New York Times Exploring how to Charge for Content 332
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?"
Or... (Score:5, Insightful)
Re:Or... (Score:4, Insightful)
Re:Or... (Score:5, Insightful)
Yeah, you have to have the hardware and the storage space but it does NOT cost $2.95/issue.
If you want people to use the service and get the information then make it priced reasonably. I know that I have posted about this before but I will repeat it: If you want to keep your users and don't want them to go to a competitor don't do this...
Re:Or... (Score:5, Interesting)
They also have to track usage and somtimes pay royalties to their article sources which is added into the price.
Don't forget that most people looking for older newspaper articles are doing research, not reading the news, and paying a small fee to get the one or two documents they really want doesn't bother them at all.
Re:Or... (Score:3, Insightful)
C'mon... "Research" is a pretty vague term. What were you doing research FOR? If it was a term paper for an undergraduate class, then yeah, you can skip sources that cost money. But if you're, say, a professional journalist or PhD candidate you're going to pay whatever it costs to get the article you need from the New York Times archive, Even if you can ge
Re:Or... (Score:4, Insightful)
FYI, a 20 oz soft drink does not cost anything near a $1.09 or more, but people routinely pay that or more for them.
To me, its not a matter of the $2.95 per article that is turning people off. Its the inconvenience of paying that for an article that may or may not be exactly what you are looking for.
In other words, I would pay an annual fee for an excellent service like Google, but I would be damned if I would reach into my wallet every time I hit the search button.
What may be a working alternative for the NYTimes is for them to somehow verify that the contact info is real (I can't tell you how many times I've registered with every random answer possible, but thats another story) so that they can allow something like 5 or so archived articles per month for free, but send you a monthly bill for people that go beyond the 5. Kinda like using 411 on your phone or something.
I really am interested in what will become of the serial print media. Newspaper subscriptions have been falling for years due to TV news channels and the internet, yet there is still a need for a local news for things like classified ads and local advertising and news, but that need is much lower than it used to be, but it has not become obsolete nor do I see it as becoming obsolete in the near future.
Oh, maybe they will just follow the model of other changing business models and make their revenue via lawsuits of their customers or potential customers. That is always an option.
Re:Or... (Score:3, Insightful)
Exactly. The problem with a cost per article model is that it interferes with the way we are accustomed to using the web. An article sparks a thought, which causes me to search the web for related information, which uncovers a possibly related article, which sparks a refined thought, etc., etc.
Anyway for $50 a year for access to the
Re:Or... (Score:2)
maybe garden variety news consumers not the target (Score:5, Insightful)
Re:Or... (Score:3, Funny)
Re:Or... (Score:4, Funny)
That's funny. Mod parent up.
Re:Or... (Score:5, Insightful)
I'm sorry, but I don't get this attitude. Do people really think that news should be free?
Newspapers are very important to our society. It is the only medium in which the reader is actually paying for the news they receive. Why is that important? Well, strangely enough, just about everyone works to serve the interests of the people paying them. TV news, especially Cable networks, aren't paid for by the people watching -- just the advertisers. Newspapers are partly paid for by advertising, but they wouldn't exist without paid subscribers.
Try this experiment at home:
Buy a newspaper, say the NYT for example. Then check sites like CNN, Fox, etc. to see if they are carrying anything like the depth of stories you see in the newspaper. I'll bet that on the International News and Business side you won't find more than 60-70% of the stories on the news websites. For local news, try comparing your local paper to your local TV news website. It'll be just simply embarassing for the TV guys.
Now, try to tell me that 14 cents a day isn't worth the difference in coverage between Print and TV/Online coverage.
Re:Or... (Score:3, Insightful)
They've let that status to go thier head, in the case of the NY Times and in the case of other "vital" news agencies like Reuters and the BBC so that they feel they can craft the news or spin it how they feel is right.
As for the TV and Radio news being paid for by advertisers...gee...last time I loo
Re:Or... (Score:2, Insightful)
Quality News = Slashdot and Blogs (Score:5, Insightful)
I find Slashdot fascinating because of the comments. Yes there are idiots, but there are also very intelligent people making intelligent comments. Where do you get that in newspapers? Newspapers have a single editor (or small team) with certain slants.
