1. I’m glad I already subscribe to the Sunday Times.
2. Competitors like the Star Tribune are giddy — not because cheapo Times readers might drift their way, but the stiffer-than-predicted prices ($15 per four weeks for web + smartphone; $20 for web + tablet) will make their own pay systems look that much cheaper when/if they are rolled out.
3. I’m sure there are many Times readers among MinnPost’s audience, so here are your pricing tiers per year, using Minneapolis delivery rates:
$195: Web + smartphone
$260: Web + tablet
$385: Weekday print (includes web, smartphone, tablet, though only iPads and Android right now)
$390: Sunday print (includes web, smartphone, tablet)
$455: Web + smartphone + tablet (given the $385/$390 plans, the only way I’d do this is if I hated recycling)
$770: Seven-day print (includes web, smartphone, tablet)
For comparison purposes, the print Strib costs about $220 a year.
4. Basically, the Times will still allow free access to 20 web stories a month (though there are a few other ways to get around the Times’ meter; see the FAQ). Curious about how many you read now? Click here.
5. Will it work? Even given what I do for a living, I’d really wrestle with forking over another couple hundred bucks for a single site, even though I pay more in a month for my tricked-out cable subscription + family cellphone plan. I’d be really cheesed about having to pay separately for phone and tablet apps; the combined price feels usurous (plus I find the Times’ current iPad app underwhelming).
The Times’ meter might be a pretty leaky bucket; someone on Twitter is already scheming to create a feed of social-media in-links that will bypass charging. Others are saying the Times will lose more from this than they’ll gain. And of course, there are quality free sources still out there.
Still, I’m glad America’s pre-eminent newsgatherer is taking the risk; readers (as opposed to advertisers) are going to have to pay more for boots on the ground. The sooner we take the next step, the better we’ll figure out how the profession stays standing.
That’s steep. Though the Times is probably one of two U.S. newspapers that can pull it off. What concerns me is future readership. With such a high price it seems like the handful of regular young readers will either use the back door links or (more likely) just stop reading the website. If young readers lose whatever tentative media brand loyalty they still have now, what would draw them into subscriptions in the future?
The NYT is drinking its own Kool Aid. This will alienate those who thought the “Newspaper of Record” had some virtuous journalistic purpose and, worse, it never reach the minds of young readers who will shun it as “moneygrubbing as Rupert Murdoch.” Mark this day well: It is the sad end of the New York Times — and by their own greedy and foolish hand.
I was surprised it was so expensive. I do think the Times is one of the very few media outlets, who could do that with at least a chance of success. It should be interesting to see how it goes.
BTW, David: Our 7-day print subscription to the Strib is half as expensive as what you quoted. Unless you left out a detail that makes it so, you might want to call them and renegotiate.
As for Mr. Alexander: Did you have the same reaction when the Wall Street Journal put up its pay wall?
I feel like they would do better to charge $5 per month and get more volume. I’m solidly average in income and an avid reader of the Times, but I’ve decided I can’t pay what they are asking. I guess I’ll have to find my news elsewhere.
This is inevitable. You can’t increasingly give content away for free and make it up on volume. It was fine when there was a large overlap between print subscribers and online subscribers, but that’s less and less the case.
The StarTribune shouldn’t get too giddy. They may find many of their subscribers going to the Sunday NYTimes (print) to get online access and giving up the StarTrib on Sunday.
David,
I heard today that even if the NY Times gets 1% of it’s current online audience to buy, the paper will make $65 million dollars.
I will be among that 1%. The reasons, and the Times’ role in news gathering, are obvious to me.
The other 99% are well represented across social media in their criticism for a variety of reasons, valid and not.
But let’s remember just how few people need to pay for this, for it to be deemed an initial success….a success that the Times will grow upon…a success that other media will likely follow.
Ted
Their paywall rates are steep. That said, as a 7 day home subscriber I found that the Times is so not ready to handle digital subscriptions and linking home subscribers to the paywall. I tried to do that unsuccessfully yesterday. Wait times on the phone were in excess of 45 minutes. The email link was broken.
I called again this morning and got through to a call taker but it was like talking to a brick wall. My attempt to link my account yesterday failed account because it was already linked to an email account in 2004. That that is no longer a valid account made absolutely no difference to the call taker. She refused to change the email account associated with my Times subscription saying I had to use the 2004 account. That’s like telling me I have to own the car I owned in 2004 because I owned it in 2004.
After 20 minutes of getting no where I hung up. Wait times are now an hour or more. Maybe I’ll try again tomorrow. Or maybe I’ll just dump my home subscription.
A critical issue is lingering in the 5th point David raises — what is something worth? When something is free, you don’t have to make this determination. With the changes at the NYT, we are all now forced to put a dollar value on access. In making this determination, it might be worth pondering whether a “tricked out cable subscription + family cellphone service” is worth several hundred dollars a month?
Also, when determining the value of a subscription it might be worth comparing the “yearly” cost of the NYT packages to the “yearly” cost of other services.
