely lose me, because I haven't read many "essential reading NY Times only" stories in that paper in quite some time. With an all paid model, they'd have a small elite little audience, but that's about it. They would become a "boutique" publication similar to The New York Observer (which is still free online btw).

igor

Wed, 25 Jan 2006 18:09:26 -0500

i'm not paying and you can't make me..

mrf

Wed, 25 Jan 2006 16:45:37 -0500

People pay money to get the WSJ online because they do a better job covering the financial world than any other domestic publication (and people who don't read it should stop calling it a right-wing rag -- the editorial page is insane, but the news articles are quality). The NYT isn't that lucky. In fact, they are sort of a "general interest" publication. Most of what you read in the Times is covered as well (or almost as well) in a number of other newspapers, and is probably covered even better in a publication (online or off) that specializes in the subject. There are exceptions of course. I have yet to find anything as consistently ridiculous as the Sunday Styles section, so I might consider paying for that.

Brett

Wed, 25 Jan 2006 14:23:34 -0500

There was an interesting tidbit on this story posted on Kausfiles the other day noting that the number of new subscribers looks to be leveling off. He also mentioned that college students and faculty can subscribe now for 50% off, if that helps anyone. You can find the info a couple of paragraphs down here: http://www.slate.com/id/2134754/

Jean

Wed, 25 Jan 2006 13:44:45 -0500

Hey Larry, Have you heard of Lexis? Fortunately for me, I have a job that provides me access to Lexis Nexis...that saves me from WSJ or NYT memberships.

Larry Littlefield

Wed, 25 Jan 2006 13:37:16 -0500

I wouldn't mind paying for online access something like what I used to pay for paper, minus the cost of the paper and its distribution. After all, unless people are willing to pay for writers and editors, we won't have them. Journalism has already degererated to the rehasing of press releases too much as it is. The problem is that I have become accustomed, and much prefer, reading the articles that interest me from a number of news sources, rather than just one. And I'm not going to pay what I used to pay for a newspaper 10 times! Newspapers are either giving content away, or charging too much for it. What is required is a consortium through which access to a variety of news sources are provided, with the monthly fee from each subscriber divided among them based on the number of articles viewed. Then I'll buy it. No one newspaper, not even the Times, is worth it. As for electronic distribution, many news sites pretty much re-report news gathered by others, including this one. That is only more efficient if the others are willing to work for free. So something has to change. But $1,000 per year for information isn't it.

growler

Wed, 25 Jan 2006 13:33:59 -0500

The WSJ lets you read their editorials free. And the editorial page is the right-wing part. The paper itself is moderate to liberal.

WSJ hater

Wed, 25 Jan 2006 12:49:23 -0500

The Wall Street Journal has been making people pay for their online content for years. I wouldn't put one cent into their reactionary right-wing pockets.

jake

Wed, 25 Jan 2006 12:36:56 -0500

i'd probably be willing to pay $50 per year for a fully ad-free nytimes site-- there certainly aren't many papers that compete with their news coverage.

jh

Wed, 25 Jan 2006 12:33:13 -0500

Are they even thinking about blogs? OpEds by Krugman, Dowd, et al are usually available for free on blogs, or at least excerpts of them. And blogs help narrow down the amount of articles I have to read to the noteworthy ones.

Jo

Wed, 25 Jan 2006 12:18:03 -0500

I pay $230 per year for Sunday only delivery, so I suppose $50 is not unreasonable....unless of course you have been reading it online for 8 years and paying nada. Dying to know though....do you actually lay around the bed with your laptop on Sundays if you don't get the print version? One sweep of the hand clears the way for play, at worst you end up with a crumpled Arts section....gotta believe a hard plastic case jabbing intot the small of your back is a real mood killer.

growler

Wed, 25 Jan 2006 12:10:52 -0500

Quality? Jayson Blair. Judith Miller. Walter Duranty. Alessandra Stanley. Paul Krugman. Maureen Dowd. Rick Bragg. And the editors in general. All those people have lied, invented, omitted, distorted and otherwise twisted facts to suit their own purposes. And TimesSelect is just another example of the paper's idiocy. People aren't going to pay for the "privilege" of reading columnists. Newspapers in general, and the Times in particular, are becoming fastly irrelevant.

Benjamin

Wed, 25 Jan 2006 12:10:45 -0500

esc: Did you try the telephone? People love to just use Internet forms but no one reads them. If you CALL the Times' customer service and TALK to a live person, chances are you'll get the problem solved.

threetoedsloth

Wed, 25 Jan 2006 12:07:11 -0500

Currently I read the Times online every day, but if the whole thing becomes subscription-only, I'll stop reading it. There are other news sources out there, after all, which don't insist that only the wealthy can read their articles! The Times, while a helpful read, is not interesting or risk-taking enough in their content to warrent paying extra for it. I'm happy to pay for Salon.com, though.

J$

Wed, 25 Jan 2006 12:04:09 -0500

Going to an all-pay format would be a bad move; they'll lose a lot of their younger readers. Someone else will surely step in and ramp up their free online news content to take advantage. Wasn't Craigslist supposed to be going into news?

Dan

Wed, 25 Jan 2006 11:45:17 -0500

The economics of TimesSelect are interesting and important. It's almost undeniable that paper newspapers are doomed -- electronic distribution is so, so much more efficient. But we have gotten too used to getting everything for free. We bitch about $50 a year for TimesSelect, but the paper version is probably, what, $400 a year? Something's got to pay for the quality (yes, quality) reporting we get with the times. NY Times Co. says advertising isn't enough to do so, and I'm inclined to believe them. Lord knows I don't want to get all my news from AM New York or Metro.

esc

Wed, 25 Jan 2006 11:35:23 -0500

I am one of the 390,000 who get the paper delivered and CANNOT successfully register online for TimesSelect. nytimes.com is certainly not financially broke, but they are broken. I reported this to their customer service dept. but apparently they are not eager to serve already paying customers.

tien

Wed, 25 Jan 2006 11:29:50 -0500

take it all! death to the non-subscribers. i kid. i kid.

bklynd

Wed, 25 Jan 2006 11:18:40 -0500

I would pay for the whole NYT site, but $50 is a bit steep. Whaddaya say grey lady, how about $30?