Take for example anything that Fox news produces. There is a slant in their news. Can anybody critique the comments Fox news has made? No, because they control the medium and the reactions. With Slashdot and Blogs that is simply not the case. Slashdot and blogs represent the voices of the people! And after all is that not what the news is all about, the people?
Re:Quality News = Slashdot and Blogs (Score:3, Insightful)
So you can rail against Fox News, but if I were to say Reuters has as much bias as Fox News because of Reuters word selectio
Re:Or... (Score:5, Insightful)
Re:Or... (Score:3, Funny)
Re:Or... (Score:3, Interesting)
But, if the NYT wants to use digital news (and news archives) as a revenue stream, they will need to (eventually) digitalize their entire news archives, not just for the previous year. At that point, even I would consider subscribing (and I am a tight-wad.)
Re:Or... (Score:2)
Their PDF archives have gone back to 1851 for quite a while now. This shows that your second point is entirely moot -- you've never considered subscribing, or else you would know this...
Re:Or... (Score:5, Informative)
I'm sorry, but I don't get this attitude. Do people really think that news should be free?
I really think it's you that is in need of a reality check. News is free. If you don't believe check out any of the multitude of free newspapers, whether they be local community papers, to the ever increasing juggernaut that is the Metro.
but they wouldn't exist without paid subscribers.
What you're paying for with a newspaper is the cost of paper, and delivery, that's it. That's why free newspapers like the Metro can exist, because they have very low paper costs, and require the reader to share the cost of delivery. (You have to go pick it up from one of a much smaller number of available locations.)
to see if they are carrying anything like the depth of stories you see in the newspaper
You've got to be kidding yourself if you think that paying for news somehow makes the news any better. I can buy any number of Star/Sun Magazines or National Enquirers, hell the NY Post practically fits this category. (I know, trolling, sorry ;-) ) What makes for good news is the underlying ethic of who's in control at the top. That's it.
I read the Economist, both in print and online, because it's a news magazine that's serious about providing good news. I don't watch Fox News, because I know Fox News is about sensationalist reporting designed to increase viewership with the end result of pushing an agenda.
Re:Or... (Score:5, Insightful)
Good news for the Wall Street Journal (Score:4, Insightful)
If they charge for subscription, they are in danger of losing a vast portion of their readership, and no longer be the paper of record (well, they may still be the Paper of Record, but the distinction won't be important. They will no longer be the News Source of Record). They are competing with AP, Reuters and the BBC in this realm, all of which will continue to pump out all the international news anyone could hope for.
If the NYTimes hopes to justify the expense by touting it's higher-quality product, it will have to explain how it's reporting standards are lower then the WSJ and magazines like The Economist, both of which have far better reporting then The Gray Lady.
The price isn't horrible in the abstract, it's that the paper isn't worth the price. I often consider subscribing to the WSJ at $70/year. It is possible that one of the main reasons I don't subscribe is that the NYTimes is available for free. If the NYTimes starts charging, the result, for me, would probably be a subscription to the WSJOnline.
So, in order to compete with the WSJ, the NYTimes may be forced to improve it's product. That is not a bad thing, at all. Although it will be a lot of work, the NYTimes has a better chance of reaching a $50/yr value then most other online news sources.
Re:Or... (Score:2)
(-1 Troll)
Well, I for one... (Score:2, Insightful)
English guy.
Re:Well, I for one... (Score:2, Flamebait)
Re:Well, I for one... (Score:3, Funny)
There Certainly Not Bad (Score:2, Informative)
Re:Well, I for one... (Score:2, Interesting)
I wish I had some mod points, so I could mode this up as Funny! That's the best joke I've heard in months.
Correctness (Score:5, Funny)
Re:Correctness (Score:2)
volkskrant (Score:3, Interesting)
Re:volkskrant (Score:2, Informative)
One of the largest newspapers, with a social-democratic (in US, liberal) influence.
Their best bet (Score:4, Insightful)
Re:Their best bet (Score:2, Insightful)
And you would identify that 1 'right' article you need how? By paying $2.95*n until you find it?
Perhaps that works if you already know which article you're looking for, but I don't think 'research' often works that way.
