The New York Times To Charge For Online Content
We're not so sure if this is a good idea…
The New York Times is expected to begin charging for their online content this coming spring. It's likely that they will use a metered system, allowing viewers to read a certain number of article for free before paying.
The Times tried something similar before with TimesSelect, which charged readers to view columnists' content, but readership fell and they nixed the whole thing.
But they have to pay the bills somehow so they're going to give the paid model another try. New York Magazine writes of the switch:
"The decision to go paid is monumental for the Times, and culminates a yearlong debate that grew contentious, people close to the talks say. In favor of a paid model were Keller and managing editor Jill Abramson. Nisenholtz and former deputy managing editor Jon Landman, who was until recently in charge of nytimes.com, advocated for a free site."
It's not a bad plan if they keep the cost comparable to buying the actual paper because we have a feeling readership will continue to fall if the price is too high.
What do U think? Would U pay for the Times online?
[Image via AP Images.]
Did Your Grandma Make You That Dress?
Has Amy Winehouse Been Hitting The Jersey Shore?
We need to support our journalists.
DUMB!! TONS OF OTHER NEWS SITES AKA CNN.COM ARE FOR FREE!! NY TIMES AINT THAT SPECIAL. HUFFINGTON POST IS BETTER ANYWAY.
why pay for any news? theyr reporting the same events as anywhere else that does it for free.
They've been doing this for years get with the times. Most newspapers charge to view especially archived material.
Nope.
I wouldn't pay for any online content, anywhere, anyplace, anytime. That's what ads are for.
They're Doing it cause of the new Apple Tablet that is coming out, which is going to revolutionize digital publishing. All the Newspapers & Magazines are going to do it, its going to be reasonably priced and supplemented by ads for free content.
YES its a good idea!! how do you expect newspapers to pay journalists and their other overhead if we're getting news for free?? as a consumer, i dont like the idea of paying for the news, but as a journalism student, its kind of a no brainer. we all used to pay for the newspaper, so we'll get used to it
Rainbowpassions.com
Rainbow Passions is the alternative life style community where you can be yourself in your own private world. You can still use your other community memberships for your public life and use your rainbowpassions.com as the private side of your life. We welcome all who feel they are not of the normal stereo type our society expects us to be due to our fetishes and fantasies.
Go to Rainbowpassions.com to signup!!!
The first 5000 have a chance to win a 37 inch flat screen television, a play station game system, or an IPod touch!!!
The sexiest profile wins a free Platinum Membership for one year!!!!
Hell no, I won't pay for it. I pay too much for TV for nothing to be on. When does it end?
Of course. There's only one Gray Lady.
I'm a resident of LA and NYC who thinks this is just a bad !!!
Why can't they just sell more ad time?
I'm a journalism major and just took a class about this very thing. If newspapers don't do something, they're all going to start closing. It's surprising more don't charge for online content. I think this is great!
Damn them. Too bad for me. it's the best newspaper in the country. Aren't all their ads paying for it?
New York Times seems to think they're so intellectual and they support the higher class of people. By having the website for free, it allows the "lower class" to read it, without paying a cent. God forbid. Now they must stop it before all the 'low lives' get a chance to read such fantastic journalism…
Re: SWEETPIECE! – …well said.
YES I will pay for the NYT. If they do not start charging, the NYT will die a slow death. The Washington Post and LA Times and others should start charging for online use as well.
No more than I would pay for your words Perez, but nice try to sell you by appearing to be okay with this crap. The Illuminati are running scared.
Re: xcalibur – LMAO. The Huffington Post just reprints things that other journalists write. AKA they don't do any of the work. And CNN is completely different, because they have TV to support them. This is the way journalism is going, so people better get used to it!
It's so wise of The New York Times to charge MORE money for their paper and services.
It's exactly what the airlines and all the restaurants, fast food places have done, charge MORE for their seats and meals, during this man-made downturn. If it weren't so sad it would be funny.
No way, or will anybody else. Goodbye New York Times!
I agree, I rather pay for quality content in which case you wouldn't be allowed to copy and steal your stories fatty. about bloody time your plagiarism comes to an end.
I'm actually for this. When I'm finished with high school, I'm going straight to college and major in journalism. Journalists have to be paid somehow whether it's from advertisements or newspapers. In other words, it's necessary.
I know many people who work for the NYT– and this is a great idea. Hardcopy newspapers just are not selling anymore, everything is going to the internet. It has nothing to do with "higher class" people or "lower class" people- that is an ignorant thing to say (I'm sorry but it is). It all has to do with finding ways to make money to keep the newspaper open to keep the news coming to the public.
Selling hard copy news just isn't working anymore. It's putting the newspaper industry out of business.
If I'm going to pay to READ news, I'll just stick to a paper subscription and nix the website, but not pay for both. Besides, the journalists are ALREADY compensated by their respective news organizations via advertising support both online and in print, so I don't see what more loss there is by not additionally charging for reading the same news online. But yeah, NYT didn't succeed with this before, so … we'll see!
Uhm, a LOT of sites charge now. NBD
It's not true. NY Mag is just throwing together some old quotes to fill space and throwing gullible people like Perez into a tizzy. I have it from my peeps at the NYT that nothing is decided now any more than 2 years ago when they thought about changing their fee structure. Bogus "story".
I'll pay for it if I can see it in pdf form so it looks like the actual paper. People need to get paid for their work.
I get the NY Times delivered to my Inbox every morning, but I won't pay a dime for it. The only sections I like are the science section on Tuesday and the travel section on Saturday. I'll miss them, but not enough to pay to read them.
I wouldn't pay to read such a slanted view of news, when I can get gossip for free. I would pay for fox news, which actually tells the truth.
NO. nobody will pay, for real.
it's not that the Times isn't special, it's just that people already pay for internet and have to look at advertising.
it's very unusual to pay to look at a website that isn't FANTASTIC porn, lol
People won't pay to read the NY Times as long as they can get CNN or Fox or any other online newspaper for free. And if they can't get it for free…. they won't worry about getting news at all. They'll pay for ESPN and see what's important to the American People. Sport.
This is such a shame, I love reading THENEWYORKTIMES online. Frankly that is the only way I read it, I am in the younger frame of readers being 21 and I think this is an aweful idea. As it is, when reading or viewing some articles if you would like to read more a screen will pop up asking you to create an account. I immediately return back to other articles I don't have to become a member and pay for. I strongly believe students will not pay for this, keep it free, find more ads.
Re: tennisgirl123 – ROFL FOX news??? really. If you depend on Fox for "news" that is funny!!!