NYT.com Announces Subscription Model for 2011
The New York Times has confirmed that it will move toward a paid subscription model in 2011.
Speculation over the last week suggested that the New York Times intended to charge visitors for access to the newspaper's website. The company today confirmed that it will charge readers but clarified that only 'frequent readers' would be charged.
Starting in early 2011, readers will get a certain number of articles free every month. Once they have exhausted their limit, they will be asked to pay a flat fee for unlimited access. The full details of the price model are not yet available and execs at the New York Times Company could not answer questions about the limit imposed on free articles or specify as to how much to "flat fee" would be. Subscribers to the newspaper’s print edition will receive full access to the site.
Do you think paid subscriptions are the way forward for the newspaper industry? Let us know in the comments below!
- One Third of 11-Year-Olds Have Cell Phones
- Science Project Causes Bomb Scare, Evacuation
- Korea: Virtual Currency Just As Good As Cash
- Rumor: WinMo 7 'Zune Phones' From HTC and LG
- 9-year-old IT Wiz Says PC Games a Waste of Time
- Maid Robot Cleans Your Clothes, Microwaves Food
- NASA Selling Atlantis, Endeavour 30% Off Deal
- VIDEO: Google's Tiny Ninjas Unbox a Nexus One
- Celluon evoMouse Pet Tracks Movement of Fingers
- 1 in 5 Women Have Dumped Partners Over Gaming
- Report: Apple and MSFT Team Up Against Google
- Microsoft Suing TiVo Over Patent Infringement
- Sega Launching Genesis Emulator for iPhone
- White House Lands App on iPhone, iPod Touch
- McAfee Launches China Hack Detection Tool
- Man Arrested for Airport 'Bomb Threat' Tweet
- HP Planning Mainstream 3D Printers
- Halo: Reach Screenshots Hit the Internet
- Nintendo DS R4 Importer Sentenced to Prison
Funny, there are plenty of other news outlets on the internet that don't charge fees... As usual, the newspaper industry is out of touch.
Really?!? It's out-of-touch to expect people to pay for quality journalism? I think not (and I am NOT a journalist).
Good luck finding free "journalism" of the quality the NYT offers!
It's this kind of "clear thought" that resulted in Scott Brown taking the Senate seat in MA yesterday.
when will they ever learn that newspapers as a printable form are a novelty item now.
Yes and why not. I read almost all my news on line, and would gladly pay a reasonable fee to favored news sources. The newspapers have to be able to pay those that write and compose the news, printed or on-line. However, I certainly would not pay as much for an on-line subscription as I would for a printed version.
Okay, whose gonna pay and repost everything on a different website?
Maybe it should be sent through an ebonics translator to take out any copy right issues
http://www.writtenhumor.com/ebonics.html
Whose gonna pay and repost it for free?
Ugh delay sorry ^
Thought it didnt send. Everyone -20 on the bottom 2 posts of mine
Funny, those won't probably stay free for long.
The New York Times absolutely needs to charge fees in order to survive. We the readers need to pay fees in order to have quality news coverage. After all, they watch over our politicians. I would rather pay for that oversight, rather than inherently trust the politicians.
Problem being the same corporate swine who own our politicians also own the big media companies...
The New York Times expects people to pay for "news" they reprint from FaceBook, Twitter, and (as a last resort)the AP? Yes, newspapers are dead. Why pay for one person's written account of an event when you can get thousands of first hand reports for free?
Make way for citizen journalism!
A piece that makes this more complicated was we didnt really pay for the newspaper - the advertisers did. Yes we paid a small amount and as that has gone up, people stopped getting the paper. $1/day? is just too much. So something has changed - either ad revenues have dropped or costs have escalated out of control and they want us to pay more for the paper.
I am a big fan of market economics and the internet help level the playing field. If the NYT is producing quality content, we will pay (a fair price). If they are regurgitating others work, then they are ultimately doomed.
ATTN: Main Stream Media. Pay for Subscriptions online.....L-O-L it's not going to happen buddy, you aren't ever going to see those dominate profit margins you once had ever again. Get used to it.
It will be the way most internet content is going to be in a few years. I like free, but it's understandable that NYT employees still want to be paid (like I do for my work). Of course you can stretch the advertisement horse, but in grim times like these it's probably nothing to rely on.
Its weird that a site like NYT.com, can't generate enough money from ad revenue to make a healthy profit. According to ScreenFluent, the site generates about 15 million visits a day in unique visitors, and is worth roughly 13 million dollars, since its estimated that it makes about 67 thousand dollars a day. That's not exactly a killing, but seems like a pretty profitable business. I wonder how much extra they think they can gauge from repeat customers with their subscription model... and, somehow I don't really believe any of that money will end up in the journalists hands. But, of course, I'm a cynic.
If anything, the large viewer base of Fox News proves to us many people simply aren't interested in quality journalism as they once were so it's difficult to ask users to open their wallet for it. Still, this is the direction many papers are going rather than trying to better monetize their traffic.
I wouldn't let someone pay me to read that liberal wrag or site! Lefty communists!
Really?!? It's out-of-touch to expect people to pay for quality journalism? I think not (and I am NOT a journalist). Good luck finding free "journalism" of the quality the NYT offers!It's this kind of "clear thought" that resulted in Scott Brown taking the Senate seat in MA yesterday.
You seriously work for NYT don't you?
Fed up:
It's very easy finding free journalism "of the quality the NYT offers".
And let's ask the Amiraults about "clear thought".
The NYT previously went from a from free access to paid access then back to free access. When it went to paid access before, visits to the website dropped off the cliff. Sure there are plenty of people who would pay for access, but I bet the vast majority of casual users would just find news elsewhere. That be be their reason for allowing "limited use" free access. Only time while tell if their economic model will work, just as they found the previous economic model didn't work.