Comments on: Would You Pay $5 a Month for the New York Times?

By: Dale Dietrich

Dale Dietrich — Sat, 11 Jul 2009 16:29:07 +0000

Didn’t the NYT already go through this phase and come out the other side abandoning the pay model?

If micropayments ever became reality I’d pay 5 or 10 cents per article perhaps.

All I read regularly on the NYT is Tom Friedman’s tri-weekly column. It’s not worth $5 a month but am certainly happy I can get it again for free after a year or so with it hidden behind the NYT walled-garden.

…Dale

By: Mark A. O'Deady

Mark A. O'Deady — Fri, 10 Jul 2009 17:30:09 +0000

Jim — Naturally, there will always be FREE alternatives. That was true when the newspaper industry was flourishing. The problem here is a matter of how the industry pays reporters and editors to gather, write, and in the online world, post “All the News that’s Fit to Post”.

The traditional model is broken, but it doesn’t change the fact that most intelligent, educated citizens want accurate, timely news, opinion, etc. The NY Times is not the great newspaper it once was, but it is still better than most, and while they make mistakes from time to time, they are able to maintain a great reputation for accuracy and integrity because they admit to their mistakes (sometimes in 72pt type on the front page).

My greatest concern revolves around the fact that it cost big bucks to reliably gather, write and edit news and without the resources of the NY Times, Washington Post, etc. the Watergate break-in would have been a one-day story that was buried on page 23 of the local section… Watergate is, of course, a once-in-a-lifetime story, but there are dozens of important investigative stories in every town, village, and city that isn’t being covered because advertising and circulation revenues are plummeting. Who’s going to dig for those stories when they don’t “pan out” right away? Watergate began with what appeared to be an insignificant office break-in in 1972 and didn’t really blossom into a huge international story until late 1973 or early 1974. Nixon resigned as a direct result in August 1974!

By: Jim

Jim — Fri, 10 Jul 2009 16:53:29 +0000

The bottom line is that there will ALWAYS be places to go online for free news (from domestic or foreign sources). And as such, I will read the free news. Think about it. The reason online advertising doesn’t pay much is because the material it’s posted with is available in so many places. If all the main news outlets start to charge, the little guys (that don’t charge) will then get more viewers and thus more advertising dollars. This will solidify the success of free news – not eliminate it.

The old print news model is dead, but some thick-heads refuse to smell the coffee. Fine! Denial is not enough to save them from the fate of the dinosaurs – you’ll see…

By: Marc

Marc — Fri, 10 Jul 2009 12:13:23 +0000

dale I agree about going elsewhere. Charging for content is a bit like a no-smoking bars. Fine if all bars are no smoking, but while they’re a minority they people won’t go.

By: dale johnson

dale johnson — Fri, 10 Jul 2009 12:09:05 +0000

if you want to charge give us a better product that nobody else has. sadly the NYT rarely does that for me

By: Marc

Marc — Fri, 10 Jul 2009 10:58:27 +0000

As a Brit, obviously the answer is no (it’s a foreign paper, not that reliant to me) – but would I pay for one our of equivalent UK papers? Probably yes, but I’d rather pay on a “pay as you go” basis, per day. The site takes my credit card details, and then charges me a small fee for a days access. Say 40 pence or so.

A decent newspaper here is about 90p, which is about £20 a month (excluding weekends, they cost about £2) so $5 a month is pretty reasonable to me. I would object to being tied into it, as inevitably I would not visit the site every day.

By: Bold step as New York Times charges for content « No free lunch

Bold step as New York Times charges for content « No free lunch — Fri, 10 Jul 2009 09:03:34 +0000

[...] my kind of fight Bold step as New York Times charges for content July 10, 2009 Great news that the New York Times is to start charging for content. Somebody has to be the first to go, and [...]

By: BW

BW — Fri, 10 Jul 2009 04:48:36 +0000

They’d have to pay me to read the NYT these days — and far more than $5.

By: Lou Hoffman

Lou Hoffman — Fri, 10 Jul 2009 00:28:09 +0000

I put five bucks per month for the NYT in the same category as a $1.75 sandwich at Dakao’s, one of the country’s great bargains.

With that said, it’s tough if not impossible to ask people weaned on free stuff to pay for the same stuff.

By: Level1Alt

Level1Alt — Fri, 10 Jul 2009 00:26:11 +0000

Nope, i get all my news on ESPN =)