NY Times States Pay to Play

No More Free Lunch

By: Charles Giuliano - 03/18/2011

Click to Enlarge

As of today the New York Times plans to charge of on line content.

In a long anticipated development the New York Times is initiating a change which entails charging for its on line content. Posted below is an e mail that was circulated today to potential subscribers.

While living in Boston we subscribed to the Boston Globe, New York Times and Wall Street Journal. Now living in the Berkshires there is no home delivery to our address for the Globe, or Times. The delivery of the Journal has been erratic with numerous calls to subscriber service in the Phillipines. Even though we are long time subscribers the Journal just opted to cancel the remainder of our contract. The calls to the Phillipines were going nowhere.

Yes, we do subsacribe to the Berkshire Eagle. Typically, this week I called on Monday and Wednesday to report an undelivered paper. Not that it really makes a difference as there isn't much content to sustain reading beyond a morning cup of coffee.

Of course, when in NY we love reading the Times. What is it now a couple of bucks? For a Newspaper? When I first started reading newspapers as a kid the Record America cost a nickle and was replated several times during the day. We recall hawkers blaring "Extra Extra read all about it." Or editors in films yelling "Stop the Presses."

I'm something of a newspaper junkie. I spent some wonderful years at the old Herald Traveler duing the era of Hot Type. As a member of the Guild it didn't do much good when the HT was sold to the Record. Most of us were canned by the end of the day making room for the incoming Hearst staff.

So now the Times wants us to pay for on line content. The Globe is gearing up. Truth is none of the newspapers have found a way to make any money on line. Which is where the readers are. Maybe, at most, I buy and read about 20 newspapers in a given year. But I read on line all the time.

The Times argues that it costs money to create content. Doesn't make sense to give it away for nothing.

Which goes for me too. It costs me money to run this site which you are now reading for free. Don't worry. We don't plan to charge for the privilege. Sure it would be nice to make some money. Or break even. But it has never been about money. There are a lot of ways to get paid or make it worth while.

We live in an information age with a glut of free content. Who has the time to keep up with all that is posted. As content providers we are all competing for eyeballs. You are reading this because like zillions of folks you are looking for those niches and cracks. It's where the dialogue is really being shaped at a ferocious pace. We aren't really interested in what the papers published this morning. What's relevant is the news that's breaking now, this second. On line. Of course it may not be fair and accurate. But if you bundle all the lies and learn to work your way through deliberate misinformation, including he mainstream media, you just might find the truth.

Or what works for you.

Yes the Times is a great news organization. But, sorry Mr. Sulzberger, Jr. why should I pay for it when I can get all the news that fits into the internet for free.

And with Frank Rich leaving.

Well, you do the math.

Dear New York Times Reader,

Today marks a significant transition for The New York Times as we introduce digital subscriptions. It’s an important step that we hope you will see as an investment in The Times, one that will strengthen our ability to provide high-quality journalism to readers around the world and on any platform. The change will primarily affect those who are heavy consumers of the content on our Web site and on mobile applications.

This change comes in two stages. Today, we are rolling out digital subscriptions to our readers in Canada, which will enable us to fine-tune the customer experience before our global launch. On March 28, we will begin offering digital subscriptions in the U.S. and the rest of the world.

If you are a home delivery subscriber of The New York Times, you will continue to have full and free access to our news, information, opinion and the rest of our rich offerings on your computer, smartphone and tablet. International Herald Tribune subscribers will also receive free access to NYTimes.com.

If you are not a home delivery subscriber, you will have free access up to a defined reading limit. If you exceed that limit, you will be asked to become a digital subscriber.

This is how it will work, and what it means for you:

* On NYTimes.com, you can view 20 articles each month at no charge (including slide shows, videos and other features). After 20 articles, we will ask you to become a digital subscriber, with full access to our site.

* On our smartphone and tablet apps, the Top News section will remain free of charge. For access to all other sections within the apps, we will ask you to become a digital subscriber.

* The Times is offering three digital subscription packages that allow you to choose from a variety of devices (computer, smartphone, tablet). More information about these plans is available at nytimes.com/access

.
* Again, all New York Times home delivery subscribers will receive free access to NYTimes.com and to all content on our apps. If you are a home delivery subscriber, go to homedelivery.nytimes.com to sign up for free access.

* Readers who come to Times articles through links from search, blogs and social media like Facebook and Twitter will be able to read those articles, even if they have reached their monthly reading limit. For some search engines, users will have a daily limit of free links to Times articles.

* The home page at NYTimes.com and all section fronts will remain free to browse for all users at all times.

For more information, go to nytimes.com/digitalfaq.

Thank you for reading The New York Times, in all its forms.

Sincerely,

Arthur Sulzberger Jr.
Publisher, The New York Times
Chairman, The New York Times Company

As a loyal reader of NYTimes.com, you will receive a special offer to save on our new digital subscriptions. We will e-mail this special offer starting on March 28, the day we begin charging for unlimited access to our Web site and mobile apps*. We truly value your readership and look forward to bringing you the world’s finest journalism every day.

