New York Times Ready to Charge Online Readers

Newspapers need to consider changes to archived material, too. Charging for old stories is a bad approach. There is the potential to earn considerable ad revenue on old newspaper stories. In the online world, copy is gold.

 

They should give away the old stuff and charge for the new.

Works for the muffin shop down the block.

 

This seems to be as good a place as any to ask: Whatever happened to Murdoch's claim that he'd charge for everything on the web?

 

Yeah, but the internet guy wins. Giving it away for free is the new model, ya know?
Sure it is.
What a disgrace.

 

Let's see, every month we hear how web site traffic is up and subscriptions are being dropped. When circulation is asked why the drop is subscriptions, the number one answer is people say they're canceling because they can read it for free on our web site.
2+2=4.

 

I'm not saying that the issue of giving away newspaper content for free online is the right way to run a business (I'm pretty sure it isn't), but think about the way this whole online revolution came about. It essentially grew from nothing and publishers rushed into the online world thinking "We have to get our stuff on the Web" without thinking it through completely.

Now publishers are talking about putting the toothpaste back into the tube. It's been free for so long, how can papers outside of those on the level of the Times, just decide, "OK, now you've got to pay for this" and lock it up? Newsday's doing it, although I don't know how much success they're having with it, and they're essentially not in competition with anyone else out on Long Island, when it comes to the day-to-day reporting.

Another issue, IMO, is that reporters and editors need to get over the feeling that they "own" the news. If you put your stuff behind a pay wall, people will go somewhere else to get it, like local TV, where they'll just subscribe to your site and re-write and report your news.

One way that may be successful in terms of paying for online news, is to <a href="http://blogmaverick.com/2009/04/26/1269/">develop a universal payment system across all sites</a>, which is actually something that Mark Cuban wrote in his blog.

Think about PayPal (which Cuban says it too much of a hassle); you can use it for pretty much every site. But with newspapers, if you want to pay, it's got to be an account for each site. It's a pain in the ass.

Simpler is better.

As for TimesSelect, I read an interview with former NYT exec Vivian Schiller who said that they were making something like $10M a year on that, but ditched it b/c not enough people were using it. Sheds a little light on how the richest of the rich work; they can just turn their backs on an extra $10M annually b/c it just wasn't enough.

 

I, personally, don't see it as an issue of "owning" the news as much as being compensated for the service of collecting it and presenting it. You don't expect a mechanic to work on your car for free.

I think smaller papers have a better chance to put the toothpaste back in the tube so to speak that larger papers. Let's say our paper decided to charge for our information on Lane Kiffin last week. There are 200 other places people can get the same info. But our local coverage we have a monopoly on. The high school game I covered Friday night between two local schools ... ESPN wasn't there. Our local school board meetings ... nope, no CNN. If people want to read it, they've got to pay.

There would be some backlash for a period of time, then people would come back to the fold. And really what kind of backlash could there be? They're already getting it for free so it's not like they have anything to hold over your head.

 

You're still getting paid, even though people are reading it for free, right?

I'm in agreement with you on this.

 

Less than I was because circulation isn't what it used to be which means ad sales aren't what they used to be.

 

Yeah, I had to take a pay cut too, but I can't believe that it's solely due to people reading online. I mean, it's not like the news business is the only one where folks have had their wages cut in the last 18 months.

 

Yeah, it's not totally the fault of circulation. The big hitter was the car dealerships - one of which closed all together - aren't advertising as much because of the Detroit meltdown.

I do see it as a tightening downward spiral, though. Circulation drops (for whatever reason anyone choses to assign), which means ad revenue drops because it's not getting to as many people.