New York Times Announces New Pay Wall

by Art Fag City on January 20, 2010 · 8 comments Events

POST BY PADDY JOHNSON

Rirkrit Tiravanija, Untitled (The Days of This Society is Numbered), 2009, acrylic and newspaper on linen, 88 1/4 x 72 1/8 inches, Gavin Brown Enterprises Frieze Fair.

The New York Times says we’ve got a year of free website use before they put it behind a pay wall. They should probably be doing this — it costs far more than they make in online advertising to run the paper so they need additional revenue — but I can’t say I’m without reservation. Pay walls have the positive effect of weeding out the garbage web traffic worth little in advertising dollars anyway, but a metered approach offering “users free access to a set number of articles per month and then charge users once they exceed that number” will almost inevitably alienate regular readers as well. Certainly if they want bloggers, Tweeters, and Facebook users to continue to link to their site, they’re going to have to create a system that all readers are willing to pay for and that competes with comparable free content. Almost no amount of pay wall customization will jump that hurdle.

There are some strategies worth discussing though, particularly given that The Times is taking a year to develop their program. For example, if we’re looking at the construction of a plan mimicking New York State’s EZ Pass tolls systems — one that charges users at the end of each month, as opposed to each time they land on selected content — I doubt it would have too much effect on what I read. My mobility on the web won’t be effected, and if as blogger Felix Salmon suggests, the bill comes through an accounts like iTunes or Amazon, we’ll simply have another charge on a pre-existing account. Like the EZ Pass, The Times might also charge users differently depending on use, occupation and location. For example, waving international IP charges altogether might be a good idea, given that New York-based news simply won’t be worth the cost for most of these users. David Carr suggests the rates could be also adjusted based on advertising revenues, which is undoubtedly one of the worst ideas I’ve seen tabled. What reader wants to be financially tied to the business concerns of a paper?

We’ll have a better picture of The Times pay wall as they develop and release details, but I’d like to make the following point clear, should anyone at the paper be listening: If I’m confronted with an obstructive, indiscriminate pay wall that charges me for small article stubs and blogs, I’ll be shopping somewhere else.

{ 8 comments }

Kate January 20, 2010 at 7:34 pm

Although every time someone says this, I cringe, many predict that even The Times’ print edition will eventually go the way of the dinosaur. I’m sure they’re trying to be preemptive and stave off this possibility.

Kate January 20, 2010 at 7:34 pm

Although every time someone says this, I cringe, many predict that even The Times’ print edition will eventually go the way of the dinosaur. I’m sure they’re trying to be preemptive and stave off this possibility.

Kate January 20, 2010 at 3:34 pm

Although every time someone says this, I cringe, many predict that even The Times’ print edition will eventually go the way of the dinosaur. I’m sure they’re trying to be preemptive and stave off this possibility.

Justin January 21, 2010 at 6:58 am

I remember seeing an article where they talked about their willingness to lose a certain amount of traffic if they can generate some kind of revenue. If they keep it cheap, I’d be game. I’d rather dish out a few $s than see them cut back on content or integrity.

Justin January 21, 2010 at 2:58 am

I remember seeing an article where they talked about their willingness to lose a certain amount of traffic if they can generate some kind of revenue. If they keep it cheap, I’d be game. I’d rather dish out a few $s than see them cut back on content or integrity.

Adam January 25, 2010 at 4:17 am

It seems like NYtimes is possibly entertaining the idea of going the completely digital way in the future. I’d be willing to say that all their current subscribers might shift over to that format if they kept the prices the same annually. Also if they cut back on advertising. I don’t want to see any pop ups or annoying things that deter me from the reading. I still think the NYtimes has one of the best webpages of the big newspapers. Their print design is fantastic as well and it would be sad to see it go. I do think its the right move though. My generation isn’t too big on physical media anymore…Very sad times indeed.

Adam January 25, 2010 at 4:17 am

It seems like NYtimes is possibly entertaining the idea of going the completely digital way in the future. I’d be willing to say that all their current subscribers might shift over to that format if they kept the prices the same annually. Also if they cut back on advertising. I don’t want to see any pop ups or annoying things that deter me from the reading. I still think the NYtimes has one of the best webpages of the big newspapers. Their print design is fantastic as well and it would be sad to see it go. I do think its the right move though. My generation isn’t too big on physical media anymore…Very sad times indeed.

Adam January 25, 2010 at 12:17 am

It seems like NYtimes is possibly entertaining the idea of going the completely digital way in the future. I’d be willing to say that all their current subscribers might shift over to that format if they kept the prices the same annually. Also if they cut back on advertising. I don’t want to see any pop ups or annoying things that deter me from the reading. I still think the NYtimes has one of the best webpages of the big newspapers. Their print design is fantastic as well and it would be sad to see it go. I do think its the right move though. My generation isn’t too big on physical media anymore…Very sad times indeed.

Comments on this entry are closed.

Previous post:

Next post: