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

[TruEngineHearing]

Ok, if I get breakfast in bed, free tunes, and a 401b fund jump-up, sure, I'll pay a nickle or so - if also it'll keep the NYT editor from shilling for yesterday's bone-head ideas..

[hortonhearsawho2]

lol

[godzthor1]

Hey, NY Times! It only works if ALL media outlets switch to pay sites simultaneously. Otherwise, we'll just get our news and op-eds elsewhere. For free. And YES, we CAN live without Maureen Dowd, Frank Rich, et al.

[bikerdude]

Good point. We can live without Dowd, Rich, etal, but you nor they will live without us. If they are published anywhere, we will get their words, for free, if we want. Either way, the NYT will not generate revenue for their opinion. The NYT is no longer the paper of record. Keller, Sulzberger and the the rest of the "leaders" have made them suspect on almost every news item they speak about.

[alewis14151]

I have an idea. Why don't you disconnect your access to internet, eschew all news feeds, move to a shack in the country (Ted Kosinski's is available ... oh, no, it's not!) and become the hermit know-it-all?

There's no chance that in an economy like we enjoy every news outlet would transform from print to online, although it might happen over time, so get over it. You gets what you pays for in a capitalist society.

[WilliamGossett]

Stupid decision

Their OpEds and other commentators have a point of view to be heard. By making themselves elitist they drive down the accessibility of the messages their writers are trying to say, i.e., their views won't be heard as much. Conservative newspapers don't do that so their views are accessible to all.

Nothing like liberals to make themselves elitist and then mock the rest of the population with clever witticisms, but it is the conservatives who laugh on the way to the bank (in this sense, the ideological bank) as the elitist liberals isolate themselves out of existence.

C'mon - this is beyond stupid.

Stephen Garramone, Col (Ret), USAF
Melbourne, FL

[bikerdude]

Nothing like retired military hacks trying to position the "liberals" as elitist. You have NOTHING in common with the rest of the voters. You and your "conservative" cohorts have created an environment of failure that will take us decades to correct.

[pickwickianmom]

People seem to think that the NYT is only columnists. Either it's the liberal one or the conservative one that is upsetting them.

They have a remarkable page on health online; they have great science articles; they have stories about fashion, food, travel.

I think people who say they really, really hate it and that it is just about columnists simply do not read it.

[gypsie]

I stopped reading them because they wanted me to sign in each time I wanted to view an article. Now, with their new decision they are as good as dead.

[bnww]

It's also annoying when they want you to sign in to email an article. It seems as if they're doing "the Big Brother is watching" role. Ridiculous. I usually just cut and paste the URL and send the story that way. Why do they want to TRACK who sends what where??!!??

[whwiv]

every news site i've ever used the 'email this article' feature on wanted my address to complete the process. every last one. this is good, because the recipients have some idea who is sending them the links. nytimes lets me enter my email address one time, and then all i have to do is click the button, select the recipients from the list of people i've sent links to in the past, add any new recipients, and click send. very easy. for cryin' out loud, my password used to be 'nytimesonline' (i've changed that since i attached home delivery, i.e. personal info, to my account)

tracking the links sent by email provides them with a metric to gauge the popularity of articles, columnists, topics, etc. then they post the list of top articles, and i use that list to find articles outside my usual niche that interest me. also a good thing.

.... and for other sites that i don't want to have my email address or i fear their motivations in collecting my contact list , i use my browser's 'send link..' function, or i ctrl-c/ctrl-v the url like you said, no big deal. or register with slopsbox.

[alewis14151]

So, are you *paying for access? I believe not. Therefore, how can you criticize? The NYT is not and will not be "dead."

[ellwood]

I was a subscriber to TimesSelect and at the time felt it was worth it to have access to all their columnists plus the archives. But that was several years ago.. and quality online alternatives have become more abundant since then. For that reason, and factoring in the recession, I believe that if they reinstate the previous system they will not get close to the number of subscribers they had previously. Ultimately it will be a failed experiment.

