Buh-bye, single link NYT posts
May 17, 2005 5:18 AM Subscribe
The New York Times plans for pay-only content [subscription required]
I should add that, in spite of my name, I have no affiliation with the paper.
posted by nyterrant at 5:20 AM on May 17, 2005
posted by nyterrant at 5:20 AM on May 17, 2005
I always knew I'd see karmic retribution for using BugMeNot.
posted by VulcanMike at 5:27 AM on May 17, 2005
posted by VulcanMike at 5:27 AM on May 17, 2005
I like how the fact that they are going to charge us for something that was previously free, actually is an "offer".
posted by cheerleaders_to_your_funeral at 5:36 AM on May 17, 2005
posted by cheerleaders_to_your_funeral at 5:36 AM on May 17, 2005
It having been shown that often the best FPPs have the fewest comments, I feel an overwhelming urge to come out of lurker status and comment.
posted by stirfry at 5:38 AM on May 17, 2005
posted by stirfry at 5:38 AM on May 17, 2005
NYT editorials and columnists. Fifty bucks a year for something I've never bothered reading for free. I predict that in three to five years, the Times will print an article about how the Internet is dead and everyone gets their news from print media. Nobody will see it.
posted by Faint of Butt at 5:40 AM on May 17, 2005
posted by Faint of Butt at 5:40 AM on May 17, 2005
Funny that the NYT is choosing to charge for its opinions, a commodity with no lack of supply already on the internet. This is an experiment destined to fail. They should have charged for their premium news content and left the opinions open.
posted by felix betachat at 5:40 AM on May 17, 2005
posted by felix betachat at 5:40 AM on May 17, 2005
Well put, felix. Opinions are hardly in limited supply. There are people whom I'd gladly pay fifty dollars a year if it meant that I'd never have to hear their opinions again.
posted by Faint of Butt at 5:46 AM on May 17, 2005
posted by Faint of Butt at 5:46 AM on May 17, 2005
Faint of Butt, you'd have to pay me a lot more than fifty dollars a year to shut up, but I'm open to negotiate. =)
I don't know why, cuz sometimes there's other websites that ask me to register and I do so in order to access their site, but there was something I can't quite pinpoint about how NYT used to require registration to read anything on their site that just has always rubbed me the wrong way. Perhaps it's the growing intrinsic saavy that I've built up over years of Net Surfing. I felt years ago that NYT was inevitably going to charge. I didn't want to support them then by giving them enough information for them to put me on their mailing lists. That way, when they inevitably started charging, I wouldn't have to worry about the extremely remote off chance that they might send me a retroactive bill.
Whenever a MeFi FPP said in brackets "NYT registration required" I more often than not just skipped the thread. If the subject matter interested me, I might check elsewhere on the Web to see if a similar news report was published somewhere else. Hopefully this new development will lead us to seeing less and less MeFi posts that mention NYT at all.
posted by ZachsMind at 5:57 AM on May 17, 2005
I don't know why, cuz sometimes there's other websites that ask me to register and I do so in order to access their site, but there was something I can't quite pinpoint about how NYT used to require registration to read anything on their site that just has always rubbed me the wrong way. Perhaps it's the growing intrinsic saavy that I've built up over years of Net Surfing. I felt years ago that NYT was inevitably going to charge. I didn't want to support them then by giving them enough information for them to put me on their mailing lists. That way, when they inevitably started charging, I wouldn't have to worry about the extremely remote off chance that they might send me a retroactive bill.
Whenever a MeFi FPP said in brackets "NYT registration required" I more often than not just skipped the thread. If the subject matter interested me, I might check elsewhere on the Web to see if a similar news report was published somewhere else. Hopefully this new development will lead us to seeing less and less MeFi posts that mention NYT at all.
posted by ZachsMind at 5:57 AM on May 17, 2005
Funny that the NYT is choosing to charge for its opinions, a commodity with no lack of supply already on the internet. This is an experiment destined to fail. They should have charged for their premium news content and left the opinions open.
I must admit my first instincive response was to think "well, they've got that backwards". Perhaps they have a large online readership of a very different demographic to the MetaFilter readership that will fork out for this content, though. They must have some reason to think this will work.
posted by nthdegx at 5:59 AM on May 17, 2005
I must admit my first instincive response was to think "well, they've got that backwards". Perhaps they have a large online readership of a very different demographic to the MetaFilter readership that will fork out for this content, though. They must have some reason to think this will work.
posted by nthdegx at 5:59 AM on May 17, 2005
.
