For those of you who like to go online to the New York Times and read the daily headlines for free, your time is now limited. The NY times has announced that starting in 2011 it will start charging people to access their online news. An article that is actually from the NY times states:
Starting in early 2011, visitors to NYTimes.com will get a certain number of articles free every month before being asked to pay a flat fee for unlimited access. Subscribers to the newspaper’s print edition will receive full access to the site without extra charge.
I understand that we’ll at least get some access to the website before we have to start paying, but personally, I’m still kind of bummed about the decision. I like to use websites such as the New York Times to follow the news, specifically because there is no cost to access it. When the time comes for them to start charging a fee, they will lose me as a reader. Sure I’ll read as much as I can without paying, but I have no intentions of buying a subscription to their website. Reading this article has made me wonder how many readers, if any at all, they will lose if they start charging to use their website. As of right now the NY times is not releasing any details, such as how much the fee would be, but it’s most likely going to be enough for me to stop reading.
I suppose I do understand the reasoning though, newspapers are struggling with getting advertisers and as a result, they are losing money. The internet is just another way to try and make up for loss profit. The article states:
Any changes are sure to be closely watched by publishers and other purveyors of online content who scoffed at the notion of online charging until advertising began to plummet in 2007, battering visions of Internet businesses supported solely by ads. Few general-interest publications charge now, but many newspapers and magazines are studying whether to make the switch.
It’s also comforting to know that the newspapers and publishers themselves don’t want to do this, but are forced to solely to try and make money. I don’t blame them, but unfortunately they will most likely lose me as a reader. I’m interested in seeing if others feel the same as I do, or if perhaps I’m a minority. (A)
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
I definitely agree with you. The New York Times is my homepage! I don't want it to be blank. I'll never learn anything. I definitely don't have the money to buy any kind of subscription. My guess is that a lot of people like you and me are going to stop going to the site entirely, or at least much less frequently. That means that there will be significantly less site traffic. That means that advertising will most likely cost less. I have to wonder how much they stand to gain from this.
ReplyDeleteI agree with both of you that this is horse puckey. I check the New York Times site daily just to see what's going on in the world. Newspapers have already limited the days they deliver hard copies to homes, causing people to switch to the internet and now the newspapers are trying to make you pay. My guess is like Ethan's in that people will stop frequenting the site. A, E
ReplyDeleteI agree! I think that the demand for printed newspapers are decreasing exponentially, so it makes a lot of sense to start charging for internet viewing.
ReplyDeleteHowever, this changes the market for other newspapers. Because people now face a trade-off, and the substitute of other newspapers have a lower cost (free), they may be at a disadvantage. More people may start to read other newspapers online, which would then lose those print newspapers' business. I wonder if the other newspapers are considering charging online viewing.
T
I hate the idea of The New York Times charging for online access. I read the site daily and get nearly all of my news from it. I'm not sure that as a student I'd be able online access. However, I do understand why they are doing such a thing. Given that newspaper circulations are dropping drastically, charging for online content may be the only option for The New York Times to stay financially solvent. And given paying for content or not having The New York Times at all, I'd suck it up and pay.
ReplyDeleteI am one of the readers that they will lose once this new policy is instated. I find reading news articles online to be a quick and simple way to keep up with the current issues and stories without having to wait for them to be aired on television. Having read this blog however, I will find myself creating time in my busy schedule to turn on a tv instead, at least it will be free.
ReplyDeleteThis is a dumb decision by the NY Times... They will lose so many views to their website that they will lose ad revenue; website ads are viewed more frequently, so I imagine that they are more expensive, but how can the NY Times make that argument to charge more if practically everyone who uses the site regularly gets the print version as well? I don't get it.
ReplyDeleteMike, you bought a huge remote for your TV at the beginning of the year and now you can make use of it.
By doing this, the NYTimes is sure to cut out a great deal of its income from their website. As it is, they get views from thousands who trust them for a higher quality of news coverage, and this adds to ad revenue. But I have no doubt that the vast majority of these are not going to stick around if the price is any more than a token sum.
ReplyDeleteAnother popular source of free (advertisement-funded) content, Hulu, has been threatening to switch over to a pay system for some time now, but I significantly doubt that the average user will return if money is expected up front. Given the vast array of other methods to obtain media, the publishers of content need to think outside traditional pay schemes.
This article brings to mind a number of questions that have resulted from the coming of the Internet. If consumers can get media content for free (illegally but with little risk), what recourse do publishers have? They can attempt to increase the potential consequences of the behavior, but that will arouse much outrage among today's youth. They can lobby for an end to net neutrality and much more invasive monitoring of internet traffic, countering the free availability of their product. Or they can embrace the new medium and accept that non-digital media is set to go more and more obsolete as information storage and transmission improves in the future. (A, E)