Library? (Score:2, Insightful)
Re:Library? (Score:3, Insightful)
Re:Library? (Score:3, Insightful)
But you are attending a university - most people are not currently attending a university - so this service would be more valuable to them.
As for your comments about most libraries having microfilm/fiche going back to the 1890's - well I would need numbers to beli
Re:Library? (Score:3, Insightful)
Your question should be, "Why should I pay for these services twice?"
And the answer is, you can choose to pay the source directly, or you can pay for it indirectly and put up with the inconvenience of having to go to your library and work with microfiche rather than surfing their website from the comfort of your own home. If that's worthwhile to you, then paying might be in your interest.
For most people, I suspect that it
Your must be a Linux user. (Score:5, Insightful)
One of these people who's time is worthless. For the rest of us, spending $50 for 1 year's access is a better deal than spending an hours time going to the library for an article.
Re:Your must be a Linux user. (Score:2)
Actually, easiest way is to look the articles up online using the NYT's own search function, then go to the microfilm/fiche section and pull those reals and look them up. As for the time, I drive by the library periodically anyway to the grocery store. I might as well just stop in and look them up. It's not like it's out of the way for me.
As for my time being worthless? I value my time very much. Which is why I can wait till I pass by the library
Re:Library? (Score:2)
Nearly all public/college/university libraries will allow you to access their databases even if you are not a student there, so the idea of ch
Here's my deal (Score:2, Interesting)
So Washington Post people, if you read this, and yo
Re:Here's my deal (Score:2)
I would like all my news in one place, yes, (Score:2)
Or, is News ala Carte from here on out and they just have not fell over yet? (despite the WWJ success; people look for familiar, for the short term.)
Re:WSJ (Score:2)
I know, low probability in the short term, but that is why I ask.
The ignorance thing is big in my mind; we already can achieve very granular focus, though, that is why I return to slashdot; not too narrowly focused on geek-ware, but t
And online advertising is on the rise (Score:5, Insightful)
This could be a chance... (Score:4, Interesting)
First of all, the $2.95 per article is nuts. That plan should be DOA.
Now think of how much it costs them to print millions of pages of dead-tree copies of their newspaper. There is enormous potential for the NYT to cut costs by switching (not entirely, of course) to a web/subscription content delivery model. Not to mention the positive effect such a move would have on the environment.
For a 'progressive' press mogul like the NYT, a leaner, greener newspaper makes sense.
Re:This could be a chance... (Score:2)
Some newspapers have already done this. Few problems, however. First, some charge more for the online edition than the print edition. Second, it takes time to download and find what you want. Plus, some don't let you download and 'keep' the paper (like you can be clipping out an article). Third, Bandwidth costs may actually be higher than the printing costs.
One mor
Re:This could be a chance... (Score:2)
is enormous potential for the NYT to cut costs by switching (not entirely, of course) to a web/subscription content delivery model
You, my friend, obviously do not work in the northeastern part of the country...
If you did, you would know that a VAST number of people ride the train/subway to work every morning, and depend upon the paper editions of the NYT/WSJ to have something to do on that hour ride into work in the morning.
Google micropayment system (Score:3, Interesting)
Idiots (Score:5, Interesting)
These guys are dumber than dirt.
Why charge at all for outdated content? Don't they remember the old journalistic saying that today's news is tomorrow's fishwrap?
Put the archives up for free -- that way people will link into them and pump up the Times' search-engine juice. Then sell context sensitive advertising on the old stories a la Google AdWords. Hell, the Times has an entire ad staff -- they could come up with their own contextual-ads program, cut out Google, and keep all the money for themselves. And advertisers would pay a pretty penny to get placed -- you don't think a spot on a NYT story about bicycles, say, would be attractive to a bicycle manufacturer? Especially if that story wasn't behind a paywall, so it got enough Google-juice to get pumped up to the first page of search results for "bicycles"?
I bet they'd make an order of magnitude more money that way than they ever would off selling subscriptions to the archives...
Re:Idiots (Score:3, Insightful)
If people are accessing it...
LexisNexis makes a fortune charging for access to their gigantic database of outdated content... why shouldn't NYT try to get a piece of the pie?
