Patterico's Pontifications

1/20/2010

New York Times to Charge for (Frequent) Access

Filed under: General — Patterico @ 7:09 am



Odd:

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.

What does this mean, exactly? Hard to say, since the details are unclear:

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.

The New York Times sets the standard in many ways for the newspaper industry. I do agree in theory that newspaper staffers can’t work for free. To the extent that they put out a product worth reading, people should pay.

Ah, but that bolded language says it all. Much of what the New York Times puts out is fascinating, broad coverage that some describe as a daily miracle. But on hot-button political issues, much of what it puts out is rank partisan tripe. (This is demonstrated on a regular basis; Matt Welch yesterday provided the latest example.)

It remains to be seen whether this is going to be a solution for them — and, by extension, other ailing newspapers.

Somehow, I doubt it.

45 Responses to “New York Times to Charge for (Frequent) Access”

  1. If it’s a buck a month, I’d maybe be willing to fork over the cash. I certainly follow enough links to articles that show bias that it would be worth it.

    But more than $12 a year, and forget it.

    Scott Jacobs (46e187)

  2. When NYT tried the TimesSelect thing, they made no effort to shut down the many sites that pirated their paid content and reposted it elsewhere for free. (Most of that pirated content was Bush-bashing editorials.) So we’ll see if they learned anything from that.

    I enjoy a lot of stuff from NYT, including their business, arts, food reporting, etc. Under the proposed new paid content model, if they’d give me a month’s full access for every factual error I discover and notify them about, that would be peachy. But I probably won’t subscribe for cash.

    gp (72be5d)

  3. Several years ago, the NYT required a free registration. Until someone came up with an anonymous workaround, I skipped them for info. They gave up on the registration. There are way too many other sources for news and comment out there for me to consider paying for the Slimes content. It’s a race as to whether they give up or go under first. Place your bets…

    Red County Pete (8f8c98)

  4. They tried charging before; it didn’t work. The LAT tried charging $4.95/month in the ’90s; it didn’t work. I don’t know what they think has changed.

    TimesDisliker (aae0a4)

  5. That’s what the Financial Times does. It’s very gay.

    happyfeet (e9e587)

  6. This means that unless The New York Times has failed as a business enterprise by early 2011, when their quota system begins, it will implode into bankruptcy shortly thereafter.

    This effete corps of impudent snobs actually believes the praise they get from each other and from the Columbia Graduate School of Journalism (where many of them, and Times alumni teach) and from reporters who aspire to shovel praise on the Times just because they hope to work there someday. It’s one big circle jerk.

    New York has seen many newspapers come and go: The Herald-Tribune, the Daily Mirror, the Journal-American, and the World Telegram & The Sun. In fact, there were at least two different New York Suns that went belly-up. The world didn’t end, and there was certainly much less whining about it.

    The most recent moment when the The New York Times can be said to have jumped the shark is when they began publishing the silly thoughts of a man named Charles Blow on the op-ed page on Saturdays. This insults readers, as well as every competent editorial writer or essayist who’s not published weekly on that page.

    Official Internet Data Office (c93f96)

  7. Why bother, news is not containable.

    bill-tb (541ea9)

  8. It bears repeating that when Punch Senior stepped down and allowed his idiot son to take over the Times, the quality of content and the previously (well, mostly) subdued liberal bias went completely off the rails. Granted, all newspapers have suffered because of the advent of the internet, but the Times deserves much of their current woes, they really have no one to blame but themselves. I’ve been a subscriber for almost two decades now, and every time I call to cancel my renewal they rush to give me something like 75% off their published rates.

    Dmac (539341)

  9. Unfortunately for the NYT, while they think their content is special, most of the public sees it as interchangeable with any number of other news providers. And as long as someone is willing to provide content for free, then charging for content isn’t going to succeed.

    steve sturm (369bc6)

  10. I’m with Scott. I’d pay some, but not a lot.

    The NY Times has a currentness value that many other sites lack. It has depth, and on many subjects the bias isn’t germane (e.g. obits). It also has the ability that few papers do — to compete alone. The WSJ is another, as are CNN and the BBC. But not a lot more.

    But I think that for many publications they need to group up and sell group-wide tickets. Kind of an inverted AP or UPI.

    Kevin Murphy (3c3db0)

  11. How do they enforce this?

    I mean, presumably the limit (the number you can read before you have to pay) is known, right? So, as a technical matter, what keeps someone from registering for a dozen different accounts linked to a dozen different free email addresses and then using each one up to the limit and then switching?

