Sign in with
Sign up | Sign in

NYT's Subscription Service Kicks in March 28

By - Source: New York Times | B 16 comments
Tags :

The New York Times has unveiled a new subscription service as part of an effort to generate more revenue from readers viewing digital content.

It's no secret that a lot of newspapers and print publications have struggled to make the change from print to digital media. Though they can run ads in print or digital editions, newspapers lose out on that daily, dollar-or-two payment that they had from each reader when print was the only way to access news. This week, the New York Times unveiled a subscription model for nytimes.com.

NYT announced its plans for a subscription service more than a year ago, but the company didn't provide much in the way of details for how it planned to go about it. In an article published yesterday afternoon, the newspaper revealed that starting March 28*, it would be allowing each visitor to view 20 articles a month for free, before putting up a pay wall. Users who wish to access more of nytimes.com will be offered a choice of three packages:

  • $15 every four weeks for access to the Web site and a mobile phone app (or $195 for a full year).
  • $20 for Web access and an Pad app ($260 a year).
  • $35 for an all-access plan ($455 a year).


Anyone already paying for home delivery of the physical issue of the New York Times will have free and unlimited access across all digital platforms except for e-readers like the Kindle and the Nook. Those subscribing to NYT’s The International Herald Tribune will also have free digital access.

The limit is intended to draw in subscription revenue from the most loyal readers while not driving away the casual visitors who make up the vast majority of the site’s traffic. Staying true to this approach, there are certain exceptions for the 20-article limit. For instance, those arriving on the NYT from Google, Facebook or Twitter will not see their 20-post limit impacted by that visit. However, those visiting from Google will have a five-article-a-day limit.

"[The move] will allow us to develop new sources of revenue to support the continuation of our journalistic mission and digital innovation, while maintaining our large and growing audience to support our robust advertising business," NYT quotes Arthur Sulzberger Jr., Chairman of the New York Times Company, as saying.

"And this system is our latest, and best, demonstration of where we believe the future of valued content — be it news, music, games or more — is going. The challenge now is to put a price on our work without walling ourselves off from the global network, to make sure we continue to engage with the widest possible audience," he said.

So, will you be paying for access to the New York Times or will you get your news from other, free sources once you hit the pay wall?

*March 28 is when this new scheme kicks in, but it's launching right away for Canadian readers as the Times has chosen Canada as the test market for discovering bugs and issues that need to be resolved before the big roll-out.

Discuss
Display all 16 comments.
This thread is closed for comments
  • -1 Hide
    deerhound , March 18, 2011 10:55 PM
    That will be the last time I read the NYT. I just can not see paying for unthinking Progressive propaganda. I have only read it to keep abreast of what those who wish to tear down the US have on their minds. I have read very few researched articles and mostly insane leftist drivel. Their reporting on the crises in Japan has been atrociously uninformed, especially in regard to the nuclear power plant disaster. Won't be a great loss to me!
  • 2 Hide
    davewolfgang , March 19, 2011 1:51 AM
    The spam here is actually more factual than anything that comes out of the NYT.
  • 1 Hide
    f-14 , March 19, 2011 2:06 AM
    no, but good for NYT.
    only 1 of their articles a month is relevant to me.
    that should speak volumes about their writing and marketing.
    davewolfgangThe spam here is actually more factual than anything that comes out of the NYT.