Re:Idiots (Score:3, Insightful)
You've got a good idea there, but you have to remember that these guys are scared shitless of losing their revenue streams. As the print subscriptions (and advertising revenue) inevitably decline, they want something familiar to be in control off. They already do web advertising, so the actual quantities they could increase their google juice and web revenue is a big scary que
Re:Idiots (Score:4, Interesting)
You meant to say "pump up the Times' bandwidth costs" right?
But you had it right with regards to advertisements - which according to the Times (I had a tour there two years ago) most of their revenue is ad generated not subscriber generated.
But the next question to ask - would you adblock those ads saying how "evil it is to post those ads on my screen. Things should be free, and this advertising is pushing stuff on my computer. Why are they not paying me for my bandwidth." I seem to recall a few posters like this within the past week.
Re:Idiots (Score:2)
This is one of the inherant problems with the subscription vs advertising model used at the moment. There is an assumption that people who don't want to pay for content won't mind advertisements.
But, seeing
Re:Idiots (Score:3)
People only block ads that are annoying and non-useful. That's why the key is following Google's lead and making the ads useful. Context-sensitive ads are useful; punch-the-monkey is not.
Re:Idiots (Score:3, Interesting)
Well, the Wall Street Journal is making tens of millions (up to possibly $55 million if none of their online users also buy the paper version) with their archive. I'll assume that the NYT people would like to make something similar. Do you really think that context-based ads on old newspaper stories can match $55 million per year? It's a big chunk of income.
Also keep in mind tha
Re:Idiots (Score:3, Insightful)
Re:Idiots (Score:2)
I dunno, do you think context-based ads shoehorned onto search engine result pages can match $55 million per year? A quick perusal of Google's SEC filing [sec.gov] indicates that they pulled in $293 million from AdWords in just one three-month quarter last year (Q1 2004).
Let me say that again: In one quarter, their ads pulled in more than 500% of what the WSJ earned from subscriptions all year.
So, do I think
Re:Idiots (Score:2)
I wonder how many people subscribe to the WSJ online for today's articles and how many subscribe for the archive. I've had a subscription for several years but almost never search the archive.
I might pay for a NYT online subscription, but probably not as much as the WSJ charges, and I probably wouldn't use the NYT's archives any more than I do the WSJ's.
If I were interested in the archives, $50 for all I can eat would tempt me more than $2.95 pe
Re:Idiots (Score:5, Funny)
Circuit Cellar (Score:5, Insightful)
Internet Adversising (Score:2, Insightful)
Re:Internet Adversising (Score:2, Funny)
Comment removed (Score:4, Insightful)
Access to information (Score:5, Interesting)
This is worrying because the NYT is considered one of the 'most reputable' newspapers in the world. For example: I do a bit of work for The Center for Cooperative Research [cooperativeresearch.org]. This is an open source website that is designed to create timelines about US politics by following news stories. To make the timelines as 'legitimate' as possible, we are encouraged to use NYT articles. Now that public access is restricted, it is making it more difficult for this open source project to continue with broad 'legitimacy'.
Re:Access to information (Score:2)
If you are doing research on US politics or foreign affairs the NYT is a solid resource. Unfortunately, the
Re:Access to information (Score:2)
(cough) Jayson Blair (cough)
49.99? (Score:2)
Free for NYC residents (Score:5, Informative)
Google Cache to the rescue... (Score:3, Informative)
Only go back one year? (Score:2, Insightful)
I would be a bit more inclined to pay for a news service, if I had access to an archive that could go back a little further than a year.
Wondering... (Score:2, Insightful)
And we should care? (Score:2)
Whatever happened to micropayments? (Score:3, Insightful)
Subscriptions are stupid, because unless you're going to use $50/year you aren't going to bother taking out a subscription, and will instead go elsewhere. Subscriptions force you to make a choice: am I "A NYT Subscriber" or not? If I'm just dropping by the NYT site (eg, from a random newsblog link), I'm not going to fork out a $50.00 subscription to view a single article. Could I view that same single article for, say, $0.25, I'd happily pay it.
