Publishers have to do something to make up for the lost revenues in print advertising
Sam - 14 years ago
Do they fail that hard at figuring out how to make money off ads?
If you have the content, they will come. But not if you charge an entrance fee.
Batarang - 14 years ago
only if they realize the economies of scale and start getting into micropayments. $2/month for month-to-month subscription, $12/year, $10/year for 2-year subscription. perhaps 10 cents per article if you're not a subscriber.
wes - 14 years ago
Nope, won't pay unless the other great sites also charge. I use the news more as an entertainment rather than factual information upon which I can ruminate and form opinions which might lead to meaningful actions. I've been close enuf to situations that were seriously misreported by the time they made the news.
Why should we? There are lots of better and free on-line media.
Phillip - 14 years ago
People don't even pay for porn membership, because so much free stuff on the net. And adult site customers are the most loyal. Why would anybody pay for NY Times? Make your money the way other sites do. Bring traffic to your site and sell advertisement. NY Times doesn't have a reputation they used to have, they went to far left, and people on the left don't like to pay for anything.
No way. With the AP, Reuters, PBS and countless blogs all seemingly duplicating the same content, it makes no sense to me to pay for anything.
We have all known that print newspapers have been in trouble for quite a while now. This is their answer to the problem. I personally want no part of it. If print is dead, then I suppose print is dead. This isn't going to save it. In fact I think it will do quite the opposite. It will simply drive people from the site to other free sources. There is no doubt there are plenty of people who would pay for content but, those few will not be enough to support an entire organization like the Times.
If you just look at the poll results above, the number speak for themselves.
So often we answer these questions to the negative, but do quite the opposite. Such as clamoring for fuel efficient cars, but in life buying that huge SUV.
Marie - 14 years ago
There's so much duplication of content out there, it's unlikely that this business model will work. They'll lose a lot of their readership, forcing them to charge less for advtsertisements. My local newspaper often runs NYTimes articles, so I would probably only access it occasionally.
Tafadzwa - 14 years ago
Well the problem with the model ny times and other papers are trying to put into place is the fact that the information from their article will be available on another site for free so..... why pay for it?
I don`t value them enough to pay for an online content provided by them. Donations may be -but with that forces payments plans my forecast is that they will loose a significant amount of their customers
Lets see..... I would probably be willing to pay IF.... guaranteed NO pop up ads, no intrusive noisy ads, nothing that is being PUSHED at me to take my attention away from the content......
I willingly pay for my newspapers, because I have the choice to ignore the advertising.
If they want me to pay for their online service then they are contracting to provide me a service and the service I want is information WITHOUT advertising being pushed down my throat. If they are not prepared to provide this service then leave up their free access and I'll swallow the annoying advertising as part of the deal.
Steve Feger - 14 years ago
Agreed. I like things for free as much as the next guy. But at some point, if you want quality, you pay for it. I would pay for the New York Times in a moment.
The only reason that people say that they would not pay for content is because they have the opportunity not to. At some point, it costs money to have good content. The newspaper industry will continue to shakeout and the content available will gradually diminish. Then you'll have your choice of AP, Reuters, and the New York Times. I'll go with the NYTimes any day of the week.
Steve Lee - 14 years ago
I would pay to read NYTs in a heartbeat.
There are only three news media left in the english speaking world worth reading: The New York Times, the Wal Street Journal and the BBC (odd, huh, since they are a "broadcasting company"
William FS - 14 years ago
Is it not possible that this change is linked to the upcoming announcement of the Apple iSlate on the 27th??? NYT perhaps trying a new business model, hoping that the ebook/tablet pc enthousiasm will make the subscription model work...
Jim Castle - 14 years ago
The Times should charge for its web version, though I would agree with Roger Ach (above) that newspaper subscribers should get web content at no extra charge. It's my hope that the Times's move will be emulated. If so, it could prove a first step in establishing that news is worth money, in part because producing news costs money. At the same time, newspapers ought to work together to offer a reasonably priced broad-spectrum view of the news such as Google's, only better.
I would not pay for online access to any newspaper. Paying for content access through an e-reader/tablet is a toss up but I would be much more inclined to do so. If newspapers all begin to erect pay walls then consumers will simply flock (even more) to reputable blogs. I am a loyal Times reader but the arrogance of longstanding companies is typically their demise. Newspapers assume they are supreme above blogs (maybe at this point they still are) but as more and more blogs build credibility and have sustainable business models they will prevail if larger newspapers do not adapt.
Roger Ach - 14 years ago
I hope that the Times will not try to charge Print subscribers ! WSJ.com is free to print subscribers.