Bugger. It's been one of the best online news sites IMHO for years. The archives particularly will be a sore loss. And agreed Felix Betachat -- charging for opinion pieces is really strange.
o/p: nthdegx: advertizing revenue probably pays for the regular content more easily I suppose. Speaking of which, 2-3% online revenue from advertizing sound awful low.
posted by peacay at 6:06 AM on May 17, 2005
Bugger. It's been one of the best online news sites IMHO for years. The archives particularly will be a sore loss. And agreed Felix Betachat -- charging for opinion pieces is really strange.
o/p: nthdegx: advertizing revenue probably pays for the regular content more easily I suppose. Speaking of which, 2-3% online revenue from advertizing sound awful low.
posted by peacay at 6:06 AM on May 17, 2005
I didn't want to support them then by giving them enough information for them to put me on their mailing lists.
I always register for such sites using phony info. I have a Yahoo e-mail account (also phony) for such registrations, which I never check (other than to confirm a subscription). I am sure I am not alone in this. Furthermore, and I suppose I am being malevolent in this, I don't even give them the right gender, age, geographic location.
As for the topic of the FPP, look, if the NYT wants to charge for whatever, that's their right, but they won't be getting any of my money. I was a subscriber to the paper way back when, but the Internet has shown me that the NYT is not all that and a bag of shells.
posted by a_day_late at 6:33 AM on May 17, 2005
I always register for such sites using phony info. I have a Yahoo e-mail account (also phony) for such registrations, which I never check (other than to confirm a subscription). I am sure I am not alone in this. Furthermore, and I suppose I am being malevolent in this, I don't even give them the right gender, age, geographic location.
As for the topic of the FPP, look, if the NYT wants to charge for whatever, that's their right, but they won't be getting any of my money. I was a subscriber to the paper way back when, but the Internet has shown me that the NYT is not all that and a bag of shells.
posted by a_day_late at 6:33 AM on May 17, 2005
Actually, I've been hoping that they would offer a reasonable subscription that included access to their archives. The NYT is the paper of record, as they say, and I think that the expectation that they should make all of their content available for free for ever is a bit misguided.
Now that AP is going to start charging for online posting of their stories, I think the playing of taps should be for the era of free online news rather than the NYT.
posted by illovich at 6:36 AM on May 17, 2005
Now that AP is going to start charging for online posting of their stories, I think the playing of taps should be for the era of free online news rather than the NYT.
posted by illovich at 6:36 AM on May 17, 2005
This is an experiment destined to fail.
Yeah, charging for content sure has been a disaster for the Wall Street Journal.
posted by mlis at 6:37 AM on May 17, 2005
Yeah, charging for content sure has been a disaster for the Wall Street Journal.
posted by mlis at 6:37 AM on May 17, 2005
I remember, back in '95 or so (the Internet Stone Age), when there wasn't much of an NYT site, and could download a daily 6-page PDF. I think there was some paid component to that, as well.
/nostalgia
Anyway, this doesn't surprise me at all. I'm amazed that they've been able to generate so much content, for so long, for free at effectively no cost to the public.
I wonder how much access to the archives you get with that.
posted by mkultra at 6:46 AM on May 17, 2005
/nostalgia
Anyway, this doesn't surprise me at all. I'm amazed that they've been able to generate so much content, for so long, for free at effectively no cost to the public.
I wonder how much access to the archives you get with that.
posted by mkultra at 6:46 AM on May 17, 2005
I think the playing of taps should be for the era of free online news rather than the NYT.
That's ridiculous. There's always going to be free online news; it just won't have the bylines of writers from the NY Times (if they extend this to news) or the Journal or whatever other papers decide to join them. The risk they run is that people will flock to news sources that remain free and eventually they will lose that intangible "clout" that allows them to charge high rates for advertising. If the day comes when people say "The Times? Oh yeah, I remember them, are they still around?" -- then they'll rue their decision. It'll be interesting to see how this plays out. Me, I like Herbert and Kristof but I can easily live without them. (Besides, you know bloggers will be reprinting their better columns.)
posted by languagehat at 6:50 AM on May 17, 2005
That's ridiculous. There's always going to be free online news; it just won't have the bylines of writers from the NY Times (if they extend this to news) or the Journal or whatever other papers decide to join them. The risk they run is that people will flock to news sources that remain free and eventually they will lose that intangible "clout" that allows them to charge high rates for advertising. If the day comes when people say "The Times? Oh yeah, I remember them, are they still around?" -- then they'll rue their decision. It'll be interesting to see how this plays out. Me, I like Herbert and Kristof but I can easily live without them. (Besides, you know bloggers will be reprinting their better columns.)
posted by languagehat at 6:50 AM on May 17, 2005
Here's the scoop with no registration required. Since it is free to subscribers to the print edition I see no big deal here.
posted by caddis at 6:53 AM on May 17, 2005
posted by caddis at 6:53 AM on May 17, 2005
They had my number on this one - the op-ed page is usually the only one I read, aside from clicking through to a random story here and there from Google News. Definitely not worth $50/year, though.