Affordable (and truly micro) micropayments allow you to use what you want, when you want, so you can "impulse-buy" information however you want. Subscriptions force you to enter into a long-term commitment, and as such will be avoided liek the plague by everyone apart from those who likely *already* have a NYT subscription (a much smaller subset of users).
Ok, $3.00 per article is hardly micropayments, but if I were NYT I'd be looking to move towards MPs, rather than away from them. It does look like they're confusing "overpricing their content" with "the failure of their whole approach".
They already have subscriptions, of a sort. (Score:3, Informative)
They're forgeting the google factor... (Score:5, Insightful)
Remember, google is based on linking. Right now, no one links to the NYTimes unless it's today's article. If they allowed free access to their entire past archive, people would be posting links all the time (ex, an anti-Bush site would have a series of links about him from the past few years). This would translate into advertising revenue for the Times and more internet clout in general.
The way they've set it up now, this doesn't exist. And I don't believe there is a big market for paying for old news (not that big anyway). Students and researchers use libraries, people at home use Wikipedia or whatever.
The NYTimes should be working to be THE information news resource of world events.
who is stupid? (Score:3, Insightful)
It's not the person who asks who is stupid. It's the person who pays.
It's still backwards (Score:5, Interesting)
In the offline world, newspapers and magazines charge for the current issues while the archives are freely available through libraries. Why should it be reversed in the online world?
It's completely backwards to make the current week free and the archives Pay-per-view or subscription-only. It makes much more sense to charge a subscription to the current news (whether to access the current day, the current week, or the current month), and make the older stuff freely available. First of all, there's a lot more people interested in today's news than in last year's news, meaning revenues would be higher. (That means more money for the low IQers in the audience.) It fits in line with the offline business model. It meets the customer's expectations better. And it makes the whole site more Internet-friendly.
Frankly, I don't understand why more sites don't follow that plan. Charge for access to the current week (the most valuable content on your site on any given day) and, after that, let the bloggers and everyone else have at it for free.
Something Awful (Score:2)
Once again, something that Something Awful [somethingawful.com] (at least their forum archives) has already been doing. Nothing new here.
Archive it By Yourself (Score:3, Informative)
Not perfect, but perfectly workable for most.
Busking (Score:2, Insightful)
It strikes me that the internet is like street performance. You make a noise. If people like the noise you should provide a simple system for people to provide a small sum of money.
Surely this is the business model that should be adopted by the arts on the internet. People already earn a living busking, and thats just performing on a busy high street, with the internet there is the potential to busk to the world.
Accountants may hate this model, but with the huge variety of GDPs and age ranges that have ac
Why pay when you get it free (Score:2, Funny)
"Instead"? Stupid. (Score:2)
A good range of options is a reasonable choice. Another reasonable choice is "pay per kilobyte" with bulk discounts. A single $50/unlimited access o
Nothing older than old news... (Score:2)
Big Media Is Dieing Film at 11:00 (Score:2)
However, this is not new news. But it is on all the new and old media, including this one.
The big question, and the new news, is how these giants re-invent them selves and become the new giants, and whether or not they are able to. That is the real story.
Only a year? (Score:2)
Add Historical New York Times and it's worth it.. (Score:3, Insightful)
Good for them (Score:5, Insightful)
I hope they can make a go of it.
Everyone is a monday morning quarterback when it comes to journalism, but what most people don't realize is that good journalism is hard. Like, really hard. Exhausting. The workflow of a journalist is: conceive of story; research story, find sources, interview sources; write story. You do this independently, usually with little or no help from your editor. If you're in the news department, you do this in one day, sometimes multiple times in a day. And you repeat this every day you're at work. It's really, really hard, and lots of people burn out.
This is a little bit like a manager saying to a coder, "Can you build me a killer app? How long will that take - a few days maybe?" No matter what people on the sidelines think of the profession, getting into the NY Times means being a journalist at the top of your game. They should be paid well, and the paper has every right to generate revenue in whatever way they can.
I'd go halfsies... (Score:3, Interesting)
I can only get delivery at $3/week sunday only - that's $150 per year for one day a week's paper.