Roger Ach
Managing Member vADz Incorporated
Chicago West Pullman LLC www.CWPLLC.com
OurTown Media LLC www.OurTown.com
http://www.linkedin.com/in/rogerach
Publishers have to do something to make up for the lost revenues in print advertising
Do they fail that hard at figuring out how to make money off ads?
If you have the content, they will come. But not if you charge an entrance fee.
only if they realize the economies of scale and start getting into micropayments. $2/month for month-to-month subscription, $12/year, $10/year for 2-year subscription. perhaps 10 cents per article if you're not a subscriber.
Nope, won't pay unless the other great sites also charge. I use the news more as an entertainment rather than factual information upon which I can ruminate and form opinions which might lead to meaningful actions. I've been close enuf to situations that were seriously misreported by the time they made the news.
Why should we? There are lots of better and free on-line media.
People don't even pay for porn membership, because so much free stuff on the net. And adult site customers are the most loyal. Why would anybody pay for NY Times? Make your money the way other sites do. Bring traffic to your site and sell advertisement. NY Times doesn't have a reputation they used to have, they went to far left, and people on the left don't like to pay for anything.
No way. With the AP, Reuters, PBS and countless blogs all seemingly duplicating the same content, it makes no sense to me to pay for anything.
We have all known that print newspapers have been in trouble for quite a while now. This is their answer to the problem. I personally want no part of it. If print is dead, then I suppose print is dead. This isn't going to save it. In fact I think it will do quite the opposite. It will simply drive people from the site to other free sources. There is no doubt there are plenty of people who would pay for content but, those few will not be enough to support an entire organization like the Times.
If you just look at the poll results above, the number speak for themselves.
So often we answer these questions to the negative, but do quite the opposite. Such as clamoring for fuel efficient cars, but in life buying that huge SUV.
There's so much duplication of content out there, it's unlikely that this business model will work. They'll lose a lot of their readership, forcing them to charge less for advtsertisements. My local newspaper often runs NYTimes articles, so I would probably only access it occasionally.
Well the problem with the model ny times and other papers are trying to put into place is the fact that the information from their article will be available on another site for free so..... why pay for it?
I don`t value them enough to pay for an online content provided by them. Donations may be -but with that forces payments plans my forecast is that they will loose a significant amount of their customers
Lets see..... I would probably be willing to pay IF.... guaranteed NO pop up ads, no intrusive noisy ads, nothing that is being PUSHED at me to take my attention away from the content......
I willingly pay for my newspapers, because I have the choice to ignore the advertising.
If they want me to pay for their online service then they are contracting to provide me a service and the service I want is information WITHOUT advertising being pushed down my throat. If they are not prepared to provide this service then leave up their free access and I'll swallow the annoying advertising as part of the deal.
Agreed. I like things for free as much as the next guy. But at some point, if you want quality, you pay for it. I would pay for the New York Times in a moment.
The only reason that people say that they would not pay for content is because they have the opportunity not to. At some point, it costs money to have good content. The newspaper industry will continue to shakeout and the content available will gradually diminish. Then you'll have your choice of AP, Reuters, and the New York Times. I'll go with the NYTimes any day of the week.
I would pay to read NYTs in a heartbeat.
There are only three news media left in the english speaking world worth reading: The New York Times, the Wal Street Journal and the BBC (odd, huh, since they are a "broadcasting company"
Is it not possible that this change is linked to the upcoming announcement of the Apple iSlate on the 27th??? NYT perhaps trying a new business model, hoping that the ebook/tablet pc enthousiasm will make the subscription model work...
The Times should charge for its web version, though I would agree with Roger Ach (above) that newspaper subscribers should get web content at no extra charge. It's my hope that the Times's move will be emulated. If so, it could prove a first step in establishing that news is worth money, in part because producing news costs money. At the same time, newspapers ought to work together to offer a reasonably priced broad-spectrum view of the news such as Google's, only better.
I would not pay for online access to any newspaper. Paying for content access through an e-reader/tablet is a toss up but I would be much more inclined to do so. If newspapers all begin to erect pay walls then consumers will simply flock (even more) to reputable blogs. I am a loyal Times reader but the arrogance of longstanding companies is typically their demise. Newspapers assume they are supreme above blogs (maybe at this point they still are) but as more and more blogs build credibility and have sustainable business models they will prevail if larger newspapers do not adapt.
I hope that the Times will not try to charge Print subscribers ! WSJ.com is free to print subscribers.
Roger Ach
Managing Member vADz Incorporated
Chicago West Pullman LLC www.CWPLLC.com
OurTown Media LLC www.OurTown.com
http://www.linkedin.com/in/rogerach