NY Times Editor Hints At Return Of Online Access Fees

NEW YORK - The editor of The New York Times has hinted that the newspaper might charge again for access to some of its online offerings, less than two years after abandoning fees to boost advertising revenue.

Executive Editor Bill Keller gave no specifics or timetable, and company officials characterized the internal discussions as general and ongoing.

In an online question-and-answer exchange with readers this week, Keller said that although advertising generates the bulk of online revenue, "a lively, deadly serious discussion continues within The Times about ways to get consumers to pay for what we make."

Possibility include charging for full-access subscriptions, developing a micro-payment model in which readers pay a few pennies each time they click on a page and selling news to be distributed on reading devices, as the Times already does with Amazon.com Inc.'s Kindle.

Keller said the Times already makes a modest amount of money from Kindle owners who download an electronic version of the newspaper and from subscribers to TimesReader software for displaying newspapers on computers.

"So some people are paying for The Times online," he said. "Just not enough of them. So far."

Newspaper publishers everywhere have been grappling with how to generate more revenue from their growing online audiences, because Internet advertising still sells for far less than a comparable print ad. In the fourth quarter, combined online advertising at the Times and sister newspapers like The Boston Globe dropped for the first time.

The Christian Science Monitor is developing a for-fee daily electronic newsletter, while U.S. News and World Report is reviving a weekly publication as a digital download for $24.95 a year. News Corp.'s The Wall Street Journal is one of the few that has successfully charged for online subscriptions, but it lags the Times' Web site in total audience.

The Times, the No. 1 newspaper Web site, still charges for access to crossword puzzles online and a few other features, but for the most part it has dropped fees for accessing its archives and selected op-ed columnists through a product called TimesSelect.

"TimesSelect generated something like $10 million a year, which was real money, but in the end the company calculated that we'd be better off taking down the wall and letting the flood of additional visitors to the Web site attract advertising dollars," Keller said. "The lesson of that experiment, however, was not that readers won't pay for content."

Comments

[butterflywings]

I would pay for online access to the NYT.

I have to admit that I've felt guilty going on every morning reading their opinion pages and having access to the entire paper without paying a dime. Every morning that I do go on there I click on all the ads that I see to try and help out a little.

I would prefer it if they offered up a situation where there is a different price for access to the entire paper as opposed to someone like me who only wants to read the Op eds.

For those of us who want this paper to be around 10 years from now it's time to step up. Nothing in life is free.

[CynthiaTypaldos]

Butterflywings -- I fully understand your desire to pay something for the NYTimes. But what about the HuffPost? You are here too...are you getting some value from this news site? And what about the other sites/blogs that you read/use?

My point is that it might not be "fair" to pay only for the NYTimes, but not for anything else that you actively use and value.

[voltage356]

Sorry not paying to strain my eyes by reading the NYT on the internet everyday.

[CynthiaTypaldos]

Doesn't it seem a bit crazy that there are 6 pages of comments HERE in HuffPost about an AP article about a column in the NYTimes. And that the original article is written by Bill Keller, the editor of the NYTimes and appears (of course) on the actual NYTimes website http://www.nytimes.com/2009/01/30/business/media/02askthetimes.html. But there are NO comments on the REAL article itself in the NYTimes! Comments are turned OFF there.

[pickwickianmom]

That's a great point. They don't allow much comment. I enjoy reading what people are thinking about an article. I wish they could make it a little more friendly. I've been reading their page before and leave it to go to huffpo to see what real people are saying.

[abbie47]

Criticism of the Times support for invading Iraq is fair, but I think it's still the best paper out there and I would be happy to pay to read it online. Somebody has to do the reporting, research and writing in order to produce the news articles Shoulldn't those folks make a living? It's vitally important to a democracy that we stay informed. There are plenty of people on the web, radio and tv that have opinions but no facts to back them up. Somebody has to help us stay rooted in reality!

