
New York Times Considers $5 Monthly Web-Access Fee - aj
http://www.bloomberg.com/apps/news?pid=newsarchive&sid=a8GofbbtFf8w
======
ramidarigaz
I'm really sorry to say that, even though I really like the quality of NYT
articles, I won't pay nearly that much. Maybe $0.99/month, but I can't justify
the $5/month.

It's slightly sad though; all of their articles that are posted on HN are
quality material.

I hope they realize.

~~~
netsp
A $0.99/month is almost as much of a problem. Most times that I hit NYT it's
because of a link here or on a blog or someone emails it to me. That amounts
to probably 1-2 per week. That disappears with a paywall.

------
aj
Also considering that NYTimes is a major news contributor to Twitter, Techmeme
and our own HN, I wonder if this is implemented, what the impact will be!

~~~
chaosmachine
I can guess: No more links to NYTimes.

~~~
patio11
Let's be realistic. The NYTimes will still get plenty of links. The first
comment on all of them (heavily upvoted) will be "email:
bugmenot@mailinator.com password: bugmenot". The second comment will be "Why
do people keep posting links to the NYT? Paywalls sucksorz, yo."

And half of the people upvoting these two comments will think that their
startup will succeed on ad revenue where the NYT failed.

~~~
aj
I don't think so. IIRC, bugmenot does not allow paid subscription details to
be posted to it..

But I still agree that NYTimes will still receive a fair bit of links but also
believe it will decrease to some extent.

------
mojonixon
Maybe they should get rid of the adless login/register interstitial first
(read: stop bouncing readers before they serve an ad). I don't know if they
can make it with just ads, but with the way they're doing it they are doomed
to failure. A while back there was a post about how plentyoffish had ads on
nytimes.com. So plentyoffish is stickier/has higher cpms than nytimes?
Pathetic. A lot of their articles they don't even provide a comments section
(easy page view doubler). Their UI looks like it was designed by a 19th
century type-setter. I know they're trying not to stray from the brand, but
the brand is good writing, not ancient design.

------
quoderat
No way in the world I will pay for this. Nothing that special in the NYT to
me. They are already close to going out of business as is. This won't make it
any better.

~~~
quoderat
Ah, apparently no one bothered to check the actual facts before downvoting:

[http://www.editorandpublisher.com/eandp/news/article_display...](http://www.editorandpublisher.com/eandp/news/article_display.jsp?vnu_content_id=1003920658)

------
credo
I think that it is a good idea/experiment to start charging web-users for news
content (and I'm surprised that all six previous comments criticized the move)

As for Anderson's "Free" book mentioned in a previous comment, that book isn't
free and I suspect that Anderson won't make the content free for downloads.

Ultimately, we live in an age where people pay $4 for latte and iPhone users
pay money for cheap-to-develop, crude entertainment apps.

Sending reporters to Afghanisthan, covering the war in Iraq, tracking child
abuse in Congo or investigating political corruption in Washington is an
expensive proposition. So ...to the people who like the news/analysis, but
won't pay for it, please consider whether the NYT (or your other favorite
newspaper) is really worth less than the other things that you spend money on.

~~~
jlangenauer
Actually, you can read Anderson's book "Free" online at:

[http://www.scribd.com/doc/17135767/FREE-full-book-by-
Chris-A...](http://www.scribd.com/doc/17135767/FREE-full-book-by-Chris-
Anderson)

(He explicitly mentions in the book that he's giving it away for free, so this
is legit.)

~~~
mtd
Free seems to be a relative term. From Germany I get the following:

"Sorry, this content is geographically restricted Due to our agreements with
our publishing partners, the document you requested is only available to users
located in the United States."

~~~
credo
I tried this out (in the US). Downloads don't work, printing returns an error
"Printing has been disabled" and reading it with scribd is pretty
inconvenient. I guess the point is that you can read it for free if you're
willing to put up with a lot of inconvenience.

------
hvs
The problem with charging for news sites is less about how many of your
regular readers are willing to pay for the content and is more about how
people interact with your site. The majority of news articles on the web are
accessed through linking from other sites (Google, blogs, etc). If you put up
pay wall, you instantly lose most of that traffic.

WSJ works around this by giving access to people coming from outside links,
but I'm not sure how well that model works:

<http://machinist.salon.com/blog/2008/03/21/wsj/>

------
Adam503
Please do. Few will pay, and the NYT will make itself even less prestigious.

------
anigbrowl
I'm bored with the endless speculation. I wish they'd go ahead and actually
try it instead of sending up endless trial balloons. If it doesn't work they
can try something else after 3 months.

------
satyajit
Didn't they read/listen the "Free" book by 'Chris Anderson' (posted here on HN
few days back)? Who will pay to read the news? Who will pay to read the blogs?
I feel sorry for the news site and the business in general, but I am afraid
this strategy isn't going to work. Will be happy to be proven wrong! In fact
donation may work even better!

------
maurycy
C'mon, people. $5 is less than one visit to McDonalds.

And by subscribing with such little amount of money, you support the Internet
environment, by increasing number of people paying for digital goods.

------
gojomo
They tried something similar with TimesSelect and then pulled back; their
columnists were at a disadvantage in online conversations.

They should first try more aggressive interstitials -- or even a 12-24 hour
embargo of fresh news -- both of which only paid subscribers can skip. Then
they get the inlinks, and people in a race to link/comment are most likely to
pay.

(And the idea that they want print subscribers to pony up $2.50/month for
online access? Petty. You'd think they could throw it in for the
$300-$400/year print delivery costs!)

------
kalvin
I guess I'm in the minority here, but I read the NYT every day and I'd gladly
pay $5/month for it.

