
N.Y. Times Scales Back Free Articles to Get More Subscribers - artsandsci
https://www.bloomberg.com/news/articles/2017-12-01/n-y-times-scales-back-free-articles-to-get-readers-to-subscribe
======
concam
We desperately need the continued work of serious investigative journalism
outfits. Even the existence of organizations able (willing?) to report fact-
checked stories held to a high editorial standard seems tenuous. These
businesses are not a public service but in my estimation all Americans benefit
from an independent fourth estate.

If you read NYT articles with any regularity I strongly urge you to subscribe.
For me the cost of a digital subscription is trivial relative to the value I
get from it.

~~~
noncoml
Subscriptions is not the solution. It's an old model that doesn't work
anymore.

What we need is micropayments.

~~~
chomp
Micropayments have failed constantly since the .com bubble days.

The whole thing with micropayments is that the content creator is hoping that
the cost to purchase the article is going to be low enough to where the user
isn't going to notice the money.

But they will notice. You're forcing a person to read a headline (and maybe a
half paragraph intro) and then deciding if it's actually worth buying the
article. That's a decision that the average person is not going to put up
with.

The best solution is to support publications that produce consistent and high
quality content. The best model for this (that we know of) is recurring
payment.

------
rblatz
So I've been debating subscribing to the NYT, but the sheer number of options
has delayed me from doing it. My wife and I both love crosswords and would
love to get access to the crosswords, and I'd like to get a subscription to
support journalism. Last time I looked it wasn't really clear to me which
subscription(s) I should get so I delayed the choice.

Now I find myself actively avoiding most NYT links because I want to "save
them" for the stories I'm really interested in which means in general I almost
never click on a NYT link anymore. So now I'm wondering if I should even
bother subscribing. This seems like it will make me even less likely to
subscribe, especially since I don't want to reward this business tactic.

~~~
nrhk
In my opinion, journalistic integrity is more important than ever and I'll
gladly pay for quality instead of being swamped with clickbait.

I don't want my journalist to be beholden to advertisers instead of trying to
provide the most truthful, unbiased facts to their readers.

~~~
cwg999
Unfortunately they will be beholden to their owners and the bias of their
editors, but I agree that is better than clickbait at any rate.

------
matrix
I'll subscribe to the NYT again when they stop requiring you to phone them to
unsubscribe.

I was a previous subscriber, and when I wanted to unsubscribe, I discovered
there was no way to do it online. This is, of course, an intentional move to
make it hard to unsubscribe.

My advice to the NYT: learn from Netflix.

~~~
ambirex
Don't subscribe from their website, but from their app. You can cancel on your
phone without having to call them.

~~~
DrScump
Why install any app from an untrustworthy entity in the first place?

------
tetrazine
This move seems to betray a lack of nuance in understanding of readers by the
NYT. To be clear, I find the idea of paying for journalism and news media, in
combination with or instead of ad support, to be compelling and important.
However, I think it is also important to recognize the pragmatic value of the
decision to offer free content, when this is the norm on the internet.

The NYT has lost a great deal of trust from it's readers in recent years,
including those of various political and social leanings. Many opposed to the
growth of populist, right-wing movements in the US (and to a degree abroad)
see the NYT as emblematic of a news media more interested in humanistically
profiling far-right extremists, including self-avowed white nationalists, than
in highlighting their evils. They also find the NYT to be a major nexus of
sensationalist coverage of the Trump presidential campaign and administration,
distracting from balanced and substantial coverage of the race in favor of an
obsession with email scandals and essentially unimportant (but amusing or
provocative) actions by Trump and his entourage. On the other side of the
American political divide, many have found the 'failing' NYT to be
unrepresentative of their experiences as Americans, and have begun to dismiss
it's coverage as partisan and often distorted. The paper's attempts to
introduce balanced coverage, especially in the editorial pages, has been met
with vitriol from both liberals and conservatives. Outside of partisan
politics, coverage of issues like the Las Vegas massacre have been criticized
by many as sensationalizing the attack and encouraging copycats, including by
academics. When the most venerated news institution in the United States
cannot heed what is increasingly accepted in academia and abroad as
responsible reporting procedures for mass attacks, it is concerning.

Journalism need not be free to consumers, and I personally believe it would be
better off as a directly subscribed medium with little to no ad support. But
this does not seem an appropriate or strategic time for a newspaper that
desperately needs to rebuild its trust with readers (especially with young
millennials) to ask for more subscription dollars. I have heard of many people
who have cancelled or allowed to lapse subscriptions to the NYT (subscriptions
I was surprised to learn they had) over the issues I've mentioned.
Subscription volume may be up, but I suspect deeper trends in subscriber and
nonsubscriber perceptions are at work and this change will damage the NYT in
the long run. Of course, this is a fragile time for news media, especially
print, and it is not surprising to see a paper opting for short-term earnings.

~~~
forapurpose
> The NYT has lost a great deal of trust from it's readers in recent years

We need some evidence of the level of trust and its change over time. I've
read such things about the NY Times since I first learned of its existence. It
seems to be the nature of journalism, telling people uncomfortable,
undesirable things about red-hot issues.

~~~
mancerayder
Now this isn't specific to the NYT, but the NYT has absolutely been guilty of
sensationalism: [https://medium.com/the-mission/the-enemy-in-our-
feeds-e86511...](https://medium.com/the-mission/the-enemy-in-our-
feeds-e86511488de)

That's different than uncomfortable challenging, comfort zones and so forth.
Here we see misleading headlines to drive traffic.

Next, I lean left and yet found the NYT obsessively copycatting Democratic
institutional thinking: supporting corrupt NY Mayors, relentlessly defending
lost Presidential candidates despite nefarious behaviors, and in years past as
Chomsky demonstrates, beating the drums of war in foreign policy. I found them
obsessing over race and gender divides, even if it meant eclipsing greater
threats. Transgender policy and statues, in. Redistribution of wealth to the
rich... too complicated to obsess over.

They've run negative coverage on people I admire, like Chomsky and Sanders,
because those buck the trends within a fractured Left.

Next, I live in NY and find their local coverage heavily biased with stories
of the idle rich. I'd love to send examples of this, but I'm pretty sure I
have one article left to read this month.

I pay for a 15 dollar a month, Kindle subscription to the Financial Times
because of the thoughtful, in-depth analysis, sometimes with multiple
viewpoints in different articles on one topic, and a FAR less American-centric
information resource. When it comes to politics, being culturally myopic is a
sin that the NYT is in my unhumble opinion guilty of.

~~~
forapurpose
I know about Chomsky's criticisms and those accusations. I'm not commenting on
their accuracy; I'm saying they are old news. The question is, do we have data
showing that the level of trust has changed recently, or even what that level
is?

------
jknoepfler
So, if you're a long time reader of the NY Times, clue me in to what sets it
apart as a valuable source of information. Respectfully, I don't currently
understand what others see in it as an information source.

Look at the front page right now:

 _Flynn pleads guilty_ (news, public record - the exception!)

 _Republicans say they 'll pass the tax plan in the Senate_ (probably a press
release or word from a PR office)

 _Rex Tillerson might be replaced by someone even worse than himself_
(probably a press release or word from a PR office, posturing)

 _A meta-regurgitation of sex harassment news_ (posturing)

 _Why North Korea 's missile is very scary_ (almost certainly a statement from
a public relations office in the SK government, in collaboration with the US
government, since it includes a statement about a phone call between the
respective heads of state)

 _A string of variety fluff blog posts_ (entertainment).

I care about quality journalism, but these articles are mostly
posturing/outrage-jockeying or fluff, and what news there is consists in
barfing up press releases or statements from public relations offices, spiced
up with a little expert vetting from whomever they could get on the phone. It
reads like a textbook dystopian "Manufacturing Consent" newspaper.

So, I don't know. I pay for a subscription to a few news outlets (a few of
whom are can be just as bad as the NYTimes, such as NPR), but I certainly
don't see a reason to pay a premium for name brand news that isn't any more
substantive than skimming AP reports off a news feed.

~~~
Chaebixi
An example:

[https://www.nytimes.com/2015/11/01/business/dealbook/arbitra...](https://www.nytimes.com/2015/11/01/business/dealbook/arbitration-
everywhere-stacking-the-deck-of-justice.html) (part of an in-depth series).

~~~
jknoepfler
Thanks, I'll give it a read! I think I'd had a bit of coffee when I wrote
that.

------
hateful
For me, if I open an article on the Internet and it has as little as a popup
asking me to subscribe to an e-mail, I close it and move on.

