A Month In, New York Times Paywall has 100K Subscribers

jprobitaille · on April 21, 2011

What I'd be very interested in knowing is how many people have decided to get print subscriptions because of the paywall.

Doesn't it seem like the digital offerings are priced so that readers who want to become subscribers will choose a comparatively cheap print subscription and get the digital access as well? The least expensive paper delivery option (Sunday only) is less expensive than the digital all access that gets thrown in for 'free' when you sub to the print.

Don't misunderstand, the Times is my paper - has been for 15 years now, but I'm deeply dissappointed that rather than find a way to embrace digital, they're using it to prop up their print rate card.

r00fus · on April 21, 2011

^This. The (main) goal of the NYT paywall was to push people back to print subscriptions.

guelo · on April 21, 2011

I was surprised how easy it was to circumvent by deleting the cookies. I'm a big news reader so I might have been tempted to pay but now I probably won't. I don't know if that makes me a scumbag but I'm ok with it.

reaganing · on April 21, 2011

I think it's important to note that the Times had an intro offer of only 99 cents for the first month.

Wonder how many will continue paying once they're charged $15 or $20.

trickjarrett · on April 22, 2011

Also of interest is how this number relates to the non-members. Is the 100k 1/10th, 1/100th, 1/1000th their unpaid readership?

tzs · on April 21, 2011

So, how has people's experience been with the pay wall?

I've clicked on plenty of links to NYT articles, and have yet to be asked to pay. If they are making enough money from it to support themselves, then it looks to me like they've achieved a good balance.

omnivore · on April 24, 2011

I got the email from Lincoln offering the free online subscription, so I haven't been affected by it. I was a subscriber back in the day of their original paywall before they discontinued it, so I'm sort of glad because I wouldn't pay right now if I hadn't gotten the free offer.

genystartup · on April 21, 2011

That subscription fee is rooftop level stuff, I know it's NY Times and all, but they need to slash that fee!

ugh · on April 21, 2011

If they are successful, they don't. I don't know where those 100k put them, that's certainly more than I expected.

tomjen3 · on April 21, 2011

Hmm well that was not what I would have guessed a few months ago to say the least.

But if you look at the article it does include a $0.99 promotional offer.

I wonder how many people paid that.