    I mean, I’d probably be willing to pay them some money; there have been points in my life when I’ve had a subscription to the deadtree edition, and I pay for the WSJ online. But this plan is nonsense; it’s trivially easy to defeat.

    aphrael (73ebe9)

  12. They actually have frequent readers?

    Old Coot (d2bd0f)

  13. I think it’s more akin to a Pandora’s box, Aphrael – the WSJ realized that the information they imparted had real value and concurrently put a definitive price on it back at the beginning of the net, while the NYT let it all go for free. Take it from someone who had to compete in the media world on both real and figmented “rate cards” to potential advertisers: once you cheapen the perceived value of your product, game over.

    Dmac (539341)

  14. I blame the internet. Those f–king racists!

    The Emperor (a72477)

  15. Dmac: you’re probably right – but it’s a real problem: if nobody can make money reporting the news, eventually nobody will report the news.

    That said, this particular scheme is doomed to failure because it doesn’t recognize how cheap other things – namely, additional email addresses and/or fake IP addresses – are online. For anyone with a little bit of knowledge, those are basically free; meaning that anyone who knows about them can defeat a “pay after you consume so much” scheme without really lifting a finger.

    aphrael (73ebe9)

  16. How can they technically make this work? They can’t. Aphrael is right.

    Most folks won’t even bother, but if you really care, you’re not going to have to pay. Only a small number of folks will actually follow through, while the NYT makes it site much less appealing.

    The solution is a better product.

    Dustin (b54cdc)

  17. And people WILL report the news for free. If you’re going all the way to a foreign country or using a full time correspondent somewhere, bring a camera because you probably need to be on a TV program or a free blogger.

    I don’t think papers are sustainable because papers are obsolete. Everyone is floundering to figure out a way to make print or text journalism profitable when the solution is either extremely cheap overhead (like this blog) or …

    Dustin (b54cdc)

  18. They’re going to try to run the lock using the MAC addresses or some DPRM scheme. Twelve bucks a year? I’ll probably pay. Sixty? No. Twenty? Probably not.

    htom (412a17)

  19. Unfortunately for the NYT, while they think their content is special, most of the public sees it as interchangeable with any number of other news providers.

    As do I. There is no journalistic there there. And the NYT is rife with errors and conflicts of interest, which devalue it further. I’m certainly willing to pay for news and opinion, if it’s from a source with something unique, that sets it apart from the dreary glop of groupthink. That’s why I paid $50 to become a Rush 24\7 podcast subscriber. Good information, no hidden agenda, and immensely entertaining.

    Bradley J. Fikes, C. O.R. (a18ddc)

  20. There is no journalistic there there. And the NYT is rife with errors and conflicts of interest, which devalue it further.

    Comment by Bradley J. Fikes, C. O.R. — 1/20/2010 @ 10:44 am

    How in the world can you say such a thing? Why, just yesterday, in between segments on the MA senate results, I saw a whole bunch of people on TV talking about the NYT, asking me to “join the conversation”. One prickly little poofter said straight out: “The best journalists in the world work at the Times and, there’s no debating that.”

    So, what are you doing debating that?

    Matador (176445)

  21. What would happen is then no one would read their on-line garbage either and they become even more irrelevant.

    Richard Greiner (ef2d86)

  22. ‘They’re going to try to run the lock using the MAC addresses or some DPRM scheme. Twelve bucks a year? I’ll probably pay. Sixty? No. Twenty? Probably not.

    Comment by htom ‘

    While that would be pretty secure, some people can spoof mac addresses. Depends on your hardware, but every router I’ve ever owned has allowed for this. Not to mention it still won’t work that well. This level of technical screening will induce problems, thought the mere existence of a filter (even one that screens mere email addresses) will simply result in the vast majority of readers clicking to an open site instead of bothering to break in.

    $20 a year? Some would probably pay that much, but for what? You already get several free accesses. $20 for the difference between that and infinite access?

    Dustin (b54cdc)

  23. The only way this can work is by enforcing this on all internet news agencies. If the NYT can get others to join them and making a bill that protects it, maybe it can work. Just maybe.

    The Emperor (a72477)

  24. You really don’t have to debate them anymore – they’ll soon be out of their ivory – tower jobs, looking for more meaningful work.

    Dmac (539341)

  25. I’ll just add the obvious here – if the doyennes of journalism had possessed even one tiny whit of objectivity and introspection, they would have recognized that a huge and untapped market existed out in the rest of the country, if only someone would make the effort to reach it. It took Roger Ailes less than a decade to show how out – of – touch and insulated so many of them were, and still, are. Fox is laughing all the way to the bank while all of this teeth – gnashing continues apace, while no signs of self – analysis appear on the horizon.