~~~
dawnerd
CNN has taken it to the extreme with a full page takeover when you try to
leave

------
cflewis
As always, Amazon is a big elephant in the room: [https://www.amazon.com/The-
Washington-Post-Digital-Access/dp...](https://www.amazon.com/The-Washington-
Post-Digital-Access/dp/B072MHQFJ1)

WaPo is $4 a month for the 50% of US households who have Amazon Prime. That's
about a quarter of the price of what NYT is asking for, with a quality and
political bent that's fairly similar. NYT can't compete until its on a much
closer pricing footing.

~~~
aezell
The NYT site and app are VASTLY superior to the Post's. I subscribe to both
and find that I turn to the NYT more often because the reading experience is
so much better.

------
Lendal
I'm happy to pay for good journalism, but I'm not paying separate
subscriptions to every decent newspaper.

If they had some sort of alliance with the Post and the Tribune, or something
like that it would be very cool. As it is, I recently signed up for the
Washington Post which means I now have to cancel the New York Times. :(

People have money to spend, but you need to offer them some better options
than the current model of paying separately for every news outlet.

------
g09980
> Scoops on the Trump administration’s scandals and sexual-harassment
> allegations in Hollywood have already contributed to a surge in Times
> subscriptions

Earlier today HN had the article about Japanese elderly, which was a sad and
wonderful read and I highly recommend it. I wish NYT had more of this long-
form, thoughtful "teach me something about life elsewhere" reporting, instead
of a "what crazy thing did Trump do today" tabloid-ism.

~~~
Lavery
If you haven't already, check out the New Yorker. It's a weekly magazine, so
obviously not quite the same, but what you're describing is their bread and
butter.

~~~
mark-r
New Yorker articles seem overly long for no good reason.

~~~
gnicholas
The articles have to be long enough to include at least one word with a
diaeresis.

~~~
mark-r
I didn't realize how serious you were - I was reading an article there today
and came across the word "reëxamine".

~~~
gnicholas
> _If you’re reading something and you encounter a diaeresis, chances are
> you’re reading The New Yorker._

[https://www.merriam-webster.com/words-at-play/mary-norris-
di...](https://www.merriam-webster.com/words-at-play/mary-norris-diaeresis)

------
aezell
One thing not to miss when you get a subscription to the NYT, Washington Post,
WSJ, or other large newspaper/magazine is the access to the archive of
articles.

If you like long-form, feature-style articles instead of current events news,
there is enough stuff in the NYT archives that you'd never be able to read it
all.

------
zjaffee
Note that a lot of public libraries and universities provide free one day
access to the NYTimes, and by using such passes you are supporting the company
as there are fees paid when users take advantage of these things.

------
AceJohnny2
At this point, I'm glad to get away from the abusive ad-supported model and
support sources of information I trust directly.

Information wants to be free, but it's not free to gather and vet.

------
pascalxus
I'd like to do my part and support good journalism and pay for my NYT articles
on a per article basis, say 5c-15c per article. They won't let me.

Strictly speaking as a consumer, Am I the only person who doesn't like
subscriptions? Do the subset of masses who are willing to pay for journalism
really prefer subscriptions over one time use payments? I guess i'm just
weird.

~~~
Chaebixi
> Strictly speaking as a consumer, Am I the only person who doesn't like
> subscriptions? Do the subset of masses who are willing to pay for journalism
> really prefer subscriptions over one time use payments? I guess i'm just
> weird.

I don't think Americans in general like metering. There's a lot of resistance
to data caps and cell phone plans are heading towards being "unlimited." The
thing that sucks about one time use payments is that you're either thinking
"do I really want to pay for this little action?" all the time or you don't
and get surprised by your bill.

Though I wouldn't mind paying $10/month for a subscription that included
unlimited access to one major news site and up to $5/month credit for metered
access to others. Unfortunately, the realities of competition will prevent
that.

------
cafard
I don't like this. I get the NYT and The Washington Post delivered. My wife
reads the NYT on-line quite a bit, I read it only occasionally on-line. With
10 articles per month, I'm fine not logging in. Now, I have to find out our
subscriber information.

------
lnrdgmz
The NY Times paywall has got to be one of the easiest paywalls to bypass. You
can either browse its site in private/incognito mode (or using Firefox Focus
on mobile), delete a cookie, or disable Javascript on their site (though this
isn't ideal when viewing some of their interactive pieces). I wonder if this
is a deliberate compromise to ensure that nobody is ever really locked out of
their content.

~~~
mark-r
Subject to change at any time of course. I used to enjoy the occasional
article from WSJ, now I just get annoyed when I see one of their headlines
because I know I can't read the article.

