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

[losangelian1]

Sorry, I don't pay for news. There's always a way to find articles without paying. Why not just have advertisements like everyone else? And let people pay if they want articles without ads?

[laurelaille]

you don't want to pay for news, but you all consume them, as a journalist if my newspaper doesn't for my expetnses, travel, reporting, there is just no news, but only commentary and opinions, based on no facts at all.
the day all newspapera go back to some sort of payment for the news, you might reconsider.
but the way you pay for bread, butter and even beer, but not for news, can you explain to me why do you expect this particular service and yes work to come for free.
AS for news being paid by ads only, its just a way to keep wanting for those very same companies who have push for consumerism leading us to the current crisis we are in dictating their will on newsmaking and newsgathering. your reasoning doesn[t work. it-s supercapitalism at its worst, i want people to work so i can read stuff, but i don't want to pay them, they can just expect those bad companies i sooo despise to pay for the news i want to read and that i can then criticise because they are corporate news, right?
By the way, are you paid for the job you do? maybe you should work for free? ever thought of that either?

[losangelian1]

I pay for Rolling Stone, Time, and Entertainment Weekly (job-related). If newspapers would update to a better magazine-like format, I'd consider buying. But having to read one story by going to 5 different pages is archaic, the giant format, the ink that rubs off on your fingers, no thanks.

If newspapers online want to charge for content, I'll wait and read articles after they are posted on blogs like this. That's just how it is. Your bosses will have to generate new ways of making money. I don't like ads either, but it's how revenue is generated... it is what it is.

Yes, I do get paid for my job. No, I would not work for free.

[cae]

Makes sense to me. I used to subscribe to TimesSelect and didn't mind and woould't mind paying again, esp. if it helps the paper, which I depend on to do investigative journalism and reporting. Go Times!

[Yves Papa]

I'm just not going to access them anymore.
And please do not link to them if they ask for passwords, etc.

[Elizabeth Jackson]

Newspapers cannot continue to give it away and maintain quality,even possibly existence. Online subscriptions are reasonable. Another form of revenue seems to be advertising for specific articles or units. If newspapers go by the way democracy may truly be threatened.

[writerforhire]

Why not just sell totally out?

The front page is being sold to advertisers; on-line access fees, low percentage kiosk sales, minimal new subscriptions - maybe something is missing from the Gray Lady.

Maybe she needs a new look, new hair color, a more modern contemporary outlook, maybe she needs to cover the Victim X scandal.

Scandal (and this one is a dozy) generates headlines, headlines generate Kiosk sales, Kiosk sales generate subscriptions.

Anyway, we know the NY Times will cover the scandal instead of covering the Scandal; we know that the Gray Lady will remain subdued, and kiosk sales will plummet . . .

[lwaldmann]

A huge mistake, how about hiring some net savy salesman to boost revenue. Making me pay for the New York Times, just drives me to the almost unlimited number of sites that are free. What do you think Keller, you some kind of fancy New York Restaurant still crapping on their most important customers and wondering why business is going down. Wake up, hire some web savy sales people, dump the jerks you have now, and get on with it. You have the most effective vehicle for Web Based ad sales in the World. Use it.

Lary Waldman

[parunach]

I do not read WSJ. If NYT charges access fees, I will abandon it. This is not the time that I will pay for anything. NYT is not that great that I will pay for it, I hope that they get it in their thick skull.

[tifaret]

the last time they tried that, i stopped reading nyt altogether. i must admit it was nice having so much extra free time....

[bluguy8]

THAT SHOULD DO IT...HOW ABOUT STARTING WITH GOOD CONTENT FIRST .

[OrganicGirl]

Can someone explain why there is so much objection to this by the people who hate the NYT anyway? If you don't like the paper, then why would you CARE if they charged for the on-line version? I read the on-line version daily and would be willing to pay a fee for access. There are only a few places I get my news from (NPR for one) and I think it is only right to contribute for a service that someone else is providing- especially when there is little to no advertising getting in the way. Why should everything be free?

[Doofus]

It's mostly that people who object to paying for the NYT are quite vocal
about it, those that aren't maybe not so much. If they work out a nominal
monthly charge, I'd have no objection. Been reading the NYT for many
years now, hardly ever paying for the privilege. I owe 'em.

(But they can certainly continue with the free read. No objections here.)

[pickwickianmom]

I'm finding it shocking how many people here say they don't read the newspaper. And by the newspaper, I mean the NYT. Their reasons seem to be that they don't like a particular columnist--left or right. There is so much more in the paper every day than the columnists. Plus, lots of the content from these types of sites originates at the Times.

I always think of huffpost readers as educated, smart people. This has really surprised me. I know this is probably coming off as arrogant or elitist, but I don't mean it that way. I just think reading the newspaper is part of being a citizen. Like voting. But then again, I'm older.

[hellifiknow]

BAD IDEA....something that newspapers are apparently leading the industry on...

[Melissa]

When they did this the last time, one of the columns you had to pay for was Maureen Dowd. Who would miss that?

[camper65]

THAT should do it........glug, glug, glug......

[Blackbirdsings]

Finally starting to hear this creep up again.

I think a fee similar to that of a yearly or monthly print subscription would be an ideal model for a price structure. As the print fades, they cut costs, you get more content, people continue to have jobs and everyone wins.

Its a very narrow view I know, but i often wonder about what my hometown paper might do as well as i read articles from it each and every day for the cost of $0. Kind of feel guilty every time they write and article about themselves losing money.

[jeffp26]

That will kill the traffic, and the advertisers will jump ship.

Good thinking by a bunch of clowns, the same ones who used Billions of dollars buying back stock over the last 5 years, instead of investing in new products.

New products, that is, like Huffpo!!! Brava Arianna, you out maneuvered the NY Times!!!!

[lcdrrek]

In the past I paid the subscription fee for the NYT, was happy when it went away. I would probably pay it once again. I religiously read Frank Rich, Mo Dowd, Nic Kristof, Susan Collins, and especially Paul Krugman. These newspapers are providing great service and somehow they need to pay their employees. I would like to see that they continue to provide this service and also keep the papers open and running.

[pickwickianmom]

I love Paul Krugman, even if he has been a little scattershot lately on economic plans.

[lvdragonlady]

Give it your best shot and then realize that NO ONE will read the NYT online or off.