This could backfire. It’s cheaper for me to drop my Sunday paper and switch to nothing but online access. If they’re going to limit my access anyways, and I decide I’m not that happy with the Times anymore, why not do that? In essence their providing an even cheaper alternative. I don’t know what they operating costs are but it looks anyone dropping the print edition could drop revenue 50% or more for every digital subscriber that drops the print edition. At which point it becomes a double bind, either raise the paywall price to make up for the loss, and risk losing customers, or drop the paywall and lure even more customers into the digital only option.
With its articles about the “hardships” of a new college graduate who could find “only” a job paying $37,000 a year or the trials of parents trying to get their child into an exclusive preschool, much of the New York Times seems out of touch with the concerns of average Americans. Its coverage is relentlessly Establishment and full of conventional wisdom.
However, I never miss Bob Herbert and Paul Krugman’s columns. Herbert has long been a lone voice advocating for the economic interests of the average person, and Krugman is beginning to catch on.
Let’s see, reading just them with a little science news thrown in should keep me within the 20-article limit.
I’ll take the Strib and MinnPost.
This is 2011. There is absolutely NO digital content that cannot be found for free online somewhere. NYTimes is making itself irrelevant for us younger readers.
@ Matt Steele: Exactly.
@ Pat Borzi: See above comment to Matt and take Matt’s comments to heart. In answer to your earlier question, the WSJ is irrelevant, too. Bloomberg is free. Bloomberg is better. And that’s just ONE source…
The funny thing is, the NYT will probably collect a lot of money from those who don’t fully understand what Matt Steele said. If, on the other hand, you truly cannot live without reading Krugman’s column and are willing to pay around a buck a day for it, they’re waiting for you to pony up. Go for it.
But understand that the rest of us will be just as informed as paid NYT subscribers through the use of intelligent aggregators, search engines and free content.
It wasn’t that long ago that the Youth of America determined that movies and music no longer have monetary value. And yet, people with the technical know-how to download free files still willingly pay for Netfix and eMusic subscriptions.
Why? Because the producers of that content still insist that it has value, and that taking it for free is paramount to theft. While that view is not universally accepted, enough people are willing to pay up that we still have more or less thriving music and film industries.
I can think of few things easier to get for free than a newspaper. An early morning walk around the block anywhere in the city could easily net free copies of the Star-Tribune and the New York Times. Why don’t people take advantage of that? Because it’s stealing. We’ve established a social contract that says even though the newspaper lays there in plain sight, it has value, and you shouldn’t take it if it isn’t yours (yes, I know it’s an imperfect metaphor because you’re stealing from your neighbor and not the newspaper. Just bear with me).
MinnPost makes its content available for free. But at the top of the page is a button that says “Donate” and “Member-supported news.” The message? The content here has value. You don’t have to pay for it, but you should, if you want it to continue.
That’s exactly the same thing the New York Times is doing. They’re sending a message that their content has value. You can easily continue getting it for free, but only if you’re one of those disengaged light readers, or a cheapskate. Those who pay won’t be spending their money for news, but for a clear conscience and a sense that they’re contributing to an institution that they value.
Some will stomp away in protest, and some will utilize any number of means to bypass the paywall. But a handful of people will pay, and they – along with the current print subscribers and advertisers – will continue to subsidize the newsgathering for everyone else (as for me, I’m thinking about reviving the Sunday print subscription).
The fact that the paywall is so permeable may not be its undoing, but the key to its success. Frankly, I hope it works.
And those of you who are so eager to see it fail, what’s your plan?
And since when is Bloomberg free? Sure, you can find *some* Bloomberg stories for free, but the best reporting is only available to subscribers who pay a *lot* of money for it. Their entire business model is based on paid content, and had been for years. It’s a also one of the few news organizations that’s adding staff right now.
The MAJORITY of Bloomberg is free. Go to bloomberg.com and click around a little. The only premium stuff seems to be, uh, columnists and analysis. And like the NYTs Krugman, if you think it’s worth paying for someone’s opinion, go for it.
The NEWS is free, just like it is almost everywhere. There’s too much competition. You would have to try really hard to NOT be informed for free. There are 20,000+ stories about the Libyan situation right now on Google News search.
However, if you think the NYT paid stories are somehow *better* news or *higher quality* news, uh, we probably shouldn’t go there; that’s a whole different discussion about inflated journalistic self-importance on Eighth Avenue.
(Sorry for saying “uh” twice in the above post. According to journalistic statute, that point-making clause may only be used once per post.)
Dave, I’m talking about the Bloomberg terminal feed and other specialty services. For instance, a subscription to the new Bloomberg Government service is $5,700 a year. That’s not a typo. Politico Pro is less than that, but still expensive.
Do you think those stories migrate onto Google News? Would people pay thousands per year for access if they did?
Some of the best energy coverage in the country comes from E&E Publishing (Greenwire, ClimateWire, etc). It’s another high-end subscription service, but some of their stories can be found for free – on the New York Times website.
The news is most assuredly *not* free. Those 20,000 articles on Libya are based on the work of a handful of reporters who are risking their lives to get the story. And that work is still paid for primarily by legacy business models that may not be around a decade from now.
And when that revenue goes away, what’s your plan? If you’ve got a way to pay the bills with online advertising alone, I know some publishers that will make you a very rich man.