------
oh-kumudo
Good to see ad support media going away. The programmatic publishing model is
a failure on many fronts. As the online payment options sought in recent
years, back to subscription is a sensible choice and I will happily follow.

------
corvallis
I’m a subscriber, started at $14 a month, and now I pay about $7 a month after
calling to see if they’d let me latch on to a promo rate.

I don’t understand this hostility toward paywalls or paying for a
subscription. Just a generation ago, most households paid for newspaper
subscriptions, and even some magazines. I am happy to pay for the journalism
from what I consider to be a high quality news source. It makes me a better-
informed individual.

Many of the users of HN are attempting to monetize a service or product using
a subscription model. Yet you don’t want to support a newspaper doing the same
thing? Do you feel that the journalism should be free, or free to you? If so,
why do you feel that entitlement?

News sources such as WSJ, NYT, Economist provide education and value to
individuals and society, and people who earn enough to get a Starbucks on the
way to work and go to the gym on the way home (also a subscription model)
should not have this level of disdain for the idea of paying for content from
a reputable newspaper.

~~~
basseq

      Just a generation ago, most households paid for newspaper 
      subscriptions, and even some magazines.
    

I'm forming this hypothesis on the fly, but I wonder if people had a deep-
seeded notion that they were paying for the _delivery_ (the paper, ink, on
their doorstep) vs. the _content_. "I pay for you to bring the news to me"
where today, "I come to your forum to hear what's going on."

I'm also wondering if there needs to be more journalism as a public good—or a
nonprofit. Not tabloids or 24-hour-newscycle hysteria, but true investigative
reporting.

------
maxxxxx
All these subscriptions are starting to add up so I don't want more. I wonder
if they lowered their prices whether they could make up for it by more
subscribers. I guess they have run the numbers...

~~~
dralley
What we're really missing is an analog to the old "stick a quarter in the
machine, get a newspaper" model

Plenty of people would gladly pay a bit of money to get access to a day's news
when they want to, without a subscription. But it has to be easy, not "type in
all my credit card info to get one paper".

~~~
pmlamotte
Blendle is somewhat similar to what you're talking about, though it's pay per
article as opposed to per day.

[https://blendle.com/](https://blendle.com/)

[https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Blendle](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Blendle)

------
nasredin
I know most of you know this, but...

Deleting cookies will get you another 5 (used to be 10) "free" articles.

Also Guardian US, which is free just with nags and a terrible ADD design is a
mediocre alternative.

------
kkylin
An on-line only subscription is far less than the donation I give to my local
NPR affiliate each year. Well worth it.

------
SN76477
Is this how we keep the poor uninformed?

~~~
croon
No, that is done by buying up most local tv stations and airing propaganda.

------
RickJWag
I won't pay. I look often, mostly following headlines from 'Real Clear
Politics' (which has both left and right-leaning links).

NYT leans too far left for my tastes, I won't pay to support that. I'll read
free articles (to try to gain perspective from the other side) but no way will
I pay.

------
michaelmrose
So long, and thanks for all the fish.

------
dreamfactored
do any of these publishers have paywalls for specific premium articles rather
than x articles per week? presumably they could a/b and tweak more that way

~~~
Larrikin
I would love this feature. NYT does real investigative journalism and should
be paid for that, but it annoys me to no end when I'm browsing my news feed
and click a fluff article as a time waster and it's a WaPo or NYT article and
I see my counter for the month go up.

~~~
Chaebixi
> NYT does real investigative journalism and should be paid for that

The problem is that's the stuff I wish the most people had easy access to, or
order to build momentum to fix the problems. For instance, I post a link to
their series on binding arbitration every time that comes up somewhere. That's
a good example of something that doesn't sound bad until someone explains it
to you.

~~~
Larrikin
I'm fine with those being a limited number of articles per month. If its
something important that needs to be shared with people who don't follow the
news regularly, then it shouldn't matter if you can only view 5-10 articles a
month. If you're regularly following the news and are consuming all of their
most important pieces that will matter historically, then you should be paying
for it.

------
eighthnate
If there is anything more toxic than social media, it's traditional media. If
you value your mental health, uninstall facebook, end your subscription to
NYTimes/WaPo/news media, turn off foxnews and go do something else.

------
natural219
Why doesn't New York Times et al just go for the full donation model? Make the
articles free, put a bug Jimmy Wales-style banner at the top, probably rake in
more money. Are they still pretending like they're a prestigious institution
or something?

