New York Times Ends Its Paid Subscription Service 169
Mike writes "The New York Times has announced that it will end its paid Internet service in favor of making most of its Web site available for free. The hope is that this move will attract more readers and higher advertising revenue. 'The longer-term problem for publishers like the Times is that they must find ways to present content online rather than just transferring stories and pictures from the newspaper. Most U.S. news Web sites offer their contents for free, supporting themselves by selling advertising. One exception is The Wall Street Journal which runs a subscription-based Web site. TimesSelect generated about $10 million in revenue a year. Schiller declined to project how much higher the online growth rate would be without charging visitors.'"
Great! (Score:5, Funny)
Re: (Score:1, Troll)
Re:Great! (Score:5, Interesting)
You could have anyway. Registgration is free, and if you get your back up about that, it'll take you about five minutes with Google to find a publically posted login and password that will work.
What's more important maybe is it sounds like they have opened up the archives. Maybe now if you want to find out about how good a job Donald Rumsfeld did in his first term as Defense Secretary in the Ford administration or want to track down details on CDCs suite against IBM, you can do so without spending a fortune.
Of yeah, and now I think we can read the columnists. that's a mixed blessing for sure, but Krugman's economic views are widely respected and it's annoying to have to wait for someone to break copyright and post them elsewhere.
Re: (Score:2)
What's more important maybe is it sounds like they have opened up the archives. Maybe now if you want to find out about how good a job Donald Rumsfeld did in his first term as Defense Secretary in the Ford administration or want to track down details on CDCs suite against IBM, you can do so without spending a fortune.
First term as Defense Secretary in the Ford administration? How about reading an article from last week? The NYT archives its articles insanely fast --- I put out a weekly news bulletin mai
Re: (Score:2)
I really am irritated, though, when people link to articles on sites that require registration. It is a rude, thoughtless act. Even if the registration is free, it is a PITA to register on just about everybody's favorite site, and keeping track of them all even more so.
Re: (Score:2)
but Krugman's economic views are widely respected
you forgot the "/sarcasm" tag there, vtcodger.
What I forgot was to add, "by those who know something about economics."
Re:Great! (Score:5, Informative)
Registration-free article (Score:5, Funny)
Re: (Score:1)
Gave me a good laugh to start the day on
Hope they open the archives (Score:5, Insightful)
Re:Hope they open the archives (Score:4, Funny)
Re:Hope they open the archives (Score:5, Insightful)
There are such things as libraries, though. The San Francisco Public Library, for one, offers access to a complete online newspaper archive that includes the New York Times in addition to many other papers. The deal is, you have to punch in your library card number to access it. After that, though, you can read, save, and print all those articles that the Times purportedly keeps under lock and key.
The fact that most people don't even know this makes me fearful for the future of libraries.
Re:Hope they open the archives (Score:5, Insightful)
Of course, the fact that most internet users don't live in the US and so can't walk into a a US Public Library to access the New York Times archives may also help make the online archive useful
Re:Hope they open the archives (Score:5, Funny)
Just what any good American would do: (Score:3, Funny)
Re: (Score:3, Funny)
If he was smart, he'd have burned them in the library parking lot.
That would show them!!!!!
Re:Hope they open the archives (Score:5, Funny)
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)
Orwell was pretty well read too, and he was a socialist to his dying day.
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2, Insightful)
Re: (Score:2)
No, that's the interpretation commonly assigned to his writing by people who have only ever read 1984 and Animal Farm.
He was opposed to totalitarianism and Stalinism, but was a self-described Socialist to the end. As Bernard Crick wrote about him [orwell.ru]:
Public libraries (Score:2)
Public libraries wouldn't exist without some socialism. These libraries are crucial to the American Dream, as they give even the poorest people the opportunity to educate and improve themselves. Some conservatives want to destroy these institutions, and that would be typical: they spout all day about the beauty of the American Dream, but in practice they do all they can to make it difficult to achieve.
Re: (Score:2)
And most of those early libraries charged membership fees, which made them basically inaccessible to the poor. The inaccessibility was probably deliberate: we have to keep out the riffraff, right?
Free public libraries available everywhere, not just where somebody feels like endowing one, are more than slightly socialist -- and are crucial for the upward mobility of the lower classes. I find it ironic, not to mention highly hypocr
Re: (Score:2)
As for people banding together to build a library, you can't seriously expect the poorest of the po
Re: (Score:2)
I see. You don't want any antibodies in your body, because antibodies are a public service to your cells. Good luck, AIDS boy.