They have to put the whole thing online somewhere anyway, that's how newspapers are made today (I still like to think it's Cary Grant and Rosalind Russell doing it all at high volume, but alas...) They've already paid the mortgage on the infrastructure, the part of it that makes things public html costs not as much as all of the tech they need in order to get the paper out every day. This is a lot like the phone companies cutting prices once everyone saw the internet model and realized that they didn't have to run a special/new wire from my house in CT to so-and-so in CA so we could talk. They don't have to wake someone up to create a web page just because I logged on.
They won't get a lot of people who are online-y to cart a pile of paper home no matter how attractive they seem to make it. (and "attractive" seems to mean raise the out of town prices to horriffic levels - how come USAToday costs the same all over the country but NYT seems to be delivered outside of NYC by gold-plated burros who eat caviar? Hint - distributed printing)
So I'll (and lots like me'll) will get their news online somewhere, but not at paper-based prices and weights.
They'll have me at up to half subscription rate. There's a sweet spot there somewhere. It's fair, it's not the smug "information wants to be free" half of the argument. Maybe it's a mexican standoff, but they won't get me at print, and I can get news lots of places for free.
as someone who's job is to price stuff like this.. (Score:3, Interesting)
The Slashdot "info should be free" crowd is dead wrong on this. Certainly that would be best for YOU the consumer, but not best for NYT, which is point of the article. There is no reason to make the archives free since the paper itself is already free.
Who is their audience? Researchers who are generally looking for one specific article, and people who need the resources often. I think they should do both plans, and probably more - a monthly plan, a subscription to just one section (like "Business section" for $15 a year), etc. But I think the single articles will sell more, at around a 4 to 1 ratio to subscriptions.
Remember also the unlimited year pass is just for the previous year. NYT has quite lucrative contracts with Lexis Nexus and others which obviously makes them good money and obviously charges a steep amount for access. They might not even be legally able to "go free" with the archives depending on their contracts.
Here's a thought... (Score:3, Interesting)
Specifically, I could see a move like this being a shot in the arm for public libraries, especially if it sparks other newspapers and news agencies to do it.
Consider: You could either pay the fee and access the thing from your home system, or you can exert a little effort and hit up your local public library. Access to the same material would (likely) be at no extra cost to you. Heck, you wouldn't even have to pay for gas if you took public transit.
Even if, for some reason, you still need Internet access, many libraries have free wireless. The Seattle main (downtown) library, as one example, has both wired and wireless [spl.org] Internet access available at no charge to its patrons (note that VPN only works if you use Cisco LEAP or Microsplatt's PPTP).
Keep the peace(es).
Re:The free internet is dead (Score:3, Insightful)
The faster the processor, the better the connection, the more money you spend on getting the most up to date, modern, super-duper computer... the quicker the ads come across, the more spam you get.
You know the old saying: "A sucker is born every minute," we can rehash that to: "A sucker spends money on information that can be retrieved elsewhere for free every minute."
The free internet died many years ago, probably around 1995 when AOL decided to give its users access to usenet.
Re:The free internet is dead (Score:2)
The Internet is still very much free.
Re:The free internet is dead (Score:2)
Re:The free internet is dead (Score:3, Insightful)
Once we finally blocked them all out, and thus taken away one of the more important reasons a website can deliver content for free, we whine again when they are starting to charge money.
I myself am quite happy with searching for free sources, taking the (imo, not too obtrusive) ads for granted.
Re:The free internet is dead (Score:3, Insightful)
The key word for me being "obtrusive" (intrusive?). Please, by all means, feel free to put ads on your web page. I have no problem with that. But, when the ads pop up in front of what I'm trying to look at, are so large they force the other text into a one-inch column that's impossible to read, or worst of all, are those fucking, annoying, jumping, hand-waving, pay-attention-to-me, animated flash ads, I lose it.
If your site ha
Re:Do it yourself (Score:2)
WSJ (Score:3, Interesting)
I just let my WSJ subscription lapse. Why? because of the total lock-down of discussing the conntent with others. The Economist on the other hand I am renewing, even though most of the content is free. Why? I value the content, and the material is open for others to see, with the exception of specific business intelligence.
Where do you stand dear NYT? I would say with the Economist. If you keep the news free, open up the past, and charge for all of the other stuff--arts, magazine...--I would likel