1. Welcome to SportsJournalists.com, a friendly forum for discussing all things sports and journalism.

    Your voice is missing! You will need to register for a free account to get access to the following site features:
    • Reply to discussions and create your own threads.
    • Access to private conversations with other members.
    • Fewer ads.

    We hope to see you as a part of our community soon!

New York Times Ready to Charge Online Readers

Discussion in 'Journalism topics only' started by YankeeFan, Jan 17, 2010.

  1. YankeeFan

    YankeeFan Well-Known Member

    Will be interesting...

     
  2. No doubt. I really hope this works. I've enjoyed the free ride the last few years as much as the next guy (though I do pay for a paper subscription to the Times), but it's just not a workable business model.
     
  3. YankeeFan

    YankeeFan Well-Known Member

    I'm guessing print subscribers would have access to the website without an additional fee, right?

    Isn't that how the WSJ works?
     
  4. I think so. I for one prefer the online subscriptions where you can see the actual print paper and read your stories that way.
     
  5. Den1983

    Den1983 Active Member

    That would be correct. We charge as well and that's how we run things.
     
  6. Stitch

    Stitch Active Member

    The Strib doesn't give print subscriber free access to its pay content. Of course I could give a rip about how the sixth wide receiver did on that pass play with no defenders on him.
     
  7. RickStain

    RickStain Well-Known Member

    I would be quite intrigued as to the story behind any play involving a sixth wide receiver.
     
  8. Inky_Wretch

    Inky_Wretch Well-Known Member

    How does this affect those of us who downloaded the NYT iPhone's application?
     
  9. Fredrick

    Fredrick Well-Known Member

    Good for the Times. Giving the product away for free cheapens the industry and is ridiculous.
     
  10. Football_Bat

    Football_Bat Well-Known Member

    Didn't the NYT charge at some point around 2001-05 and decide it wasn't cost-effective? What changed?
     
  11. franticscribe

    franticscribe Well-Known Member

    They had a really screwy model with TimesSelect, which was the pay program from '05-'07. They only charged for access to their archives and columnists, while still giving away the news. Surprisingly, not many people wanted to pay to read the columnists.

    That model was almost the exact opposite of what the WSJ did. The WSJ charges for access to most of its news content and gives away the editorials and columnists. That set-up has been fairly successful for the WSJ.

    But it looks like the Times is headed toward the metered model that the Financial Times uses. It'll be interesting to see how well that goes over.
     
  12. Joe Williams

    Joe Williams Active Member

    Once had a chat with a NYT management person (corporate side), asking them why they give away their competitive edge, that is, reputedly the best damned journalists in the world. The NYTer dismissed my point, saying that market research showed there was more money to be made by selling to advertisers the huge numbers of free clickers.

    Now this.

    That NYT person is employed elsewhere now, BTW.

    Me? Now I think it's too late for most publications, though NYT, WSJ, maybe WaPo might be able to pull it off.
     
Draft saved Draft deleted

Share This Page