A Brave Jump: NY Times to charge for use of their site
Rusty Blaker
Issue date: 2/3/10 Section: Opinion
Considered one of the pinnacles of Journalism with many respected journalists, some of whom are Pulitzer Prize winners, the New York Times is one of the few papers with an undeniable presence all across the United States. So if any large paper was ever going to try to charge for internet access, it actually doesn't come as too much of a surprise that such an influential paper would be the first. So starting in January of next year the Times will charge for its online content. Whether it is a bold new business venture for the Times or a mistake that will hurt their website remains to be seen.
As far as charges go, the plan the Times has is not a bad one. In the article they wrote, the plan they mention is one where everyone can visit the site for free at first. After someone has read a certain amount of articles, the exact amount hasn't been revealed yet, they will either have to subscribe to the website to read more articles or wait a month before they can read another article. People who subscribe to the paper, even just the Sunday edition, will not have to pay anything to access any articles.
The ideas they have spelled out so far are one of the best ways to go about charging for their online content, I think. It balances the access to give people a taste of the writing style of the Times while still holding off enough so if they are interested they can pay for more. It also allows those who have already paid for the paper to access it. The only problem arises with those who read the online part diligently but don't subscribe to the paper. While at least a decent amount of people will subscribe once the switch happens, there will also be a good amount of people who will stop reading the online content. Considering most of the Times' competition will probably not be charging for their content, it will likely lead to a surge in their online viewership once the Times starts charging.
That is why I think the Times' online subscription fee will fail. The idea itself isn't too bad, but with it being the only one among its competition to do so; it will end up losing viewers while its competition gains them. The cost of charging for the online content will just hurt them in the long run as its competitors get more popular through their free online content. If the subscription fee isn't a small one then that will end up hurting them even more. If it does poorly for at least a few months, that will discourage other papers from following suit.
While I can't personally fault the Times for wanting to charge for their online content, which might damage the amount of money they make off of their paper, it doesn't seem like an idea that will work on the internet, which is swarming with free information. It would be better for the Times to work on another way to make profit off of their online content than charging people for it. Otherwise, they will just end up harming themselves in the end.
As far as charges go, the plan the Times has is not a bad one. In the article they wrote, the plan they mention is one where everyone can visit the site for free at first. After someone has read a certain amount of articles, the exact amount hasn't been revealed yet, they will either have to subscribe to the website to read more articles or wait a month before they can read another article. People who subscribe to the paper, even just the Sunday edition, will not have to pay anything to access any articles.
The ideas they have spelled out so far are one of the best ways to go about charging for their online content, I think. It balances the access to give people a taste of the writing style of the Times while still holding off enough so if they are interested they can pay for more. It also allows those who have already paid for the paper to access it. The only problem arises with those who read the online part diligently but don't subscribe to the paper. While at least a decent amount of people will subscribe once the switch happens, there will also be a good amount of people who will stop reading the online content. Considering most of the Times' competition will probably not be charging for their content, it will likely lead to a surge in their online viewership once the Times starts charging.
That is why I think the Times' online subscription fee will fail. The idea itself isn't too bad, but with it being the only one among its competition to do so; it will end up losing viewers while its competition gains them. The cost of charging for the online content will just hurt them in the long run as its competitors get more popular through their free online content. If the subscription fee isn't a small one then that will end up hurting them even more. If it does poorly for at least a few months, that will discourage other papers from following suit.
While I can't personally fault the Times for wanting to charge for their online content, which might damage the amount of money they make off of their paper, it doesn't seem like an idea that will work on the internet, which is swarming with free information. It would be better for the Times to work on another way to make profit off of their online content than charging people for it. Otherwise, they will just end up harming themselves in the end.
Be the first to comment on this story