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

[Fraugher]

I dare you NYT.... folks would only barely considering paying for superior content on the Internet, and your no Jack Kennedy. Does anyone advising you actually use the Internet? Take the bullets out of the gun.

Make me even login to your site, and I am going elsewhere, no time for that...

[AlwaysFairDem]

I have left ages ago. No to mention the censorship if you post anything unfavorable to Israel in the Israeli Palestinian conflict. I hate NYTime online with passion. There are corrupt editors online if you ask me.

[dhfsfc]

The NYT is in trouble already. They don't even have their Sunday Magazine available outside of the city anymore. And yesterday, for the first time in at least 4 years, I bought a copy in New Jersey. $1.50????? For what?

No wonder they are dying!

[mexamerican]

they ought to have a three-tired system: free for readers of the news alone, twenty bucks a year for people to access the full paper (including oped pieces) and a "professional level" where subscribers can save pages and search the archives.

[liberal54]

I'll do what I did the last time they pulled this: I did without and didn't miss them.

[Horst]

New York Times is dying...this won't help.

[Kevbo68]

Yeah. Good luck with that whole increasing the price when people are spending less idea!

[alewis14151]

I'll pay to get nytimes.com ... and gladly

[dexxjones]

i actually dont mind paying. i was a subscriber to times-seleect. my issue comes with the spread of information. the columnists of the times helped begin to finally expose the bush badness and helped obama get elected. my frustration with times select came with great ideas not being shared, not the idea of paying for it. its a tough choice.

[Steve Nimmons]

Doesn't seem particularly sensible to me. I guess it could be a reaction to falling ad revenue, but looking at the competitive landscape they will stick out like a 'proverbial sore thumb'. Maybe a premium subscription rate for ad free browsing might be an option.

[kdublya]

It's already in effect. Goodbye NYT RSS feeds.

[sojtruth]

Ugh, do they not learn. Their columnists were silenced by Time Select - they were no longer part of the chatter. And quite frankly I stopped reading them, except for my Sunday paper (which is delivered) and the random one I pick up from the newsstand.

What they should do is publish longer pieces, in-depth studies, more like a magazine and then charge for that - if it were good, as in New York Review of Books quality - I'd pay. NYT look at the history - the LA Times lost several of its cultural critics (film and architecture) to you, because it charged for its cultural news and they felt they weren't being heard. In the internet age venues have to figure out how to make money on information that has dropped in value. They also have to figure out how to balance access with publicity. Walling off can also amount to shutting up - not what you want with news.

[wilray]

Didn't work the first time. So they think they should give ir another shot. It's not like they don't get money from advertising. When they reduce their base, the less they can charge advertisers. When they charge for access, they reduce their base.

[TN60]

After that hit piece on Dascle yesterday, I'm certainly not going to pay to read their TRIPE. I will find Dowd and Frank Rich elsewhere.

They may have just screwed the American people out of the best hope of getting Health care passed, finally, with that hit piece. It backed Obama in a corner and the rest is history.

To get Health care passed, I don't care if an ax murderer heads up HHS. The hypocritial Washington insiders and MSM, as always, are blind to what this man could have brought to the table not withstanding his 30 years of public service. Ethics? you say? Does anyone believe that any politicians are lily white with clean and pure hands.?

This was the first salvo of the corporate MEDIA and the powerful INSURANCE LOBBYIST and REPUBLICANS(who have suddenly discovered fiscal responsibity) after years of giving BushCo. everything he wanted. We are seeing what havoc he and they reaped. This is only the beginning and ...

DON'T HOLD YOUR BREATH waiting for Health Care Reform !!

Thanks NYTimes....I hope you go under.....

[bikerdude]

Thanks. You hit on the central problem of getting health care reform. I'm not sure that Daschle was the best person to lead that effort, but whoever does it will have a vast lobbying effort and these well-funded industries to fight as well.
I want universal, single-payer health care.

[prognosis]

I share your frustration with health care reform, but I seriously doubt that Daschle would have been the answer. Daschle was an early and active member of the groups you cite as guilty of "years of giving BushCo. everything he wanted." While I don't expect any politician to be lily white ethically, Daschle has spent considerable time grubbing at the bottom of the trough with the most criminal of pigs. I certainly hope Obama can find a better man than that for such an important task.

[TN60]

Daschle was well respected and loved in the Senate. As speaker, he knew how to get legislation passed and had studied Health Care for years and had written on the subject. He was going to work with ailing Sen. Kennedy to get it passed. The two of them would have been hard to beat.

He may have sidled up to the trough for a few years, but name me one of the "vestal virgins" in both houses of Congress who haven't !!

And...no, I don't think there is a better person. I think that maybe Obama picked the wrong person to spend capital on with Giethner. I don't trust him !! I sure hope I'm wrong, because I love Mr. O. He is going to have to tell the Republicans to go to H@ll.

[ramper]

Cross them off the list if they do it.

[arvay]

I support the NY Times!

I buy the Sunday edition, which is great kindling for my wood stove. Therefore, I'm not paying fpr online content.

[Horst]

That's the spirit...the Times has really gone down hill.....most of it Style-section garbage, the rest Leftist agitprop.