    Dmac (539341)

  26. Dmac’s right. Ailes proved there’s room for growth and profit in journalism.

    Sure, there’s no room for growth for a left wing newspaper. As Colbert asked: what in today’s paper happened today?

    But there’s so much room for making money in the future of information. Just not as much money to be made by electioneering and attempting to fool people. the NYT is competing with the Limbaugh letter… it’s for true believers, small circulation, and low profits.

    Dustin (b54cdc)

  27. If they allow even one free visit and copy, they’ve opened the door to unlimited visits: spoofed MAC addresses, rotating IPs, etc. If you access via America Online, you are using one of several group IPs.

    There are, however, some ways in which they could make it cumbersome: if they had all of their content in the form of .pdf files, it would make it more difficult — though hardly impossible — to cut and paste.

    The technically inept Dana (474dfc)

  28. And this is going to increase their readership how?

    AD - RtR/OS! (6c3ec3)

  29. I’ve read the various accounts of the NYT semi-permeable paywall, and nothing the NYT has said addresses the trustworthiness issue. The NYTers like David Carr simply assume they’re producing valuable journalism, and fret about how to charge for it.

    It is not the job of The New York Times or any other mainstream media company to give away its content until it can no longer afford to do so. By requiring certain kinds of digital consumers to participate, The Times is ensuring it will be in business for a long time to come. It could be a smaller business, one with less reach, but it will remain an engine of news and commerce.

    The reference to “requiring certain kinds of digital consumers to participate” is quite revealing. The NYT can’t require us to do anything. It can only persuade, by producing journalism people are willing to pay for, or advertisers are willing to support.

    Bradley J. Fikes, C. O.R. (a18ddc)

  30. (T)he NYT is competing with the Limbaugh letter… it’s for true believers, small circulation, and low profits.

    One big difference is that Limbaugh doesn’t pretend to be objective and nonpartisan. He has no hidden agenda. He’s more accurate than the NYT. And he’s a hell of a lot more fun.

    Bradley J. Fikes, C. O.R. (a18ddc)

  31. “Limbaugh doesn’t pretend to be objective and nonpartisan.”

    Does the NYT? I guess they do? It’s hard to believe that anymore, and I read the NYT at least once a week. Limbaugh claims to preach the truth, and so does the NYT. Both editorialize shamelessly, but for some reason, the NYT does seem to think it’s somehow in some kind of “traditional objective media”. I think it’s strange that the left puts Fox News outside this category but puts the NYT in it.

    Anyway, Limbaugh probably acknowledges its opinion journalism. Other than that disclaimer, the NYT is hyperpartisan and plays directly to a crowd of like minds, to please and comfort them with arguments and factual filters that confirm the bubble.

    Dustin (b54cdc)

  32. One big difference is that Limbaugh doesn’t pretend to be objective and nonpartisan. He has no hidden agenda. He’s more accurate than the NYT. And he’s a hell of a lot more fun.
    Comment by Bradley J. Fikes, C. O.R. — 1/20/2010 @ 6:07 pm

    That he [Limbaugh] doesn’t pretend about, or deny his partisanship, makes him far more honest than the NYT. He’s been straight up with listeners and readers from the get-go. People trust him for that reason.

    If the NYT were as honest about their own agenda and partisanship, at least one could respect them for not lying and being in denial as if no one saw through it.

    Dana (1e5ad4)

  33. The NYT used to be shamelessly republican. A lot of papers used to admit their bias.

    It’s not like it’s even possible to eliminate this. The stories NYT editors think are important are going to skew a certain way or tell a certain story. They can’t report 99.999999% of stuff.

    Why not admit they are a democrat media machine? It wouldn’t hurt them at all. CNN, NBC News, etc. Go ahead and maintain the exact same mission they already have of objectively reporting the news as best as they can… as democrats.

    Dustin (b54cdc)

  34. They don’t and won’t admit it because, first it would confirm what the right has known and called them out on for years; it would also be pulling off their own mask and reveal themselves to be no different in this than any other newspaper. It’s funny because what they see reflected in myopic glass is radically different than what we on the outside looking in, see. Preserve the image at all costs.

    Dana (1e5ad4)

  35. I’m sure not paying to read Krugman’s dishonest B.S.

    SPQR (26be8b)

  36. So, it’s like clown nose on/clown nose off for NYT – they just can’t take the clown nose off.

    Vivian Louise (643333)

  37. Preserve the image at all costs.

    The NYT’s faux non-partisanship is the opium of the Left.