*Mobile apps are not supported on all devices. Does not include e-reader editions, Premium Crosswords or The New York Times Crosswords apps. Other restrictions apply.

This message was sent to inform you about an important change to our Web site and NYTimes applications. Please note, if you have chosen not to receive marketing messages from The New York Times, that choice applies only to promotional messages. You will continue to receive important notifications that are legally required or could affect your service.

To review our Privacy Policy, please go to:
http://www.nytimes.com/content/help/rights/privacy/policy/privacy-policy.html

© 2011 The New York Times Company / 620 Eighth Avenue, New York, NY 10018

Back to opinion Section
Home

Reader Comments

From "Gary L."

03-19-2011, 08:11 pm

Interesting blurp about the NYT and by extension the Boston Glob (spelling mistake intentional). Leaving aside the point about whether I or others still believe they are (cough) "World Class Content" anymore, or whether they are living off their press clippings and just selling themselves of as such. Oh, wait I believe you probably can read between those lines. I think the question is whether or not anyone under age 65-70 will want to bother to be a paid online or print subscriber to the NYT or Glob going forward? Why bother when the established newspaper industry around the world has gone the way of the dodo bird? Why would I pay $35 per month for online access to the NYT when I could get the same information out there in cyberspace for free? Why would I pay $15-20 per month for access to their online content via their iPhone or iPad apps when there are dozens of apps out there who deliver the same content including links to actual NYT articles without paid subscriptions? Ditto for the Glob's upcoming online paid subscriptions. In the interest of full disclosure I was a voracious newspaper reader who loved purchasing and reading both the Boston Globe (pre NYT ownership) particularly the Sunday paper and reading it from front to back. But that was before the rise of 24 hour national and regional cable news and sports TV coverage, free online newspapers or blogs and more importantly broadband access, and smart phones with free apps and unlimited data plans that could give me the current news or sports at the click of a button. And of course before Penny "Pinch" and the NYT took over a once thriving newspaper in Boston and through brilliant mismanagement and poor decisions drove it into the bleeping ground. And fired or drove out anyone I was ever interested in reading. Their response to declining circulations, subscription rates, and advertisers along with tens of millions of dollars in yearly losses? Let's raise the cost of newsstand prices to $1.50 for the daily newspaper and $3.50 (now $4.00) for the Sunday edition outside of Boston. This will greatly increase paid subscriptions by making it seem like a bargain. Brilliant! As for declining influence and a loss of future generations of readers? See the Nightly Network news from the 3 alphabet soup channels. Once they were the news. Now 24 hour cable stations dwarf them in ratings. And more younglings get their "news" from the Daily Show than both the network news and cable stations combined. Or see Time and Newsweek magazines. Once they were in virtually every home and people cared what they wrote. Now you might see a copy occasionally while trapped forever at the doctors office. And people don't even talk about them anymore with the possible exception of the Peep of the Year. Which is why Newsweek was sold to a (cough) investor for the price of $1 and more importantly an agreement to assume millions of dollars of debt. $30 million from just the prior year alone. Barring billions of dollars in bailouts to prop up the Jurassic newspaper industry this is likely its future as well. And who at this point doesn't love corporate bailouts paid for by generations of taxpayers? Hmm. I have a $1 bill somewhere. Anybody else want to invest a few hundred million bucks of debt so I can buy the Glob? I promise to lower newsstand prices! Gary L.

From "Steve Nelson"

03-19-2011, 12:15 am

The once-accepted wisdom that people won’t pay for content online has long been disproven. The Wall Street Journal has a successful pay model. Apple has sold billions of dollars of iTunes and apps for the iPhone and iPad. Netflix and Hulu sell subscriptions for movies and TV shows. The main problem with the Times offering is its price point: $15 a month (or actually $15 for four weeks, a sneaky way to get 13 payments a year instead of 12). And if you want access to the Times over multiple platforms, like your smartphone and tablet, not just your PC, the price can escalate to $35. That flies in the face of new offerings like TV Everywhere, which allows cable subscribers to watch their programming on any platform at no additional cost. And as of now, if you do pay for the Times online, you’re going to have to pass your laptop around to your spouse and kids, because the subscription is only for that one machine. In addition to Sulzberger’s announcement, the Times ran a news story about it, with readers’ comments. Over 2,100 had been posted before the Times shut them off, and I scanned through several hundred of them. Most people recognized that the Times was a valuable product which costs a lot of money to produce, and for which they’d pay, but $5 or maybe $10, not $15. The Times has seriously overpriced its web subscription, and underestimated the importance of including cross-platform access in the price. When the plan takes effect on March 28, they’re going to face a storm of customer dissatisfaction. And when they lose a substantial portion of online readers, they can expect their advertisers to demand rate reductions. In seeking to put the print and online products on a firmer financial footing, the Times instead has shot the Old Gray Lady in the foot.