It is well known that economic freedom is the single most important factor in reducing poverty. When governments stick to protecting life, liberty, and property, there is more prosperity than there would otherwise be; poor included. The best way to reduce poverty is t
Re: (Score:2)
The massively successful East Asian subsidy for education should be obvious even to a libertarian.
I notice that you have entirely avoided proving your blanket assertion that economic freedom is the single biggest requirement for growth. I asked you to explain, if that were true, why China is three times richer than India, even though the average Chin
Re: (Score:2)
And I am less socialist than Ronald Reagan: at least I believe in fiscal sanity, like Clinton -- and unlike the last three Republican presidents in a row (Reagan, Bush I, and Bush II).
However, I acknowledge that some socialist policies can be beneficial to a country. Universal education is one of them, and is the single biggest difference between East
Re: (Score:2)
The data in that link fails to back you up. It ranks lots of African countries higher than China; you aren't seriously suggesting that they are richer than China (even per capita), are you? At worst, there is no correlation between economic freedom and wealth; and at best, the correlation is weak, and other factors contribute to wealth as much or more than economic freedom. Try again.
I agree that educa
Re: (Score:2)
Not always true in the long run. This is because people are rarely able to pick the best possible course of action -- because the information they have at hand is never completely adequate. And even if their information were comprehensive and reliable, such as in the game of chess, people are only human, with imperfect human judgement. As Gandalf said to Frodo, "Even the wise cannot see all ends."
So an action that may seem optimal
Re: (Score:2)
Libertarianism cannot survive in the real world; to demonstrate this I offered you an AIDS analogy. Come back when you can think again, when you can show that you understand my analogy -- because at this time you clearly do not.
As for Sweden, what part of "saving money" do you not understand?
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:3, Interesting)
I disagree. I think individuals who tried to start a non-profit book loan program would find themselves buried in lawsuits from the publishing, music and movie industries.
If you consider it, public libraries really are quite extraordinary institutions. They fly in the face of the intellectual property industry, and actually they are under enormous pressure. If they wer
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)
There are such things as libraries, though. The San Francisco Public Library, for one, offers access to a complete online newspaper archive that includes the New York Times in addition to many other papers. The deal is, you have to punch in your library card number to access it. After that, though, you can read, save, and print all those articles that the Times purportedly keeps under lock and key.
The fact that most people don't even know this makes me fearful for the future of libraries.
There are also such things as underfunded back-woods county libraries that don't offer this level of access. Yeah, I know. My fault for living where I do, but the rent's cheap. The point is: by opening up their archives to the internet their content can be accessed by a MUCH larger audience than before. Not everybody lives in large US metropolitan areas with properly funded libraries.
Some of us live in the next county where the funding just plain sucks.
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:1)
Re:Hope they open the archives (Score:5, Informative)
Sigh. But not to this crowd, who can't be bothered with reading beyond the headlines. From the FA:
Starting on Wednesday, access to the archives will be available for free back to 1987, and as well as stories before 1923, which are in the public domain, Schiller said.
Link to the NYTimes article. (Score:5, Informative)
Thank God (Score:5, Interesting)
Re:Thank God (Score:4, Informative)
Thankfully Friedman has been available on Youtube. [youtube.com]
Re: (Score:2)
So, now that the unwashed masses again will have access, will their importance, erm, un-evaporate?
I think there's a good chance of that, and I, for one, will be furiously refreshing the opinion page come midnight.
Re: (Score:2, Funny)
Re: (Score:1)
Re: (Score:2)
Mr. President! (Score:2)
And... (Score:2)
Ugh, the "national conversation" (Score:3, Funny)
From NY to London, how I missed the Op-Ed Page! (Score:5, Insightful)
Re: (Score:2)
I think you might be onto something.
The WSJ seems to be doing well with their subscription service, but they implemented differently from the NYT; the columns in the opinion journal are free, but news reporting requires subscription ( although the WSJ seems to give some news stories out as well ).
Columnists practically irrelevant? (Score:2)
First, Open the archives... (Score:3, Interesting)
Second thing is allow commenting on stories, but then you'll be flamed by the readers.
