New York Times Exploring how to Charge for Content

Mr. Christmas Lights writes "According to the Wall Street Journal, the New York Times is mulling subscription for Internet Archives. It doesn't appear that the free (but subscription required - BugMeNot to the rescue!) ability to read NYT articles less than a week old would change. However, instead of paying $2.95 per article for stuff that is more than a week old, one idea being floated is an annual fee of $49.99 for unlimited access to anything in the last year." (More below.)

Mr. Christmas Lights continues "The WSJ has been pretty successful with their online subscriptions - over 700,000 people currently pay $79 ($39 if you get the print edition) a year for full online access of the last 30 days of articles - the story above happens to be in their public area. But they are a notable exception, with media organizations struggling to charge for News now that it is widely available for free on the Internet. For example, Slashdot recently discussed the AP's plan to charge members to post content online. Will the "GoogleZon" end up replacing the 4th Estate as depicted in the entertaining and informative 8 minute EPIC video?"

Do it yourself

[Anonymous Coward]

Sheesh for that price I might as well start archiving their content myself. Slightly ironic too that this article is about NYT not making enough off its online content and you go and post a BugMeNot link in the blurb, good one Slashdot. ;)

Correctness

[2.7182]

They should only charge for articles that are true, or where the reporter actually did the work, instead of sitting at home in his flat in Brooklyn smoking dope.

Re:Why pay for inacccurate, biased news?

[Anonymous Coward]

On the front page it states "All the news thats fit to print" = "You are a moron and we will decide what news you need to read"

Re:Or...

[kaalamaadan]

You pay not just for the apparent content - you also pay for the journalist ethics and morality that goes into responsible journalism. If NYT is not worth $50 annual fee, neither are our freedoms. The "4th" estate has been an essential ingredient in democracy (I know about India's case), and I think a bit of repayment is in order. Though, I do not support the established media's efforts in suppressing the emerging blog culture.

Re:Internet Adversising

[Jim_Callahan]

Well, to be fair, I buy my paper papers with real quarters, and I still see ads. Luckily, no popups, yet.

Re:Or...

[Gojira Shipi-Taro]

Equating the NYT with ethical Journalism.

That's funny. Mod parent up.

Why pay when you get it free

[rlp]

Why would I pay for any NY Times news story when I can get the same story direct from the source [democrats.org] for free.

Re:Well, I for one...

[AllUsernamesAreGone]

Like he said, best news service coming out of America. At least they admit making the stories up...

Registration Required

[kpwoodr]

Registration is required before you can read this comment. I promise, it's a really good comment, and well worth your money. Can't afford it now? Check back in a few weeks, and it will be almost free, or feel free to send me $50 now, and you can view all of my comments for the next year.

Re:Or...

[InfiniteWisdom]

What? A Slashdot poster that makes sense?! This can't be allowed to stand. You'll be banned soon enough to keep groupthink intact.

Re:Your must be a Linux user.

[Anonymous Coward]

One of these people who's time is worthless.

Says the slashdotter with his 1008th comment. ;)

Re:Idiots

[Dirtside]

You know, I took you seriously until I read the first sentence of your post. The guys who run the New York Times are dumber than dirt?

I bet they'd make an order of magnitude more money that way than they ever would off selling subscriptions to the archives...

Yeah, I'm sure their accountants haven't done any research at all into what will make them more money. They surely should take the advice of some random joe on Slashdot, who I'm sure owns at least two or three national newspapers, and knows what he's talkin' about.