[kdenton]

Dear New York Times:

I'm not paying for you online. I don't pay for the Wall Street Journal online and I won't pay for you or any other news (a) paper; (b) periodical; (c) magazine; (d) journal; or, (e) any other publication.
Sucks enough having to pay for cable televison just to watch football (I live in Colorado and the mountains interfere with television reception) and there is no way I'm paying for print news in the internet age.
I understand you have shareholders and that you consider this a business.
That being said, your obligation is to the American Public. Remember? "Freedom of the Press," et al.? And no offense, but didn't you (and most other American news organizations) already blow that by allowing the Bush Administration carte blanche to do whatever they wanted under the guise of "Revenge" (SOMEBODY HAS TO PAY FOR THE TWIN TOWERS!)? Only for people who live in New York and Washington, DC. The "geography of terrorism," I believe it's called.
I say you should remember your roots and your obligations. The majority of American news organizations were begun by -- and staffed by -- patriots -- to communicate the potlical news and local news of the day. They weren't as much interested in revenue as educating the public and influencing politicians of their day.
Keep it real.
Keep it honest.
Keep it free.
Besides, anything worth reading in the New York Times will be BLOGGED ON SOMEBODY ELSE'S WEBSITE FOR FREE ANYWAY! Like

[quentint]

The minute the New York Times starts charging for on-line content is when I stop reading it ! !

Not a wise choice for a newspaper. People want and expect free news, period.

[ebanks84]

You got that right.

[TallyLass]

Too many free sources of news that is much better than that rag. The BBC's online site has better news about america than our so called news agencies. Charge all you want, I wo't give ya one GD cent.

[VictorShaw]

Yeah, whatever. I can live with Rich, Dowd, Krugman, Kristof, and Herbert. The rest of the paper is a rag and we're cutting all non-essentials at home. The last thing I'm going to do is pay for more Judy Miller-type propoganda.

[Gunga-Din]

NYT is a mexican newspaper now.

[durant]

It comes down to basic math and competition: Will subscription fees produce more revenue than will be lost in readership and advertising revenues if such fees are imposed? Arguments about whether news coverage should or shouldn't be free are beside the point--especially since "ad-supported" isn't a synonym for "free" when the costs of publication and distribution are being paid by advertisers.

[baudrillard]

Well, I certainly won't be reading the "premium" pay-to-play articles.

Also, go go Adblock! Suck it, advertisers.

[LuckyLady6367]

The Grey Lady is becoming a bit of a bore, so no I won't pay.

[mediamarv]

And of course, we all are just dying to spend money to read info easily available elsewhere...

Pretty clever thinkers there at the Old Gray Lady....

[ViperVera]

Here's the deal I work in print publishing and the problem right now is two-fold. Not only are we hit by the recession and advertisers reluctance to maintain their ad budgets for the forseeable future, there has also been a move away from print ads to on-line advertising so that even if the economy rebounds we cannot expect that advertisers will return to print ads at the levels sustained prior to the downturn.

Unfortunately on-line ads have been grossly underpriced since day one and advertisers balk at paying higher rates.

What I see happening is a real reduction in print media outlets and I do not see how on-line will ever replace print in the larger ad capaigns. let alone the reduction in print media will have the majority of Americans, under-informed as it is, relying on blogs and Rush Linbaughs for their information.
Remember the Times still has vetting of their coverage and respected journalists. They are not "entertainers" like Linbaugh.

You have to pay these people and pay for that kind of coverage.

Those that wish to find chinks in this and are consistently critical of the NY Times , they are a lost cause and should go quietly off to redneck land.

I'm adddressing my comments to those that still regard intellectual curiosity as a virtue.

[Mikeeee]

"I'm adddressing my comments to those that still regard intellectual curiosity as a virtue."
That would be me and I've found it woefully lacking for more than 50 years. It's become non-existent since reagan, except as a tool for criticizing anyone who has had a vision that ran contrary the "business" agenda.
If anyone showed any intellectual curiosity at all about a new way of doing things, mostly they were subject to ridicule or attacked as people wearing tinfoil hats.

[BlueZoo]

I subscribe to the NYTimes weekend edition because I like to actually hold the print media in my hand when I read it, as well as the fact that the Atlanta Journal Constitution doesn't believe in printing international news or national news of importance. (The AJC is the most provincial newspaper from a major city that I've ever come across!) I will not subscribe to any on-line newspaper and will not pay to do so.

On a similar tack, what of these companies that charge to allow you to pay your bill on-line? It costs them virtually nothing and they get their money instantly but want you to pay them for the privilege! It's outrageous that this prevails in the 21st century!