It's probably a good thing, overall - usually Friedman's column gets me so worked up I can't concentrate on work for the rest of the day. :)
posted by aparrish at 6:57 AM on May 17, 2005
It's probably a good thing, overall - usually Friedman's column gets me so worked up I can't concentrate on work for the rest of the day. :)
posted by aparrish at 6:57 AM on May 17, 2005
"Yeah, charging for content sure has been a disaster for the Wall Street Journal."
The WSJ has useful information. That is in the sense that one can act upon the information one finds there. The NYT as news is more generalized information. I'm not sure that this will help newpaper readership any. I can't say I'd mind more ads in exchange for free content. I can't imagine though I will miss any information that the NYT will carry if they charged for everything. AP & Reuters, etc. will carry most of the major news anyway.
At some point I think all news - that is useful information - will be local. General information though will have to be free since it will be freely disseminated by - at the very least blogs.
posted by Smedleyman at 6:58 AM on May 17, 2005
The WSJ has useful information. That is in the sense that one can act upon the information one finds there. The NYT as news is more generalized information. I'm not sure that this will help newpaper readership any. I can't say I'd mind more ads in exchange for free content. I can't imagine though I will miss any information that the NYT will carry if they charged for everything. AP & Reuters, etc. will carry most of the major news anyway.
At some point I think all news - that is useful information - will be local. General information though will have to be free since it will be freely disseminated by - at the very least blogs.
posted by Smedleyman at 6:58 AM on May 17, 2005
I already pay Jayson Blair five bucks a day to come to my house and lie to me in person.
posted by Fuzzy Monster at 6:59 AM on May 17, 2005
posted by Fuzzy Monster at 6:59 AM on May 17, 2005
"easy and in-depth access to the paper's online archives" umm... is that objective reporting?
posted by ecocozza at 7:06 AM on May 17, 2005
posted by ecocozza at 7:06 AM on May 17, 2005
mkultra...I wonder how much access to the archives you get with that.
Somewhere in that article I linked they say that archives go back to 1980 at the moment but that they are working towards providing online access back to 1860-odd.
posted by peacay at 7:07 AM on May 17, 2005
Somewhere in that article I linked they say that archives go back to 1980 at the moment but that they are working towards providing online access back to 1860-odd.
posted by peacay at 7:07 AM on May 17, 2005
Op-ed pieces frequently show up in their "most emailed" and "most viewed" lists. So maybe there is a case for the demand. OTOH, how does this disable Bugmenot?
posted by warbaby at 7:09 AM on May 17, 2005
posted by warbaby at 7:09 AM on May 17, 2005
The service, which is scheduled to start in September, will be provided free to home-delivery subscribers of the newspaper.
The NYT has a lousy PR department. The headline should have read "Existing Subscribers to Get Free Access to New York Times Archives"
posted by gwint at 7:14 AM on May 17, 2005
The NYT has a lousy PR department. The headline should have read "Existing Subscribers to Get Free Access to New York Times Archives"
posted by gwint at 7:14 AM on May 17, 2005
fuzzy monster wins ... and i don't think their op-eds and editorials are worth reading free much less paying for
the one thing that the whole idea of pay for online news idea misses is that by decreasing their audience, news outlets run the risk of decreasing their influence and setting of the agenda
posted by pyramid termite at 7:14 AM on May 17, 2005
the one thing that the whole idea of pay for online news idea misses is that by decreasing their audience, news outlets run the risk of decreasing their influence and setting of the agenda
posted by pyramid termite at 7:14 AM on May 17, 2005
The NYT has some writers who are highly paid book writers. I rarely miss a Thomas Freidman article and in fact usually read all of the analysis/opinion/editorial articles. I assume the NYT has done some market analysis and found that people who value those sections are more likely to pay than people who prefer the news portion.
posted by Red58 at 7:31 AM on May 17, 2005
posted by Red58 at 7:31 AM on May 17, 2005
One possible reason they include columnists on the paid side of the ledger is that ever since the New York Times Co. Inc. et al v. Tasini et al decision of the Supreme Court, freelancers have the right to be paid separately for online use of their material on a publication's web site. (The crux of the decision was that the court disagreed with the Times' contention that the web site was just another edition of the paper.) As site traffic grows the paper could be having a hard time controlling costs of freelance opinion material as well as salary demands of staff opinion writers; this solution knocks down page views for columns while bringing in revenue to cover the cost.
posted by beagle at 7:39 AM on May 17, 2005
posted by beagle at 7:39 AM on May 17, 2005
I'd tell you what I think of this, but I'd have to charge you for it.
posted by fungible at 7:40 AM on May 17, 2005
posted by fungible at 7:40 AM on May 17, 2005
the NYT is not all that and a bag of shells.
Heh, indeed.