    Quote:
    Advertisements contain the only truths to be relied on in a newspaper.
    Thomas Jefferson
  • 0 Hide
    doggrell3000 , March 19, 2011 4:00 AM
    i have read the times for 40 years . but there is a limit to my devotion . i will miss the times because most other news sources and journals are so poorly written . but everybody has their hand out these days . i have to pay at&t just to get on line . now these reporters in new york want 200 or 300 bucks a year for information that is 90 % not even theirs to sell . utilities are going up . direct tv is going up . groceries are going up . rent , gasoline , everything is sky high . if the times really wanted to start making money again they would get rid of the overpriced office building they presently occupy in manhattan then move to a bronx warehouse . next fire half the fat cats - beginning with sulzberger - and can all the prima donna celebrity writers . the times and its employees think that just because they live and work around big shots in the city that they are somehow big shots too . they need to get a grip and lose their inflated self image . its only a newspaper . this absurd con game that the times is perpetrating on its national readership will backfire worse than the launch of new coke . i predict this once prestigious news organization will go belly up within 18 months . nobody is going to pay an online paper 300 dollars a year in the middle of a permanent economic downturn .
  • 2 Hide
    doggrell3000 , March 19, 2011 4:54 AM
    please tom - block these obnoxious spammers . we are trying to have a reasonable conversation here in the good old comments section but a scourge of greedy sunglasses salesmen have to invade our space and hawk t shirts and hoohies that nobody will possibly ever buy ... ( unless people are more gullible than i thought ) ..... really -- online advertising is getting more boorish every day .... don't these idiots realize that viewers intentionally avoid such annoying intrusions ?!!
  • 0 Hide
    Khimera2000 , March 19, 2011 6:39 AM
    seeing as i dont actually hit that limit even on a good day... I probably wount, but it looks like an intresting model. I hope it works out for them. Im willing to pay 15 bucks a month... If the content is what i like, but then again... there would have to be alot of good content.
  • 1 Hide
    WR2 , March 19, 2011 11:03 AM
    Buh bye NYT.
  • 2 Hide
    blppt , March 19, 2011 12:51 PM
    "I just can not see paying for unthinking Progressive propaganda. I have only read it to keep abreast of what those who wish to tear down the US have on their minds. I have read very few researched articles and mostly insane leftist drivel. Their reporting on the crises in Japan has been atrociously uninformed, especially in regard to the nuclear power plant disaster. "

    Yup, because foxnews.com didnt go for any sensationalist nuke headlines. Right.

    Here's breaking news: ALL major news outlets are biased. Not just a big leftist-only conspiracy.
  • 0 Hide
    freggo , March 19, 2011 2:49 PM
    $455 a year.... a prime example of Management being totally out of touch with the realities of life and the economy ! :-)
  • 1 Hide
    Parrdacc , March 19, 2011 3:57 PM
    No thanks, i little too pricey and I get enough news propaganda for free as it is.
  • 1 Hide
    otacon72 , March 19, 2011 5:35 PM
    If it was like $5 even $10 a month I might consider it but $455 a year? They are so out of touch with reality.
  • 0 Hide
    Anonymous , March 20, 2011 12:15 AM
    They must be desperate. In all likelihood this will probably lose them more money on advertising than gain via ridiculously high fees... especially for content you can get in other places for free.
  • 1 Hide
    Albyint , March 20, 2011 1:13 AM
    IMO Newspaper and normal medium is dieing in the wake of free information on the web. Its amazing what google can find that a newspaper cant. I just cant see these things being realavent in the coming years.
  • -1 Hide
    Anonymous , March 20, 2011 5:21 AM
    I read the online paper every day and think they have some of the best coverage of current events. The opinion section and the technology sections are also very good. I hope they can survive because they are one of the few creators of content, not just reposting content from other sources! That said, I do think that the subscription price is to high.
  • 0 Hide
    thrasher32 , March 21, 2011 2:35 PM
    I've been reading the Times online for the last 20 years. I think it's the best newspaper on th planet.

    That being said, I'm not going to subscribe to a print paper, and I am not going to pay for the privelege of accessing their website, even if their access prices weren't completely out of line - which they are.

    I predict the Times loses 90% of it's online readership. After that they either make the website free again or it's a slow decline and eventual bankruptcy. Or better yet, maybe Rupert Murdoch will buy them and take us one step closer to fascist totalitarianism.
  • 0 Hide
    thrasher32 , March 21, 2011 2:36 PM
    davewolfgangThe spam here is actually more factual than anything that comes out of the NYT.


    I think you meant Fox News. Have another drink.
Tom’s guide in the world
  • Germany
  • France
  • Italy
  • Ireland
  • UK
Follow Tom’s guide
Subscribe to our newsletter