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

[lamofo]

It must be hard for these newspapers and (magazine industry, record industry, nearing the film and commercial industry) to give away there product. I am an admitted sucker for something free, but this is now at the cost of so many jobs and excellent stories and photography. as much as I love the web, it's killing long standing industries. perhaps opening many many other doors in it's path as well. but I could see the largest paper of them all setting a small fee. at the LA Times they are talking about massively scaling back the local new coverage due to cuts. and this would take us into uninformed and scary times. there is a certain respect and trust with the Times as opposed to someone's blog about a story. we need the best journalists, editors, and photographers, giving us there scoops. my hope is that the advertising revenue covers it all.

[JohnnyKong]

If they're going to start charging an online subscription fee then they have to offer valuable and exclusive content that isn't already freely available anywhere else. The question is, will they offer that and will we buy it? Something for their marketing department to think about.

[crazylikeafox]

If they lose the neo-con columnists and reporters count me in. If not, I can live without the New York Times.

[alienufo]

well, Kristol is gone. Thats a start.

[LA2000]

I am as likely to start paying to read the NYT online as I am to start paying ABC to watch World News Tonight or Nightline. If you want me to pay a premium, remove the advertising. I am not going to subsidize the double dipping. I will just switch to another site.

[thenicerguy]

I just stopped reading the NYTimes for the period they charged. Simple as that. They opened the wall and I came back. That's their lesson. They have to figure out a way to make a buck off my presence but I won't pay an admission, no matter how much money I make.

[ocalasatpro]

I did exactly the same thing, and so did others. They think we forgot how well it worked.

We didn't.

WalMart, GM, Citi, and the rest. We're coming for you, too. Heck, I won't go into Home Depot anymore; no more Sprint/Nextel or NFL package, either. The list is growing--

[Mimi Lee]

I stopped too and it was hard because I love Frank Rich.

[camipco]

Ok, I'll hint at not reading the nyt online anymore. Fair?

[KansasWrangler]

As newspapers go the way of the rain forest, I can see that digital publications would have to start charging for use. However, I foresee a time when all of the news agencies are going to have form a cartel to publish a one-site newspaper that will satisfy the general population - you know sort of a site that culls out the bad stories and puts everything in one spot so we can all view it without having to troll the net... you know, something with Post in the name, maybe run by someone from the Huffington family... How about Huffington Post as a title...maybe I can get royalties?

[Igglesbee]

Are you seriously proposing a media monopoly?

A "one-site" that culls out "bad stories" ....... kinda like Faux News does now? Yikes. Who gets to cull?

Why not just start transplanting brains tonight?

[ReallyMe]

I thought many tv news sites did that already- they just use the AP. They don't even fix the AP's editing lapses! And every site has the exact same stories.

Dull.

My hometown newspaper charges a fortune for their newspaper on line. I wish there was a cheaper way to get new but, they are the only show in the area. And some of the stuff- I need to know.

[phil28]

I would pay up to a $100 a year for an on-line subscription. We need to support good journalism and reporting.

[Tom95134]

The old package was pretty good. If you subscribed to, at a minimum, the weekender package, you got online access as part of the package. If you wanted just online access it was about $15/mo (I think).

[pickwickianmom]

I guess if they start charging, I may start just getting weekended. That's a good idea.

I read an article that pointed out they could buy all their subscribers Kindles for the amount it takes them to print newspapers.

I love newspapers. I love print newspapers and real books. I guess that means I'm officially old.

[JustAHumanOnEarth]

Then no one will read the NYT online either. Come on into the 21st century please, the masses won't pay for online access....just a core group of loyalists.

[iblogleft]

Someone has to pay for real journalism. The Answer? Tax deductible donations for qualifying news organizations. I don't know how it would be done, but I think it would be a start.

[pickwickianmom]

That is a great idea. I read about a town where the single newspaper is in danger of going under. The local government was trying to think of a way to save it---otherwise there would be no town news. But they couldn't figure out how to do it in a way that it wouldn't lose it's integrity and independence from the govt.

[iblogleft]

I was an Internet Consultant for Gannet (USA Today and more than 100 others at the time) on contract about 12 years back. I had been consulting for about 3 years and had been in I.T. since.. well a long time.. :-)

Long story short, I worked 2 weeks of a 3 month contract, was paid in full and asked to leave.

They just did not have the capacity to accept the reality that paper would not be providing the advertising dollars they needed for the future. I was literally told by the Classified department that I had no idea what I was doing, and they argued with me over what page views meant for the next 20 minutes...

I get the last laugh, but now I cannot find investigative journalism to save my life. Not a great trade off.

[waltn]

I would pay for a subscription. I tried to find a way to pay for a subscription or to donate 'cause I love their investigative reporting... but I could only find out how to have the paper delivered to my doorstep.

They need to make it very easy and user friendly (not obnoxious) for readers to subscribe. And for God's sake don't make us use PayPal.

[jsomerville5]

I live in NYC and I stopped buying the print copy in 2005. I maybe look at the paper a couple of times a year online but that's it. Don't miss it at all. They're way too arrogant for me.