Nah.....not interested in an "online" newspaper......I like to grab the paper and sit in my easy chair or lay on the floor and spread the paper out and relax....I spend enough time in front of this stupid screen during the day, ruining my eyes......
Wont work. People will just republish anyways on sites...
hell yes. +10 for both tim and steve too.
About twenty or so years ago the NYT and the WSJ were fee based. The free stuff was pretty limited. I don't know when they stopped charging and maybe there are online subscriptions available for each even now. Getting online news isn't the same as drinking your morning coffee with the paper spread out on the table - but you can have it next to your computer without getting newsprint on your hands. Personally, I have a problem with thinking that everything should be free and I think the time is coming when there will be a fee for news and magazine subscriptions. BTW, cable and commercial news outlets simply cannot provide the coverage or the indepth reporting the papers do.
I stopped reading the Sunday edition when the content was cut and the price went up to $5.00. That's way too much to pay for a Sunday paper. I now get my news from cable. No, I will not subscribe to the Times online.
Of course I would pay. Great content, great writing, stories that have actually been fact-checked. There is no such thing as free. There is only freeloading, and the time for freeloading has to come to an end some time.
I wouldn't pay for the Times (at this point in my life) because I don't read it anyway. BUT, I *would* pay for an online news source *if* it has unique content that is high quality and writers that I want to read.
I would *not* pay more than $5/mo for any news subscription. The economics of online publishing are better than print publishing. I expect the price to reflect that.
Newspapers need to start charging for their content. We need professional journalists just as much as we need citizen journalism. But the demand for print publications will continue to fall. So, it's about time that the Times get serious about its online business model.
What GSW said. It depends if it keeps up with the reporting. If they plan to cut sections and create LESS content, then NO, I would NOT pay for something that used to be free, and then suddenly had less information provided.
If this will save the Times and permit it to continue at and over time increase the amount and quality of its work, I will pay. If this proposal involves shrinking the substance of the Times and loss of coverage and quality just to keep the brand alive in the post-print age, I'm not interested.
I'd rather have the Times and pay for it then not have it at all. Please, people, no paper really even comes close to it in quality.
i won't give ASII the satisfaction.
+1 for comments from Tim Brauhn and Steve Williams.
Social networking sites and Membership subscriptions are probably the hottest theme on the Internet right now. No wonder NYT is considering it. The value proposition needs to be right though. Pay-for-content alone may work for NYT to get money-for-value. But that's not necessarily how readers would take it... However, when linked to other online benefits it can become a real value-for-money, way better accepted. That's what we have experienced on our own website and with our paid membership software.
Two kinds of people will pay for the NY Times: those who appreciate great writing, and those who are unwilling to rely on web and Twitter rumormongering for news.
Since I'm willing to shell out $9 for the Sunday NY Times in Canada, I'd be happy to spend $5 a month for this important resource.
The days of free content on the internet are coming to an end, folks. No one is making money. Subscriptions are the only thing that will keep quality content providers going. Get used to the idea.
I don't read it now so wouldn't want to pay anything to read it online. While $5/year wouldn't be bad, the pricing interval wasn't specified (or I missed it). I also think that as long as other services are providing some form of news, the NYT probably won't get as many paying customers as they'd like and will probably lose more people than they keep.
At first I thought - NO! NO! OH NO! I would not pay for that! There are so many other sources out there!
And then I sat back and thought about how often I read the Times (a lot) and how top-notch and responsible the reporting is. If it means skipping one coffee EVERY YEAR, I think I'm prepared to make that sacrifice.