|
||
Bloomberg:
July 9 (Bloomberg) -- New York Times Co. said in a survey of print subscribers that it's considering a $5 monthly fee for access to its namesake newspaper's Web site.
Want to reply to a comment? Hint: Click "Reply" at the bottom of the comment; after being approved your comment will appear directly underneath the comment you replied to
Don't hold your breath.
if they can't make it on ad revenue, I say adios
Yes, I'd pay for it, just to cut down on all the paper that goes into land fills.
NYT...See ya. Bye Bye
I for one wouldn't pay. There are too many other free sights you can access. I figure ad revnue should be looked at.
No way. Buh Bye NYTimes.
The last time they tried a subscription model the NYT lost more in ad revenue than they gained in subscription fees. Why should it be any different now?
Nope, wouldn't do it. Plus they've got some balls to charge $6.00 (or will be soon) for the Sunday print edition!
Count me out! I read about 30 papers daily and am not about to start paying a couple of hundred a month. Google news is good enough.
Another luxury. Plenty of free news out there, I stopped buying print editions a year ago. A lot of material is just AP/Reuters rehash anyway. Even if all newspapers did this I could still get information for nothing so who cares.
I'm torn--I read the Times online every day, and $5 a month is really nothing (not when it can be easily offset in other ways). But there's a psychological aspect, as mentioned in the article, of being unwilling to pay for something that was once free. If other papers don't do it, then people will complain even more about the NYT's ego and self-regard than they do now.
The website really is terrific, though.
It's not worth 5 cents much less $5. The NYT is no longer the journalistic icon it once was. It's credibility is completely shot. First, they printed administration propaganda by Judith Miller. Then the editors claimed that there was nothing they could do -- Miller kept filing the reports. Here's a clue: DON'T PRINT SOMETHING IF YOU KNOW IT'S FALSE. Then they had the totally absurd column by Bill Kristol. These are just 2 examples. It's journalistic standards seem to be only slightly higher than that of the NY Post. If I want farce and made up news, then I'll watch The Daily Show or Colbert Report. They're better, more intelligent and give a clearer more informed view of the news than the Times. And you don't have to pay. Good riddance to bad rubbish.
I won't even sign up for a NYT account to read their news. In what possible scenario do they ever picture me paying 5$.
good luck NYT, Jason Jones will be reading your obituary next time.
Everybody just say no with your wallet, simple.
I think they have to make internet advertising pay the way.
Online-ers aren't going to pay $5.00 per month.
Evidently Huff Po knows how to do it.
For now..........
But Huffington Post does it mainly by taking from the NYT and other sources, which pay to produce content, for free.
High time. All these people saying "why should I pay five bucks a month" should stop to think that the print edition now costs two dollars A DAY. Six on Sundays. Without paying readers of the print edition, and the advertising that appears in it, the Times' website wouldn't last 24 hours. Paying readers have been subsidizing on-line readers for years. They keep raising the price and cutting the content, at the same time they give the content away on line, and frankly I've started to resent it.
Only thing is: instead of, or in addition to, a monthly fee, there needs to be a way to accommodate the occasional reader - the people who just want one article because they saw it mentioned somewhere. (And charging print subscribers for access is ridiculous. They're already doing more than their share. Give them a password for access to their site. A lot of European papers do that.)
|
||
Loading comments…
Posted: 07- 9-09 05:03 PM