

Would you pay five bucks a month for the New York Times? - technologizer
http://technologizer.com/2009/07/09/would-you-pay-5-a-month-for-the-new-york-times/

======
DanielStraight
Hell, I won't even pay free. I have an account and I STILL just leave the page
when it tells me I have to sign in to access free content.

------
bkbleikamp
This is stupid.

The $5 fee, whether it's small or not, still requires people to pull out their
wallets. A lot of people simply don't want to get out their wallet and go
through the sign up process, so they won't.

A lot of their news is available everywhere else. Why would I need the NYT.com
website to read about Obama winning when MSNBC.com had it for free? So the
question should be "Are our op-ed's and in depth reporting worth $5/mo?" And
if the in depth reporting is big (e.g. CIA eavesdropping scandal) it will be
covered elsewhere shortly after it breaks.

So the number of page views they lose to $5 kills their advertising dollars.
Is that $5 really going to make up how much they're losing? Not according to
this post: [http://www.niemanlab.org/2009/04/paying-for-online-news-
sorr...](http://www.niemanlab.org/2009/04/paying-for-online-news-sorry-but-
the-math-just-doesnt-work/)

~~~
justlearning
agree with "news is available everywhere else", agree with "stupid".

But, what I like about NYTimes is the succinct quality of language used.
"Everywhere" (mostly) else it's not quality. Everywhere else, You get the bits
of news - the fast food of news. At NYTimes, you go for the 3 course lunch.
"Everywhere" I tend to crap out my brains, when I read "your" used
interchangeably with "you'r" in slangy english(even the famous tech brunch
site) - my opinion.