I won't miss Bobo Brooks.
I will miss Krugman and Herbert.
I hope the NYT marginalizes themselves with this move.
posted by nofundy at 8:30 AM on May 17, 2005
Heh, indeed.
I won't miss Bobo Brooks.
I will miss Krugman and Herbert.
I hope the NYT marginalizes themselves with this move.
posted by nofundy at 8:30 AM on May 17, 2005
My first reaction was to laugh my head off.
Almost sprayed my coffee all over the place, to think these gasbags think their oh-so-perfectly-worded opinions are worth a dime more than the thousands of (often better educated and smarter) bloggers.
On the other hand, it will hasten their slide into irrelevancy, so I say charge 1000 bucks.
If they want to make money online, charge FOR WHAT IS USEFUL, you newsprint narcissists.
posted by reality at 8:43 AM on May 17, 2005
Almost sprayed my coffee all over the place, to think these gasbags think their oh-so-perfectly-worded opinions are worth a dime more than the thousands of (often better educated and smarter) bloggers.
On the other hand, it will hasten their slide into irrelevancy, so I say charge 1000 bucks.
If they want to make money online, charge FOR WHAT IS USEFUL, you newsprint narcissists.
posted by reality at 8:43 AM on May 17, 2005
fuzzy monster wins the most painful, trite joke award.
posted by yonation
Q: Why did the chicken cross the road?
A: It was tired of being lied to by the New York Times.
posted by Fuzzy Monster at 9:15 AM on May 17, 2005
posted by yonation
Q: Why did the chicken cross the road?
A: It was tired of being lied to by the New York Times.
posted by Fuzzy Monster at 9:15 AM on May 17, 2005
One more reason to read BBC News (if it shows you UK-heavy news, click "change edition" and read the World Edition). No ads, no charges, and I haven't heard of any scandals.
posted by NickDouglas at 9:18 AM on May 17, 2005
posted by NickDouglas at 9:18 AM on May 17, 2005
In the year 2014, the New York Times has gone offline, and the predominant new media delivery vehicle is EPIC, the Evolving Personalized Information Construct, a product of Googlezon.
It looks like EPIC may be here ahead of schedule (thanks, NYT!).
When they ask me "How did you hear about us?", I always pick "Internet ad" from the dropdown menu.
posted by JParker at 9:59 AM on May 17, 2005
It looks like EPIC may be here ahead of schedule (thanks, NYT!).
When they ask me "How did you hear about us?", I always pick "Internet ad" from the dropdown menu.
posted by JParker at 9:59 AM on May 17, 2005
I don't know if its still policy, but the NY Times was unique among major papers in refusing to allow searches through NEXUS. At the New York Public Library one could search all the others on the free NEXUS terminal, then go to a different room and check out the cds that held the NY Times archives.
posted by StickyCarpet at 10:05 AM on May 17, 2005
posted by StickyCarpet at 10:05 AM on May 17, 2005
I see this as a great way to free up mndspace for better, more egalitarian news sources. If the print media wants to stop providing news and opinions for free, I know a lot of people out there who will gladly take their place.
The archives particularly will be a sore loss.
Except, of course, that there are ways around that. Googling combined with the Wayback Machine at Archive.org, for instance. Want to search the New York Times archives? Create a tool which indexes and searches archive.org's archive of the site.
Being "paid members only" won't stop people from sharing their logins on sites like bugmenot, nor will it stop those who do have access to the NYT from copying and pasting content into their weblogs, or perhaps coming up with a way of scraping the content into an RSS feed.
If there's a demand for this content, there will be a workaround.
posted by insomnia_lj at 10:33 AM on May 17, 2005
The archives particularly will be a sore loss.
Except, of course, that there are ways around that. Googling combined with the Wayback Machine at Archive.org, for instance. Want to search the New York Times archives? Create a tool which indexes and searches archive.org's archive of the site.
Being "paid members only" won't stop people from sharing their logins on sites like bugmenot, nor will it stop those who do have access to the NYT from copying and pasting content into their weblogs, or perhaps coming up with a way of scraping the content into an RSS feed.
If there's a demand for this content, there will be a workaround.
posted by insomnia_lj at 10:33 AM on May 17, 2005
When papers first started going on the Web, Dave Barry had fun with it. "Say, let's give out for free what we charge for now. Then we'll really make money!"
The Internet has bred a generation that seems to believe that nothing should cost anything. I always knew I'd see karmic retribution for using BugMeNot. In a way it is -- papers like the Times spend a lot of money to gather news and pay columnists. There was a time when you had to plunk down a quarter or two to read what Paul Krugman had to say (or read over someone's shoulder on the subway). Now many feel that they have a right to read it for free.
