NYTimes Confirms It Will Start Charging For Online News In 2011 368
jmtpi writes "The article is frustratingly vague, but the New York Times is confirming earlier speculation that it will start charging online readers who visit the site regularly. Occasional users will still get free access to a certain number of articles per month. Most of the key details are not yet determined, but the system is scheduled to be deployed at the beginning of next year."
The Times is planning on rolling its own pay system, and it will doubtless use the rest of 2010 to look at how sites like the Wall Street Journal and the Financial Times fare before deciding on specifics. How often do you readers typically hit articles at nytimes.com in a given month? We try to avoid linking to stories behind paywalls when possible, and if the Times chooses a low monthly limit, you'll probably see a lot fewer links to their site — which would be a shame.
Re:If I subscribe to paper version? (Score:3, Informative)
Buggy Whips (Score:1, Informative)
Most people are missing the point. What we're witnessing is the buggy whips in the age of automobiles transition.
Newspapers and Magazines are the buggy whips of our times, fighting to stay relevant in an age that has passed them by.
When Katie Curic asked Sarah Palin what newspapers and magazines she read, Palin should have responded "I don't read Newspapers, I read the news on the internet", and mentioned that all the news stories of the day have been driven by sites like Drudge, LittleGreenFootballs and Daily Kos, and Huffington Post, not by NYT or Washington Post.
The traditional "National News Media" is fast becoming irrelevant, because information dissemination is faster than a Newspaper can be printed.
Information is moving (literally) at the speed of light (Internet). By the time NYT puts it on the front page, it is often 24 hours too late to be of much use.
Re:I was considering a subscription (Score:2, Informative)
Their global page shows less of that focus:
http://global.nytimes.com/ [nytimes.com]
Re:The grey lady should look before leaping (Score:5, Informative)
Slate did this, the NYT should talk to their management about lessons learedn.
You make a number of valid points. However, I believe that you're talking about Salon.com [guardian.co.uk]. Slate is and (with possibly some limited exceptions I'm not aware of) an advertising-supported site that still gets tons of links and traffic.
On a more substantive note, two things: (1) stories will still be free to users who read only a few per month, which helps to avoid the Salon.com problem. (2) It doesn't take effect until 2011 which means they still have time to abandon the whole thing if advertising revenues tick upwards.
I still think it's a rotten idea.
Re:Duh. (Score:5, Informative)
Well, the cost of a daily print subscription to the New York Times is 14.80...For a week. Mind you, that's to my house, and I live a long fucking way from NYC (checked it against my old NYC zip code, and it's only 11.70 there).
So, given that the bitch costs 800 bucks a year for us plebes who don't live in New York, and only around 600 for the pricks who do, I'm guessing that 50 bucks a year would be a bit of a steal. =P
Re:A word of thanks and a request (Score:4, Informative)
Publishers don't create....
The older I get, the more I appreciate the hard work of the editors who fix most of my errors and the sales team that collect the money from the advertisers and subscribers. They create an environment that helps me, the nominal creator and the only one who gets a byline, produce something that's better.
Now it may be that the market will decide that they don't want to pay extra for these layers. That's a decision that all of us will make consciously or unconsciously when we decide what content we want to consume. But there's no doubt that they do something.
Re:Duh. (Score:1, Informative)
In 2004 the NY Times was selling 1,121,000 copies, and 53% of its sales were in its local region, i.e. about 594,130 copies sold in the New York region. (Feel free to find more recent statistics if you’re able.)
Since Wikipedia says the New York City metro region population is 19,006,798, the answer to your question is:
How many of them live in New York City’s metro area? About 18,412,668 of them. Which is about 96.87% of the population of New York City’s metro area.