[TruEngineHearing]

Hamsters running NYT -

Tone deaf to a fault. Now that we are all hunkering down and kissing off non-esseential spending, and since newspapers are losing circulation in general, this is the perfect moment to ask its readers to shell out money.

That kind of marketing genius must not go unnoticed... although if I were Mr. Keller I wouldn't put t on my resume.

[bikerdude]

Judging by his success at the NYT, Keller could do well to save the trees and not even write a resume. HE is part of their problem and hasn't a clue about the solution.

[NYCdowntown]

Ha!

They will looose every reader, NYT has lost credibility is run by a group with an "agenda" that is too clear and not liberal nor American... I read some of their articles online but I would not give them a penny to read such bad traitors like war mongers like Thomas friedman, yep the guy who writes books on the enviroment but has a house the size of a zoo!

what a bunch of JOKERS NYT

[mick7191]

No big deal. I only read Frank Rich.

[Suzique]

Not a chance. I enjoy the NYT but will not pay to read it online. That or any other paper. I just go into personal boycott attitude and additionally have nothing to do with the printed paper as well. I read online in addition to not as replacement for.

[JAB20]

I don't think they'll have many takers. For one thing, the NYT often does not allow comment on its stories. My observation is that the sites which get the most hits on the web are the ones which allow comments.

So many people may comment that no one reads your comment but you, but at least you think you've done something when you make a comment.

[ocalasatpro]

Well, it's been nice readin' ya NYT.... old pal. But I'll be leaving now.

[dillydawg]

Race ya to the door.

[1question]

TOP 15 REASONS...not to pay for NYT ever...!!!!!!!

01. Judith Miller
02. Spying On Americains in America Cover-Up
03. Judith Miller
04. Spying On Americains in America Cover-Up
05. Judith Miller
06. Spying On Americains in America Cover-Up
07. Judith Miller
08. Spying On Americains in America Cover-Up
09. Judith Miller
10. Spying On Americains in America Cover-Up
11. Judith Miller
12. Spying On Americains in America Cover-Up
13. Judith Miller
14. Spying On Americains in America Cover-Up
15. John McCain Endorsement

I have NOT forgotten nor forgiven...

[dillydawg]

One reason. It's not orth the print.

[NYCdowntown]

true!
but that is why the use US, so our kids go to war for israel...she did it bcs it is good for aipac and she is aipac, so she is a good soldier!

[OtayPanky]

Wjy does the WSJ make money from a subscription model? Because lots of their customers believe they're getting value for their dollar. They want a certain kind of news and editorial experience, and they think it's worth paying the WSJ to get it.

No doubt a lot of those subscriptions are paid for, not by individuals, but by businesses on behalf of employees for whom the WSJ might help them make smarter business decisions. And, I bet if the WSJ doubled its price tomorrow, they'd keep more than half their subscribers. (Of course, their value to advertisers would drop because of whatever loss in subscriptions they incurred).

A generalist newspaper, even one of the highest calibre like the Times or WaPo, just doesn't make such urgent claims on its readers. There are tons of sources of news and analysis out there, gotten for free on the net, updated in near real time. Blame Google if you must.

The Times thought that putting its bench of famous op-ed writers behind the wall would induce everyone to pay to read them. Instead they discovered that most people don't care all that much what Friedman, Modo, Rich and Brooks think. And we can watch them for free on cable anyway.

It's fascinating to watch the long, slow decline of both the networks and the MSM. Is something being lost in the destruction? Sure. Will something else emerge out of it all? It's emerging already.

[LittleGirl]

I'm not going to pay. Think about satellite radio and how that's faring now. Recession comes, people drop their subscriptions and then what do these companies do. They want revenues? Marketing think! Quit being so lazy.

[Oldbuck]

They have to find someone to pay to read that rag lots of luck I will not read it for free it needs to get a whole lot better. Just one humble opinion.