You can read the BBC for free because it's subsidized. The New York times is a business. I don't recall people complaining when their 30,000 free introductory hours of AOL ran out and they had to start paying.
posted by QuietDesperation at 10:47 AM on May 17, 2005
The Internet has bred a generation that seems to believe that nothing should cost anything. I always knew I'd see karmic retribution for using BugMeNot. In a way it is -- papers like the Times spend a lot of money to gather news and pay columnists. There was a time when you had to plunk down a quarter or two to read what Paul Krugman had to say (or read over someone's shoulder on the subway). Now many feel that they have a right to read it for free.
You can read the BBC for free because it's subsidized. The New York times is a business. I don't recall people complaining when their 30,000 free introductory hours of AOL ran out and they had to start paying.
posted by QuietDesperation at 10:47 AM on May 17, 2005
best workaround:
1) get in car
2) drive to your local public library
3) if you don't know where your local library is, use googlemaps (a free tool)
4) smile at cute librarian, apply for library card
5) shout and curse for forgetting to bring copy of phone bill with current home address
6) repeat steps 1-4
7) go home, log on to library website, cross fingers: most libraries have free access to at least the current NYTimes, if not the entire historical database, via proquest using your library card#
8) read op-eds, shout and curse at either Friedman or Safire, or both.
posted by ericbop at 11:12 AM on May 17, 2005
1) get in car
2) drive to your local public library
3) if you don't know where your local library is, use googlemaps (a free tool)
4) smile at cute librarian, apply for library card
5) shout and curse for forgetting to bring copy of phone bill with current home address
6) repeat steps 1-4
7) go home, log on to library website, cross fingers: most libraries have free access to at least the current NYTimes, if not the entire historical database, via proquest using your library card#
8) read op-eds, shout and curse at either Friedman or Safire, or both.
posted by ericbop at 11:12 AM on May 17, 2005
quietdesperation ... the problem here is that newspapers make most of their money selling audiences to advertisers ... not selling news to audiences ... right now, i'm getting my local paper at the apartment building for 3.50 a month ... which indicates to me that they're more interested in building their circulation so they can charge advertisers more, rather than make money off of the physical paper ...
the times is choosing not to follow that model ... perhaps, due to their content, they may succeed at it ... but the average hometown newspaper isn't going to stand a chance of succeeding this way ... they need the audience much more than they need the audience's money
The Internet has bred a generation that seems to believe that nothing should cost anything.
no, the internet has bred a generation that has learned that much free content can be as good and useful as content that's charged for ... and if the news media go for money-only audiences, someone will fill the vacuum ... and they may do it in ways the political/economic established won't like
they need us a lot more than we need them
posted by pyramid termite at 11:18 AM on May 17, 2005
the times is choosing not to follow that model ... perhaps, due to their content, they may succeed at it ... but the average hometown newspaper isn't going to stand a chance of succeeding this way ... they need the audience much more than they need the audience's money
The Internet has bred a generation that seems to believe that nothing should cost anything.
no, the internet has bred a generation that has learned that much free content can be as good and useful as content that's charged for ... and if the news media go for money-only audiences, someone will fill the vacuum ... and they may do it in ways the political/economic established won't like
they need us a lot more than we need them
posted by pyramid termite at 11:18 AM on May 17, 2005
One possible reason they include columnists on the paid side of the ledger is that ever since the New York Times Co. Inc. et al v. Tasini et al decision of the Supreme Court, freelancers have the right to be paid separately for online use of their material on a publication's web site.
You can be sure that the current contract with the columnists includes electronic republishing rights for the NYT.
posted by caddis at 11:21 AM on May 17, 2005
You can be sure that the current contract with the columnists includes electronic republishing rights for the NYT.
posted by caddis at 11:21 AM on May 17, 2005
best workaround:
1) subscribe to the print edition of the NYT, there is no substitute.
posted by caddis at 11:23 AM on May 17, 2005
1) subscribe to the print edition of the NYT, there is no substitute.
posted by caddis at 11:23 AM on May 17, 2005
The Internet has bred a generation that seems to believe that nothing should cost anything. I always knew I'd see karmic retribution for using BugMeNot. In a way it is -- papers like the Times spend a lot of money to gather news and pay columnists. There was a time when you had to plunk down a quarter or two to read what Paul Krugman had to say (or read over someone's shoulder on the subway). Now many feel that they have a right to read it for free.
There are many free papers out there with journalistic content that often rivals per-copy-fee papers.
Philadelphia alone manages at least three such examples: Philadelphia Weekly, Philadelphia City Paper, and Metro.
Free news can be done, and done well, and it doesn't require a web server or crazy bandwidth fees.
What the NYT is doing is the equivalent of digging its own grave slowly. This paper offers nothing dissimilar from other outlets that distinguishes itself enough to justify charging people more than it already does, along with the ad revenue that they pull in.
posted by AlexReynolds at 11:32 AM on May 17, 2005
There are many free papers out there with journalistic content that often rivals per-copy-fee papers.
