Wednesday, January 20, 2010

New York Times to Charge for Web Access

This was bound to happen--it was only a matter of time. Details on the exact plan are scarce, but expect a lot of changes in the coming year, with lots of chatter from media outlets.

It's gonna be hard to go from free to a pay wall, but it might be a good deal to pay a flat yearly fee for access if it's necessary. I know a lot of people will try to bypass the site--hey, it's aggregated everywhere! Who needs it, when you've got Google--but the Times will make sure that they aren't hijacked by other outlets.

They'll make some money, as agencies and organizations will pay for access, and some people might splurge for a print subscription, which guarantees a free web site.

There are only a few newspaper websites that charge for access, a few of them local dailies. The Wall Street Journal has a pay wall, also bypassed with a print subscription, but that works because that paper primarily serves a business audience, and readers tend to have access through their jobs. The New York Times is the most visited newspaper site in the country, with over 17 million viewers a month, according to Nielsen online. This approach, compared to sites like the Journal, is meant to keep much of their audience and ad revenue. The fear is that those who receive links to the site will now stop, or spend less time on the site, because of the pay wall. Although the newspaper has said they do not want to lose the prestige that goes along with such high numbers, it was a move they had to take.


Emily said...


I'll probably pay it.

petpluto said...

I hope this works out for them.

I don't get down on the idea of paying for content, because I do think the NY Times is well worth paying for. They have to make money somehow in order to do actual reporting and delivering of content.

I think for a lot of the casual news readers, Google will be the place to go - so they'll lose some of those 17 million. But I also think the Times' mystique (at least, the mystique among the people I know) is strong enough that a lot of people will still want to know "what the Times says". Maybe I'm wrong, but I hope I'm not.

There's one comment on Feministe that kind of sums it up for me (and why I also don't illegally download music (well, I'd also be scared to, for legal and computer reasons)):
You would never dream of going into a shop and demanding to wear a pair of pants for a while without paying, or demanding that an electrician fix your faulty wiring for free, but it’s fine to use someone’s written work, which they spent days, even weeks or months on, without paying?

MediaMaven said...

Pet, I agree. A lot of news junkies/Times readers have said they'll pay for the paper, because it's worth it. It's one of the many reasons I subscribe to the paper, and why I feel guilty for not subscribing more to my favorite magazines (and cancelling subscriptions). I can't complain about it all if I'm not willing to put my money where my mouth is.

オテモヤン said...


Anonymous said...