Heaven forbid the old gray lady figure out why people don't read her pages any more. We've been trying to clue her in for years now.
Re: (Score:2)
Because bandwidth and server maintenance are free.
Re: (Score:2)
The already have the infrastructure built up to provide the content, yet they charge for the content. If you pay the price, you still get to see the ads. Eliminate the fee, you increase the ad revenue.
The incremental costs of increased bandwidth are negligible, actually it is a much desired consequence because that means more revenue coming in from page views.
Re: (Score:2)
So do you think they might want to make some money back off that investment?
If you pay the price, you still get to see the ads. Eliminate the fee, you increase the ad revenue.
That may be true, but its by no means a guarantee.
Too late the damage has already been done (Score:5, Insightful)
Re: (Score:2)
Yeah, really... people sure ignored the hell out of The World is Flat. It was so irrelevant that Friedman's put out, what ... three different editions so far?
Re: (Score:3, Interesting)
Well, to be fair, the OP's point could be restated that the "pay wall" did nothing to increase their columnist's influence in the wider world, particularly with younger readers. Personally, I think Friedman is an astute observer but an overrated writer who suffers from being overly-excitable with respect to his own ideas.
The Times' decision is a good
Re: (Score:2)
No argument here.
Re: (Score:2)
Maybe that was the idea (Score:2)
Perhaps the management thought the peacenik columnists like Krugman, Herbert, and Dowd were too influential. I've always thought that Times Select was a brilliant way to muffle the columnists without actually seeming to be censors.
Of course, no
Good news everyone! (Score:5, Funny)
Re: (Score:1)
here [bugmenot.com]
Crossword? (Score:4, Interesting)
Re: (Score:1)
NY Times crosswords rule. Solving NY Times crosswords on Linux was at least as much fun as WoW.
Re: (Score:2)
NY Times crosswords are great, but for sheer mind-bogglingly twisted word fun, the Atlantic Monthly crosswords take the cake. Sadly, they're now only available online (probably due to all those thieving photocopy machine users) and with a subscription to the print magazine.
Re: (Score:2)
Times Reader (Score:4, Interesting)
One would think that there are two sure-proof things NY Times could do to secure large audience for their advertisers.
1. Their image as a respect newspaper, not just NY, not just US, but world-wide. Their journalists are respected, and their content verified, their analysis intelligent.
2. Better presentation than the average site.
Well, Times Reader is that point 2. If they gave me the reader for free, I'll most likely to there for my shot of news and editorials, since it's simply better than browsing a web site.
And hence, the NY Times won't have to compete with the other blogs and sites as much as if they remained free only in-browser.
Re: (Score:2)
Yes, it is.
It's based upon
Maybe it can be ported to Silverlight, then it'll run on Linux and Mac as well.
cya bugmenot (Score:2)
Bugmenot is dead... long live Adblock Plus (Score:2)
Aha! Finally we can bid adieu to bugmenot? (Score:1)
Can we?
OK, but its nice to have the option (Score:5, Interesting)
Although these days there is less point paying for a single publication/site. NYTimes seems good, but as a non-citizen it was never enough to pay for...
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)
On the one hand, they might make more money.
On the other... they would have less eyeballs to offer their advertisers, which means less money.
If there isn't a big difference in profit, it's usually better to think long-term & keep your big advertising partners happy. You'll ultimately make more money that way.
Worthy of Turning Off My Adblocker (Score:5, Insightful)
Fast forward to today and I still believe that - the news quality of a NY Times piece is still premium quality, but the difference now is that the news is 100% paid for by advertisers. My conscience is making me turn off my browser's adblocker plugin when I go to NY Times's website now.
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)
Newspapers had an advertising model for umpteen ye (Score:2, Insightful)
scratches head
From article:
The Times will also make available its archives from 1987 to the present without charge
Not quite... (Score:2)
Times Reader, Archives, Ad Free (Score:4, Informative)
1). "The archives should be free"
The archives for the last 20 years are now free. Those over 60 years (public archive) are also free. The ones between 20 to 60 years ago are the only ones you get charged for.
2). "I'd pay extra for ads free/The TimesReader should be free"
The TimesReader is still a charge for service, but it contains no ads. This is probably why it isn't free. The big problem is that it is "Windows Only", so Linux and Mac users can't use it. (Yes, I know you can run a Windows emulator, but that's not the point!).
