New York Times May Charge for Online Content

Source: Reuters

The New York Times Co Chairman Arthur Sulzberger is close to announcing that the paper will begin charging for access to its website, New York Magazine reported on its Web site citing people familiar with internal deliberations.

A final decision could come within days and a plan could be announced in a matter of weeks, Nymag.com reported.

"It will likely be months before the Times actually begins to charge for content, perhaps sometime this spring," the report said.

Apple Inc's tablet computer is rumored to launch on January 27, and sources speculate that Sulzberger will strike a content partnership for the new device, which could dovetail with the paid strategy, the magazine reported over the weekend.

Read more: http://www.reuters.com/article/idUSTRE60I2DG20100119?type=technologyNews

---

I think we've reached the point where paid, fire-walled content may be the only way to go, combined with holding ISPs responsible, for news media and other dedicated, professional "content creators" (we used to call them "journalists") to continue to operate. It's ridiculous for skilled writers to be forced to spend less time focusing on their work and more on relentlessly hawking themselves on Twitter and Linked In. Many of you will try to stone me for writing that, but c'est la vie.

I wonder what newspaper I will read now.

We can avoid them for news in response.

Sounds fair.

What is wrong with asking to be paid for content?

:P

but if you're competitors give news out for free you're pretty much hosed.

This might come as a shock, but The Times does not offer a unique product.
I mean, it's the news... it's not like different shit happens on the same day around the world.

then everyone else will be wallowing in what's left - what's free.

"Good point, but I also believe that you also get what you pay for." Posted by MUAD_DIB

Basic news has many free outlets.

These newspaper websites really only have editorial content that distinguishes them from straight news outlets, but Im not sure a Krugman is worth a subscription fee.

Just like there was nothing wrong with most of the dot coms that flooded the economy during the tech bubble. The question isn't what's wrong with it, but rather does it make economic sense? I predict that they'll find that the answer is the same as it was the last time they tried it, which is that it doesn't make economic sense. I know that before they tried the TimesSelect paywall I used to go to to NYTimes all the time, but during the paywall era I foudn other sources of information that were just as good, and even when they dropped the wall I never went back in the same way that I had before.

I think it's undeniable that this industry is dealing with some big problems in adapting to new technologies. I don't know the solution to their woes, I wish I did, I could make a mint by solving them, but I do feel that this isn't the answer...

What will you be left with then: Rupert Murdock?

and the distribution costs. So the money taken in from consumers has never been the primary revenue stream for papers. What they have been doing is selling their audiance to advertizers. That is the primary thing ov value that readers have been giving to the paper, their attention. Can the papers figure out a way to derive money from that asset under this new method of doing buisness? I'm not sure, but it seems to me that cutting out the huge costs of physical production and distribution would be a huge plus. I think the biggest problem isn't so much making enough money to pay the journalists, as I seem to recall reading that papers like the NY Times are profitable, as it is making enough money to satisfy shareholders. It isn't so much a problem with journalism as it is a problem with our economic system. Why should a marginally profitable buisness like a newspaper attract capital when there are gobs of money to be made in the black magic economic voodoo of wall street.

Rupert Murdock is all for putting up paywalls on all his news media, and he's more than welcome to comit online suicide for all I care, I'll be sorry to lose the NY Times for the few times I visit it nowadays, but won't shed a tear to lose his online presence...

You and I, the people who read the paper - we are what's being sold, not the paper's content (and please do not let me get started on the declining quality of all newspapers, including the NYT). Our subscription fees, paper or online, are monies that merely mitigate the costs of producing the paper, any paper. Advertisers are the ones who pay for the paper to get printed/go live. Advertisers are buying our eyeballs, your and mine. What this is about is passing the costs of making the paper on to part of the package being sold. I'm willing to discuss the merits of that formula, but let's frame things correctly from the get-go, please.

but that doesn't mean you're gonna get it.

Kinda stupid to unrec something because you disagree with the message. A topic like this seems like a perfectly fine topic to discuss. If that is your criteria for unreccing something, no wonder so many things get unrecc'd around here.

That was before everyone realized you can't have a credible news paper if you can't pay a writing, sales, and administrative staff.

What will replace it? Who knows. But I'm not paying.

You may not have a credible paper if you don't pay for writing, sales (ha!) and administrative staff. Then there won't be papers.

was to cover the publication.

And I'm not sure if you were around as a consumer and informed citizen before 1994/1995, but once upon a time, people who bought newspapers, including the Times, were perfectly willing to pay .50 cents a copy - even though the paper had ads.

Consider the limited number of the population that was buying and reading the paper for .50 in 1993, compare that to the number who read for free online everyday, and the relatively low rates online ads pay and you may begin to understand why news consumers in the online world are killing the golden goose.

Seems like I remember following links to their site, and they wanted to charge to view content. I left the site quickly.

This was 2 or 3 years ago, i think.

I won't pay them for anything. Fuck 'em! :thumbsdown:

republicans will never in the world pay for newspapers. Most of the people who read newspapers are the working class with their morning coffee. since Newspapers so openly bash the democrats and have their head up republican butt the real newspaper readers gave up long ago. Why do you think they are floundering, "the content of the print".

I check nytimes.com at least twice a day and I love reading the responses to their opinion pieces and health articles. I appreciate getting it for free but I'm hardly outraged that they want people to pay for their service. It certainly costs them a lot to produce it.

If the charge is too much, of course, I'll just have to get my news somewhere else, and I'll be very disappointed. But I don't understand why people are willing to pay for songs on iTunes but think that newspapers or magazines should provide their products for free.

:shrug:

My feelings exactly. Doesn't everyone realize that all of these places we love to go to only gather stuff from the various newspapers (at least the stuff worth reading)and publish it on their web sites. Just like here at Democratic underground. Where would we be without newspapers? S--- out of luck in my opinion.

Yes they did and then they stopped doing it.

the thises and thats, my subscriptions to the mags I only read on line, my local community radio, the candidates who need my financial support, etc., I would find the world a less interesting place for the NYT to be demised.

where your ISP charges a few cents per month for a premium site.

Who the hell would want to, or even could, pay for every single site they visit a la carte?

My cable provider charges far more than a few cents per month for premium content.

Why should people get to read it free? The Commercial Appeal will soon begin charging to read the online version of the "green" section.

In the UK, some artists and others are pushing to have ISPs held liable for distributing copyrighted content. Expect to see it spread.

As long as there are free ones to read online why pay the times?

This move will hurt them.