Philadelphia alone manages at least three such examples: Philadelphia Weekly, Philadelphia City Paper, and Metro.
Free news can be done, and done well, and it doesn't require a web server or crazy bandwidth fees.
What the NYT is doing is the equivalent of digging its own grave slowly. This paper offers nothing dissimilar from other outlets that distinguishes itself enough to justify charging people more than it already does, along with the ad revenue that they pull in.
posted by AlexReynolds at 11:32 AM on May 17, 2005
dhruva: I wonder why they didn't try the Salon route.
As you can see from the paidcontent interview, the Times is looking raise CPM (their cost for ads). This is just about the opposite of the Salon premium model, where subscription buys you a reprieve from advertising. In fact subscribers might wind up seeing even more ads than non-subscribers -- not on the inviolable Op-Eds themselves, but on the rest of the site.
Essentially, the Times will be setting a bar on their general readership, a bar that only educated, upper-middle income readers will cross. They are betting on the fact that audience for Op-Eds will shrink because that smaller audience will be more appealing to their advertisers. Revenue generated from subscriptions might even turn out to be insignificant to the increase in ad sales. Or so the Times would hope.
This blending of free and restricted content seems to be the way that most publishers are headed. It's intersting as a content access scheme, but it still doesn't solve the essential problem of paid content: The product is information -- photons and ideas -- and information wants to be free.
posted by eatitlive at 11:35 AM on May 17, 2005
As you can see from the paidcontent interview, the Times is looking raise CPM (their cost for ads). This is just about the opposite of the Salon premium model, where subscription buys you a reprieve from advertising. In fact subscribers might wind up seeing even more ads than non-subscribers -- not on the inviolable Op-Eds themselves, but on the rest of the site.
Essentially, the Times will be setting a bar on their general readership, a bar that only educated, upper-middle income readers will cross. They are betting on the fact that audience for Op-Eds will shrink because that smaller audience will be more appealing to their advertisers. Revenue generated from subscriptions might even turn out to be insignificant to the increase in ad sales. Or so the Times would hope.
This blending of free and restricted content seems to be the way that most publishers are headed. It's intersting as a content access scheme, but it still doesn't solve the essential problem of paid content: The product is information -- photons and ideas -- and information wants to be free.
posted by eatitlive at 11:35 AM on May 17, 2005
Ahhh, metafilter, the sound of 1000 whines.
How dare they charge me for content!
How dare they make me view advertisement!
How dare they make me login!
Only, in whatever it is that I do (most likely, growing hemp for use to feed starving babies) and Matt, deserve recompense!
Everything else should be free!
In support of these ideals, I fully expect to see everyone put their metafilter username and password on BugMeNot. How dare this site think about raping people out of their hard earned dollars.
Please people, give me a break. Whenever someone had advertising, you whine that they should use a paid model, or just use some technical solution to get around it. And when they offer paid links, then they should offer an advertising backed solution. (Since that's easier to steal I guess)
I used to use adblocker, and hack my hosts file. But then I sat down and thought about it. Now all that crap is turned off, and if a particular website has ads that are so offensive I (gasp!) don't visit it anymore.
So, if you don't want to read the NYTimes anymore, don't. But alot like with the WSJ, I doubt anybody will notice.
posted by PissOnYourParade at 11:38 AM on May 17, 2005
How dare they charge me for content!
How dare they make me view advertisement!
How dare they make me login!
Only, in whatever it is that I do (most likely, growing hemp for use to feed starving babies) and Matt, deserve recompense!
Everything else should be free!
In support of these ideals, I fully expect to see everyone put their metafilter username and password on BugMeNot. How dare this site think about raping people out of their hard earned dollars.
Please people, give me a break. Whenever someone had advertising, you whine that they should use a paid model, or just use some technical solution to get around it. And when they offer paid links, then they should offer an advertising backed solution. (Since that's easier to steal I guess)
I used to use adblocker, and hack my hosts file. But then I sat down and thought about it. Now all that crap is turned off, and if a particular website has ads that are so offensive I (gasp!) don't visit it anymore.
So, if you don't want to read the NYTimes anymore, don't. But alot like with the WSJ, I doubt anybody will notice.
posted by PissOnYourParade at 11:38 AM on May 17, 2005
Pyramid, I'm not sure what your point is. The advertising model for news is very old -- papers have never relied totally on newsstand sales for income. And everyone knows that papers build circulation by offering cheap subscriptions. What's that got to do with it?
The times is choosing not to follow that model.