About a decade ago, the idea of paying for your webpage with ads and actually make money seemed silly. "That would never happen." "IIt was a dot.com pipedream". Now, as the New York Times discovered, subscription services are simply not as profitable as ad supported websites. TimesSelect made money, but not as much as if the content was free. Plus, now that it is free, Google searches are more likely to include New York Times articles.
Any bets when the Wall Street Journal will drop its subscription service?
Soon! (Score:3, Informative)
Um...why? (Score:5, Insightful)
Why?
For chrissakes, no matter what you think of the paper as a journalistic entity, nor what you think of its editorial decisions, nor what you think of its columnists, it really is the newspaper of record for the United States.
They have an extraordinary breadth of content. Why can't they just "copy stories and pictures from the newspaper"? If anyone in the media business would be able to generate bulk traffic (read: advertising $$) from sheer content without any particular bells and whistles, it would be the website that simply mirrors the staggering amount of content from the NYT.
Add to that a searchable archive of the NYT going back to the beginning, and I frankly can't think of a single media outlet in the world that could match it for comprehensive historical information on daily events pertinent to the United States.
Huge content, daily updates, impeccable credentials - yeah, who'd imagine THAT could draw significant pageviews?
Re: (Score:2, Interesting)
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)
Re: (Score:2)
So how amazing can the "Newspaper of record" be, if no one is willing to pay for all that "content"?
Going by that alone, the NYT has almost no value.
and (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
About time... (Score:2)
Fortunately for me, they did this
NY Times nearly strangled itself (Score:2)
However, I felt it was stupid to go halfway. People would pay fro all-or-nothing, not half-and-half. They basically cut 2/3rd the audience of their more interesting columnists like Krugman and Friedmen. I dont agree with them, but liked their insights.
Hopefully Murdoc will liberate the Wall Street Journal soon too.
Library journals "disappearing" too (Score:2)
I find this ironic, because the modern system of knowledge is contructed on open publication, replication and repudiation. Only the professorial "elite" will have access. Further ironic be
from the horse's mouth (Score:2, Informative)
CSS (Score:2)
a[href*=".nytimes.com/"]:after { content: " [reg]" }
a[href*="//nytimes.com/"]:after { content: " [reg]" }
}
Goodbye, link-flagging client-side stylesheet rules. Good times.
Other free newspaper sites. (Score:2)
You can check out if it is going to be a Zoe McConnell day, which legend has it, augurs good luck.
The Miami Herald http://www.miamiherald.com/ [miamiherald.com] is free too and available in a Spanish edition. Speigel (the English version) http://www.spiegel.de/international/ [spiegel.de] is
Its about time (Score:2)
Even so, it is a sign of our times that news sources are being forced into these lower-revenue situations. The quality of the news we get has been degrading slowly for decades but the internet has ser
they just gained a wider readership (Score:2)
since most everything they report news about
is available in 3,495 other places on google news,
i've made it a point to generally avoid them, because
its 'just one more !@#$ password i have to deal with'...
looks like they've decided to broaden their readership.
2cents
The original story by the New York times itself (Score:2)
Why are the Slashdot editors so lame and lazy? Instead of pointing to Reuters for the story go a link to the original editorial by the New York Times!
http://www.nytimes.com/2007/09/18/business/media/18times.html [nytimes.com]
It explains that editorials are now free. That some (but not all) the archives are free.
That the decision is driven by the importance of search engines
Paul Krugman and Bob Herbert (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)
It isn't just the constant news coverage citing "unnamed sources" in an effort to implicate this or that group of Muslims in various imagined transgressions, even after they promised to swear off using unnamed sources, it's deciding to wait until after the 2004 election to tell us about Bush's illegal wiretappi
Re:If you're against the war this is very bad news (Score:5, Insightful)
The New York Times is indeed right-wing, and Fox News even more so. There are no mainstream left-wing newspapers in the USA anymore.
Political spectra have arbitrary zeroes. (Score:2)
Only in the USA, where centrism and moderate liberalism are routinely labelled "left-wing", could the New York Times be considered "left-wing". It suits the interests of the corporate media and the political goals of right-wing commentators to re-define terms of political alignment in this way.
Well, duh. It's "left" and "right" of the political center in the United States. That center is probably right of the center in Europe, but you have to define a zero point somewhere. Politics isn't an absolute scale.
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)