CNet News
The New York Times is reportedly getting ready to charge readers for access to the venerable newspaper’s online content.
The newspaper is expected to announce in coming weeks that it will institute a metered pay plan in which readers would have access to a limited number of free articles before being invited to subscribe, according to a report in New York magazine that cited sources close to the newsroom.
The report also suggests that a content deal could be in the works for Apple’s long-rumored tablet, which many expect to be unveiled on January 27. Apple has reportedly been shopping its device to media companies in Australia to gauge interest in having their products available on the device when it’s released.
The only reason I ever buy the Atlanta Urinal & Constipation is the Weekend edition for the coupons and the comics. Online? No coupons, no tickee, no washee.
They tried this with the Globe already, and they changed their mind. Then they tried TimesSelect and abandoned that.
At least they can collect some money from all the radio and TV news guys that copy them.
The problem I see here is that the NYT thinks they are the WSJ. However, what they are ignoring is that most WSJ readers are business people who actually make money. The WSJ is a source of business information first and foremost. Most of the NYT readers are liberals that like to sit around the campfire, sing kumbayah and collect welfare checks. They are likely to laud the survival of their rag while finding ways to read it for free.
What could go wrong?
Oh wait … when I read the NY Times it is generally that I saw something trivially interesting … just one of the many things I could be doing.
If they make it pay only, I’d just move on like any other password protected site.
I have other things I could be doing and I don’t have a “NEED” for the NY Times.
I still am not sure why these news papers feel their stories are worth a dime on the internet while others provide the same story for free?
I also think if your going to sell content like this news papers should sell it like a news stand and allow single copy or daily purchase of their content. They seem to want to charge a subscription which is almost as much as home delivery of their news paper? How can you possible justify a electronic delivery costing as much?
#23- the difference is the WSJ online subscribers write it off as a business expense. Take away that deduction and the WSJ subscriber rate would be no different.
52 bobbo. Easy. Then the speaker immediately stops speaking, if for no other reason than loss of train of thought. Supporters chime in to reach your magic length of interruption. End of proceedings. Keep thinking this thing through.
Seriously, what’s the point of free speech if it can’t be exercised? Imagine what this blog would look like if your “rule” could somehow be in effect:
“One of them: if you think fetuses WHAT? FETUSES? WTF YOU TAKING ABOUT NOW!? are really human beings, YOU SHOULD’VE BEEN ABORTED, MF!!then killing their mothers, doctors, and political allies MURDERER!!WHAT KIND OF NON SEQUITUER BS ARE YOU RUNNING NOW??is THE ONLY MORAL COURSE. OH, YEAH. LIKE YOU KNOW MORAL, MF!!Of course, very few would do that, I’M COMING DOWN NOW TO KICK YOUR ASS!! Hey, no, leave my bro alone. Now I’m gonna kick your ass!! hence the fallacy of their position is revealed.”
RBG
Didn’t they try this and fail already 3 or 4 years ago?
The faster the NYTimes, with its slanted news, is not read by anyone, the better off America will be.
I think $1/view is about the right pricing.
#26
Business people that subscribe to the NYT are also open to claiming it as a business expense. Of course, that requires having enough business people interested in the NYT to want a subscription.
# 23 Thomas:
“Most of the NYT readers are liberals that like to sit around the campfire, sing kumbayah and collect welfare checks.”
I doubt many welfare recipients buy the New York Times.
I’d pay a quarter to read the Tuesday Science section. If I lived in New York, I would probably subscribe.