    Brother Bradley J. Fikes, C.O.R. (9eb641)

  38. My current light reading is a science fiction novel written in 2003, set in about 2050.

    The principal characters live and work in a government science township created to study extraterrestrials. Something odd is going on, and the town is on “lockdown,” meaning their data feeds to the rest of the U.S. have been cut off.

    One character, over her morning coffee, is bemoaning the absence of her printout of her daily summarized extract (sounds like, but isn’t called, an RSS feed) from the New York Times. “What a ridiculous anachronism,” I thought as I read that, “Not just for 2050, but for 2010.”

    Of course there will be no New York Times in 2050. Long before 2020, and quite possibly before Obama leaves the White House, the New York Times — having already been twice or thrice through Chapter 11 — will finally be liquidated. Among the defunct company’s assets sold at auction will not be trade name, for its value will be a negative number, and indeed by then it will probably constitute a journalistic curse.

    Beldar (15385b)

  39. (The book, fwiw, is Robert Charles Stross’ Blind Lake.)

    Beldar (15385b)

  40. Much of what the New York Times puts out is fascinating, broad coverage that some describe as a daily miracle.

    If enough people find it that “fascinating,” that much of a “miracle,” then the NYT will be able to take such people and, as the saying goes, play them like a cheap violin. More important is the question of whether the revenue the Times generates from online subscriptions going to be enough to offset the loss of income from the so-called dead-tree formula?

    Mark (411533)

  41. #29- Information is virtually ubiquitous. A kid with a cellphone in Myrtle Beach can become an ‘eyewitness news’ reporter in the middle of a hurricane for every news outlet on the planet. But it’s a tribute to the NYT that others keep comparing themselves to it as something to better on national reporting. And the NYT covers New York City pretty well, too. Still, the advertising-based business model established for a hundred years has to change and in the future papers and reporters may have to accept a lower revenue stream than the high percentages they’ve grown fat on in the last century. The internet model can’t support papers today with their current overhead. No doubt ad sales people constantly remind (and irritate) reporters that they are the engine that keeps their flagship papers afloat. Cutting down trees to make paper to deliver day old news doesn’t seem pragmatic or particularly cost effective in the information age. The future may be an electronic ‘newspaper’ of sorts using a cellphone-like network to deliver electronic news and images to a thin, flexible, folding, low power, disposable display. Lab prototypes have surfaced work in the Far East. Still, it’s a long way off from being practical.

    Visiting family over the holidays, we noted they take a small, local newspaper which Mr. Fikes is no doubt familiar. A classic, small town paper. It is quaint and little more than AP wire copy for national and international stories. Standard weather and opinion pages. Apparently it recently reduced its size a full column width in an economy measure and an elderly family member complains it’s harder to read. But they cling to it for three reasons- 1. Sunday coupons. 2. Praying for the day the paper runs a headline showing their city sold some albatross money pit of an arts center. 3. — and most importantly– the superb local news coverage. Stellar stuff, there, Mr. Fikes. Seriously–you can pass that along to your editors and pat yourself on the back for that. But consider this anecdote during the current economic downturn- these same fixed income readers who don’t get a SS COLA or a one time $250 SS bump in 2010 grumble daily that a quick way to get a $150 bump instead is to drop the sub to the paper. Which this writer believes would be a net loss, indeed.

    DCSCA (9d1bb3)

  42. Leave it to The M-poor-error to suggest getting the government involved.

    Icy Texan (01c224)

  43. dcsca, I think the main reason people aspire to NYT’s mystique is that a lot of people go into media or journalism for fame. The NYT is famous. It’s actually really good at what it is… it’s a very high quality liberal newsletter that I love to read.

    It’s not making any money or breaking many stories, and they aren’t reliable on politics and repeatedly make the same errors. But it’s an institution for democrats, like the Kennedy mansion or Harvard Law School.

    Dustin (b54cdc)

  44. Really no need to fall for DCSCA’s “it’s a tribute to the NYT that others keep comparing themselves to it as something to better on national reporting” nonsense. Although Dustin is exactly right: it’s reputation — and the simple fact of being the highest circulation paper in the largest city in the country — that keeps generating these increasingly meaningless comparisons.

    Icy Texan (01c224)

  45. Just FYI: when NYT started their free registration, I signed up and accessed their free site. When they switched to pay site for a while, the former registration was still valid, and worked without paying. I believe they set it up that way on purpose.

    When they reverted to a free site, the free registration continued to be valid.

    I await their reversion to a pay site with the full expectation that they will not bother to purge all their existing registrants, and that my registration will continue to work for free, because the NYT is (1) incompetent regarding online services and (2) desperate to generate hits to their website.

    Mikee (2a25e6)


Powered by WordPress.

Page loaded in: 0.1315 secs.