I'd have to disagree. It still advertises, still uses newsprint partly as a loss leader to build circulation. The model they're not following is to give away the entire content for free on the Web. Just as our local Salvation Army now separates their old junk from antiques and sells the latter in a "boutique" for higher prices.
perhaps, due to their content, they may succeed at it ... but the average hometown newspaper isn't going to stand a chance of succeeding this way.
And this is the Times's problem because....?
the internet has bred a generation that has learned that much free content can be as good and useful as content that's charged for ... and if the news media go for money-only audiences, someone will fill the vacuum ... and they may do it in ways the political/economic established won't like
All true, except who exactly will fill the vacuum that Paul Krugman leaves I'm not sure. Which might be why people will pay for the Times's Op-ed. People seem to care about what's said on those pages as they don't care about what's said in the Sacramento Bee or the Chagrin Falls Commercial Scimitar. WSJ and Investor's Business Daily use this model. It might be rare among mainstream newspapers, but that doesn't mean that it won't work.
I'm not trying to be contentious, but I think it remains to be seen whether they need us a lot more than we need them.
posted by QuietDesperation at 11:43 AM on May 17, 2005
The times is choosing not to follow that model.
I'd have to disagree. It still advertises, still uses newsprint partly as a loss leader to build circulation. The model they're not following is to give away the entire content for free on the Web. Just as our local Salvation Army now separates their old junk from antiques and sells the latter in a "boutique" for higher prices.
perhaps, due to their content, they may succeed at it ... but the average hometown newspaper isn't going to stand a chance of succeeding this way.
And this is the Times's problem because....?
the internet has bred a generation that has learned that much free content can be as good and useful as content that's charged for ... and if the news media go for money-only audiences, someone will fill the vacuum ... and they may do it in ways the political/economic established won't like
All true, except who exactly will fill the vacuum that Paul Krugman leaves I'm not sure. Which might be why people will pay for the Times's Op-ed. People seem to care about what's said on those pages as they don't care about what's said in the Sacramento Bee or the Chagrin Falls Commercial Scimitar. WSJ and Investor's Business Daily use this model. It might be rare among mainstream newspapers, but that doesn't mean that it won't work.
I'm not trying to be contentious, but I think it remains to be seen whether they need us a lot more than we need them.
posted by QuietDesperation at 11:43 AM on May 17, 2005
I already have access to the archives of the NYT through Lexis-Nexis. In fact, I guess I'll still be able to read Krugman there if I really want to.
posted by grouse at 11:45 AM on May 17, 2005
posted by grouse at 11:45 AM on May 17, 2005
PissOnYourParade: If you read a bit harder for meaning, I think you'll find that the majority of criticisms aren't that the NYT is evil for charging for its output but that the NYT is silly for what it is trying to market. i.e., the critics here are giving their opinion that what NYT is trying to sell is not saleable and suggesting courses that might have proved more favourable.
posted by biffa at 11:48 AM on May 17, 2005
posted by biffa at 11:48 AM on May 17, 2005
Alex - And precisely how many correspondents does the Philadelphia City Paper have in Kabul, Darfur, Beijing?
posted by QuietDesperation at 11:57 AM on May 17, 2005
posted by QuietDesperation at 11:57 AM on May 17, 2005
Alex - And precisely how many correspondents does the Philadelphia City Paper have in Kabul, Darfur, Beijing?
None, but the NY Times isn't charging for access to that material:
Most material on the Web site, NYTimes.com, will remain free to users, The Times said, but columnists from The Times and The International Herald Tribune will be available only to users who sign up for TimesSelect, which will cost $49.95 a year.
posted by AlexReynolds at 12:04 PM on May 17, 2005
None, but the NY Times isn't charging for access to that material:
Most material on the Web site, NYTimes.com, will remain free to users, The Times said, but columnists from The Times and The International Herald Tribune will be available only to users who sign up for TimesSelect, which will cost $49.95 a year.
posted by AlexReynolds at 12:04 PM on May 17, 2005
I always register for such sites using phony info. I have a Yahoo e-mail account (also phony) for such registrations, which I never check (other than to confirm a subscription).
DodgeIt.com
If there's a demand for this content, there will be a workaround.
Agreed. See Limewire, Morpheus, etc.
Until they make ridiculous laws that put op-ed copyright offenders in prison for 10 years, the content will end up free on the Internet anyway. Realize that the Internet revolution is only beginning now. Paid content is dead in the water.
posted by mrgrimm at 1:10 PM on May 17, 2005
DodgeIt.com
If there's a demand for this content, there will be a workaround.
Agreed. See Limewire, Morpheus, etc.
Until they make ridiculous laws that put op-ed copyright offenders in prison for 10 years, the content will end up free on the Internet anyway. Realize that the Internet revolution is only beginning now. Paid content is dead in the water.
posted by mrgrimm at 1:10 PM on May 17, 2005
biffa - I see that, and I agree that making the opEds pay seems a bit silly, but who knows, maybe there is a market out there for it..
But I disagree about that being the majority opinion here. What I mostly see if the standard slashdot self righteous whining. "Everything on the internet better be free, and if its not, then I will find a way to steal it."
Personally, I like the NYTimes (there current difficulties not withstanding) and I don't want to see them replaced by a bunch of blow-hard bloggers.
But, seeing all the paid paper copies floating around everywhere, I guess I'm not worried.
posted by PissOnYourParade at 2:34 PM on May 17, 2005
But I disagree about that being the majority opinion here. What I mostly see if the standard slashdot self righteous whining. "Everything on the internet better be free, and if its not, then I will find a way to steal it."
Personally, I like the NYTimes (there current difficulties not withstanding) and I don't want to see them replaced by a bunch of blow-hard bloggers.
But, seeing all the paid paper copies floating around everywhere, I guess I'm not worried.
posted by PissOnYourParade at 2:34 PM on May 17, 2005
I like ericbop's idea, except the way things are going, within a few years' time, most public libraries probably won't be able to offer free Internet access anymore.
posted by blucevalo at 8:33 PM on May 17, 2005
posted by blucevalo at 8:33 PM on May 17, 2005
I don't think I've ever clicked a NYT banner ad. I never go to the editorial page either. Yet here I am after having paid metafilter $5 to tell you what I think the NYT should do to make money...
That tells me the NYT should require a paid subscription to make your voice heard in relation to articles. You could make points in context, like Google ads, and pay to place a message in X page views. GM could defend itself inline against an article slamming it. The NYT would be converted into a fluid idea marketplace.
More minimally, they could also take the ipod approach and charge $1 per article instead of requiring the full $50 hunk of flesh all at once. I don't think many people will click an editorial and then see that they have to pay $50 and go "oh, OK". Stupid NYT just doesn't get capitalism...
posted by efbrazil at 12:47 PM on May 18, 2005
That tells me the NYT should require a paid subscription to make your voice heard in relation to articles. You could make points in context, like Google ads, and pay to place a message in X page views. GM could defend itself inline against an article slamming it. The NYT would be converted into a fluid idea marketplace.
More minimally, they could also take the ipod approach and charge $1 per article instead of requiring the full $50 hunk of flesh all at once. I don't think many people will click an editorial and then see that they have to pay $50 and go "oh, OK". Stupid NYT just doesn't get capitalism...
posted by efbrazil at 12:47 PM on May 18, 2005
Until they make ridiculous laws that put op-ed copyright offenders in prison for 10 years, the content will end up free on the Internet anyway. Realize that the Internet revolution is only beginning now. Paid content is dead in the water.
Agreed. This may well be the tipping point for the online piracy of words, rather than the less likely tipping point for paid content.
posted by VulcanMike at 8:26 PM on May 18, 2005
Agreed. This may well be the tipping point for the online piracy of words, rather than the less likely tipping point for paid content.
posted by VulcanMike at 8:26 PM on May 18, 2005
except who exactly will fill the vacuum that Paul Krugman leaves I'm not sure.
he hasn't got a monopoly on incisive political and economic opinion
People seem to care about what's said on those pages as they don't care about what's said in the Sacramento Bee or the Chagrin Falls Commercial Scimitar.
people have been accustomed to caring ... it's my perception that the times op-eds don't have the influence they used to
WSJ and Investor's Business Daily use this model.
and here's my reason for replying ... the wsj and ibd can do this because they offer unique and valuable specialist information ... i don't percieve the opinions expressed in the times as being that unique or valuable
the times would be better off charging for their reportage and letting the opinions stay free ... remember that part of the purpose of the opinion columnists is to influence the public ... by reducing the size of their public, they reduce their influence and others will gain
posted by pyramid termite at 8:40 PM on May 18, 2005
he hasn't got a monopoly on incisive political and economic opinion
People seem to care about what's said on those pages as they don't care about what's said in the Sacramento Bee or the Chagrin Falls Commercial Scimitar.
people have been accustomed to caring ... it's my perception that the times op-eds don't have the influence they used to
WSJ and Investor's Business Daily use this model.
and here's my reason for replying ... the wsj and ibd can do this because they offer unique and valuable specialist information ... i don't percieve the opinions expressed in the times as being that unique or valuable
the times would be better off charging for their reportage and letting the opinions stay free ... remember that part of the purpose of the opinion columnists is to influence the public ... by reducing the size of their public, they reduce their influence and others will gain
posted by pyramid termite at 8:40 PM on May 18, 2005
« Older Remember Long Term Capital Management? | US 'backed illegal Iraqi oil deals' Newer »
This thread has been archived and is closed to new comments
posted by nyterrant at 5:20 AM on May 17, 2005