I check their page from time to time, mainly to check in on how anachronistic and out-of-touch they are.
I believe in copyright and getting paid and all that. But I sure ain’t gonna be paying them for the privilege of viewing the 21st and subsequent article from their increasingly-irrelevant pages each month.
Would/will you?
I just reported my own post as I am not sure if this is the best forum. I’m indifferent.
[Modding] We’ll see how it does in IMHO. [/Modding]
As far as the idea and paying for it… I’d rather not. I’m not sure if I read enough to justify paying, so I’ll see what happens this month, I guess. I’m not surprised you’re uninterested. 
It may be a bad idea whose time has come. We all know newspapers are getting killed because there’s little motivation to pay for a subscription when you can read much or all of the content online for free and get it faster, which leads to newspapers cutting costs, which means the content isn’t as good, which makes people less inclined to pay for it, and the cycle continues.
Note that it’s still free as long as you read fewer than twenty articles per month. Articles that you read via “links from search, blogs and social media like Facebook and Twitter” won’t count against the twenty-article limit. Beyond that, the cost is $15 every four weeks (not every month) for access to the website and smartphone access, $20 every four weeks for access to the website and tablet access and $35 every four weeks for access via all three. I’m thinking about it, partly because I do want to support the paper.
Some people seem to think that all content should be freely available digitally, but it really does cost a lot of real money to have a staff of journalists, editors, researchers and so forth. A lot of the free websites simply link to or feed off of content provided by professional, paid journalists.
To be clear, those people are kind of twits and I hope I’m not a twit (at least for that reason). I definitely think that “information wants to be free” doesn’t mean content providers shouldn’t be able to have a chance to earn a living in the market.
I just don’t like the NYT content enough to pay for it. WSJ, while I don’t love their op-ed, strikes me as much better value for money and I’d pay up to a larger number than I’d be comfortable letting Rupert know . . . .
As I sit here, it is definitely the case that I would pay (a good bit too) for The Onion and a few blogs I read, long before I’d pay for the NYT.
Our local paper went to a pay-for-internet-content model this year. It’s a terrible paper, so I didn’t even consider it, but it turns out that if you link over from google news you can read the whole thing with no problems. It’s a handy loophole in the few cases where I want to see an editorial or something.
I’m fine with it. In fact, part of me is kind of happy to see them doing something like this - if a large publication like the NYTimes can get people used to paying for high-quality content, then maybe some of the smaller places can start charging something as well. With all the free, low-quality news out there, I’ve been a bit worried that real journalism was dying. Good writers and journalists deserve to make some money IMO.
I’ll probably subscribe at the $35/quarter level, as I read the Times on my iPhone, iPad, and computer. Given that my local small-town “newspaper”, which is barely more than a gossip rag, wants $48/quarter for only print access, the Times is a bargain.
Note that it’s not $35 per quarter, but every four weeks, or $8.75 per week. The introductory home delivery subscription price is actually less than that (and gives you digital access all three ways).
No, but I’m a bbc news site fan, because I think their coverage tends to be better. If/when the BBC go to a paid site (and they’ll have to, eventually), I’ll willingly pay up.
Anyone who regularly reads the nytimes site, though, should be paying up. The more money they get, the more of a chance that they’ll actually pay a real reporter as opposed to continuing to accept cheaper stuff from students and unpaid interns. Very often, you get what you pay for.
I have no problem if you don’t want to support the New York Times, and honestly, even if you do read an occasional article, you’ll probably never hit the twenty-article limit. I will though and fairly quickly.
Yup, you’re right, I read that wrong.
I’ll still go for it.
I’ve noticed a similar thing on the WSJ. Someone will link to an article and clicking on it will hit the pay wall, but it you type the title of the article into google it apparently will usually bypass it.
I will probably use the 20 articles to read Andy Revkin and David Pogue. Freakonomics already moved to it’s own website.
I’m of two minds on this.
On one hand, who wants to pay for something they used to get for free?
On the other hand, unlike the OP, I have a great deal of respect for the writers for the NYT. There have been quite a few occasions where they had the only really well-researched, well-written article on a certain topic of interest. They are one of the few newspapers that still has many foreign correspondents. I want them to survive and prosper, and I want to be able to continue to read them.
I’ll probably pay when I get my new iPad and drop the paper version I currently get Friday–Sunday.
I’ll pay for sure, but something doesn’t add up.
The regular rate for weekday delivery is $6.20 a week where I live, or $25 a month (roughly).
If I read it right, that includes the full access for the website, smartphone app and iPad.
Yet that is regularly $35 a month. So I’d save money by getting the home delivery and throwing the paper out?
Maybe it’s because I’m in the NY metro area, but that just seems bizarre. Am I missing something?
The BBC isn’t a commercial organisation.
My guess would be that advertisers pay a higher premium based on the number of print subscribers. If ad rates are based on the number of people who subscribe to the paper version, they’ll keep that price as low as possible.
On the other hand, if a large publication like the NY Times can’t get people used to paying for high-quality content, that proves no one can do it.
The New York Times has a right to propose any business model they want, they have no obligation to give away high-quality content. That doesn’t mean charging subscriptions is going to generate enough revenue to pay all those writers and journalists.
People have had access to unpaid content for decades. This is the business model that TV and radio were built on. Instead of complaining about the greedy bastard readers who won’t pay for content, complain about the greedy bastard advertisers who won’t pay for online advertising.
I often find the Times annoying, but not enough to consider canceling my paper subscription (daily plus Sundays). I’d find it difficult to scan through a bunch of articles on Sunday online without smearing jam and egg detritus all over the keyboard.
So there you go. Don’t pay.
Free enterprise in action.
Remember though that there are few “national” newspapers with quality reporting (in large part) like the N.Y. Times. They deserve support even if they’re sometimes a pain in the ass.
So are they a business or a charity case?
I actually think a not-for-profit user supported model, like NPR, might work.