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
I only read the editorials (3 or4 daily) and an article or two about business, etc. If they started charging me $60 a year, I would just forget about the NYT, but at $30 a year, I might consider it. The problem is that most of the NYT is totally uninteresting to someone in TX. I don't care about the styles in NYC, most of the stuff y'all wear up there would cause heat stroke down here (its 105 today!). I might be interested in the food and health sections too, but I can't see paying as much for something online that I read very little of as I do for a weekly newsmagazine.
I don't care about the styles in NYC, most of the stuff y'all wear up there would cause heat stroke down here (its 105 today!). I
Feelings mutual, honey.
I have spent time in Texas, and I know that texastrixie is absolutely right. You have to wear different clothing in Texas, so why the sarcasm, FHTB?
don't care about the styles in NYC, most of the stuff y'all wear up there would cause heat stroke down here (its 105 today!).
Feelings mutual, honey...yo
The New York Times web site is one of the best news web sites around. If it ever decides to charge a fee, many people will go to other sites, but they will be hard pressed to find one that offers so much good reporting on such a wide range of topics.
The problem is that in the marketplace cheap but not so good may beat out excellence for a fee.
There is nothing worthwhile in The Times anymore...
After this admission?: http://www
I regularly read online articles from the New York Times, Washington Post, San Francisco Chronicle, International Herald Tribune, Hindu Times, Christian Science Monitor, USA Today, The Guardian, San Jose Mercury News, Wall Street Journal, Business Week, Fast Company, Popular Science, Popular Mechanics, PC World, U.S. News & World Report, L.A. Times, San Diego Union Tribune, The Times, The Financial Times and many other publications. My home page is Google News and I have bookmarks to the Huffington Post and the news pages of Ask.com and Bing.com. Should I pay $5 a month for all my favorite reads? Not gonna’ happen.
I do not have TV service and get all my news online. I like getting multiple points of view and perspectives on issues (if you want to know what's going on in the U.S., read/watch foreign news sources). Events in human history is generic, its not proprietary and I refuse top accept that the reporting of it, is.
I appreciate the predicament the NYT and most other old-media company’s find themselves in but find another way to make money. I and many other people like me, will never, ever, pay for Internet access AND news content.
Agreed...a
I'm considering charging them $10 a month just to read their liberal rag..
But if I don't get the print version, what will I wipe my a$$ with every morning?
I suggest using Limbaugh's face.
like you've ever bothered with hygiene so far...
I got no problem with that at all. Inexpensive and I like the paper.
Again, another money waster.
Once you start paying, it will continue to grow with no reason. I don't mind paying for a newspaper if they were in the business of being impartial and providing NEWS! and not Right Wing Propaganda!
Now I would pay $5 a month if the site had only the articles on the pages and not loaded with tons of advertising that slow down loading and have absolutely no interest to me, like some blog websites I know of.
And are they willing to offer rebates if the quality of what they offer is unacceptable?
Are you willing to pay more if it exceeds your expectations?
LOL...The Times exceeding expectations? Been quite awhile since that has been the case...the paper has cut so many corners, it's a joke...typ
I love the NY Times but if they charged $5 bucks for online subscription it will just force people to go back to buying the print version like I would do. That's $60.00 bucks a year but something tells me they would actually loose money if they start to offer online subscriptions. They should just raised the price of their print version hell everything else is going up?
They JUST DID raise the price of their print version. To a hell of a lot more than $60 a year. And those of us who pay it (or who did until the last price increase - frankly, that was the last straw) are subsidizing the people who are whining about $5 a month. If you want the Times, pay your fair share.
I'd do it if they'd get off their a**es and create a Mac friendly version.
But seriously, folks, this just might be a smart move.
I live in Florida, but I do read the Times online everyday, and would happily pay for it. I did read that for people who subscribe to the print edition, there would be a discount. I think it said $2.50. Bottom line is that the NYTimes is the best. Wish I could get the print edition delivered here at least on Sundays.
I'd be willing to pay if the deal includes the access to archive articles that we get now with a paid subscription, and crossword puzzles.
It's worth it to me!! So few newspapers are more than just advertising rags, it is great to get the NYT every morning here in the boonies. NYT is not government propaganda if you disagree with a story or opinion. I know crud when I see it. I also have several ways to check relative accuracy of any story I question. All in all, sign me up. It's the best I can get.......
I love the NY times delivered to me as well, but to pay extra to access their online content when
I'm already paying for a print subscription? I don't like that plan.
It would probably be free for print subscribers.
Maybe if I got something else out of my $5 besides news I could get almost anywhere else for free.
Loading comments…
Posted: 07- 9-09 05:03 PM