NYT Announces its Subscription Plan

Thought experiment:

You're put in charge of taking the New York Times behind a paywall. Do you devise an impenetrable digital defense and one day flip a switch so that the Times goes completely dark everywhere - except for subscribers?

Or do you build an intentionally porous defense, then slowly close loopholes as people become more accustomed to the idea of paying for content?

 

I've been reading the NYT for a year via its e-mail newsletter. I was wondering when I was going to hit the limit, because I click 3-4 stories a day. Had it gone dark immediately, the online product would be obsolete to me, and I probably wouldn't care to notice when a low-tier pay plan came about that fit my needs.

So, from my limited personal experience, option 2.

 

Well exactly.

They want people to still access the site, but also bump up against the pay wall.

Some people will subscribe. Some people will wait. Some people will work around it.

But the more they bump into it, the more real it becomes. And, as they close loopholes, people will bump into it more and more.

They did not want to shut out everyone all at once.

But, also because of this, it's hard to get too worked up about people who are working around it. That was part of their plan.

 

Modesto Bee puts up pay wall:

 

Times has been tightening up its paywall, but you won't face it at Starbucks:

 

Encouraging the folks who'll shell out nearly $10 a day on overrated coffee but are too cheap to buy a subscription. Just as bad as $100 a month dish/cable subscribers who bitch about the price of a subscription.

 

Most of the Starbucks types who hang out there all day probably know how to get around the paywall, which takes 30 seconds to do (BTW: The academic plan is a good deal). Too bad the Wall Street Journal does not have a academic digital-only subscription. Thought it was a waste getting the print edition that was delivered only three times per week, at most.