New York Times Considers $5 Monthly Online Subscription Fee

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.

Read the whole story: Bloomberg

Comments

[Phxflyer]

They tried this before . . . and it failed.

[FrictionSoul]

The NYT wants me to pay $5 for propaganda?

That's rich.

And the other commenters here want to design their own propaganda bundle?

Weird. But I have to guess that your belief system needs recharging, and this is how it needs to be for you on your weird planet of factless distortions. Go rotate.

[singlemalt]

So all news is propaganda?

Okay, What if your basic bundled included the Weekly Standard and the Washington Times? And, of course, let's say you would not be able to access their content for free...would you pay for it then? Or would you just rely on all those propaganda-free blogs?

[lukebenward]

When you need to do online subs to subsidize your news operaion, you're doing something wrong. You've lost the game.

And, yes, they *tried* this already and it failed. Yeah, sure it was when print papers were still strong, but people will balk at this hostage.

[dagnome27]

Kiss. Of. Death. for NYT.COM - did they forget they tried this before and it didn't work?

[SamKnause]

I will never pay for any access to any paper or magazine on the net.

[Chernynkaya]

I think it's worth it, but don't think I would pay. HP is also considering a fee in the future. Would we pay? How much? I don't know. And what about Google News- one click away from any newspaper. I guess that would leve out the NYT.

[esgabel]

I guess I won't be reading my favorite NYT columnists...but $60 yearly for just one news source on the web--I don't have that kind of money. I understand the need for revenue--but this would be limiting to the internet.

[EdCoughlin]

I don't think I'd ever pay for any one news source. Really, less then 10% of my general news comes from that particular source. What am I going to do, give everyone 5 dollars? Suddenly between the NYT, Slate, Salon, The Washington Post, the WSJ and all the rest I'm out 50-100 bucks a month for what I used to get for free? No thanks.

Thats the problem with making it free to start, its hard to unring that bell and say its going to cost a bunch now. When I can't get something from the WSJ because they want to have me pay, I just google it and find either A) the article on another site, B) a summary of the article on another site or C) the same story from a different source. I never D) pay them 1 dollar much less 10.

I think I speak for most people under 30 when I say all that.

[singlemalt]

What about a yearly subscription fee where you would get complete access to the WSJ, LA Times, NY Times and the Washington Post?

With a news bundle like that I might pay a fee.

[Chernynkaya]

Good idea- kind of like cable TV. But I'd want to design my own bundle.

[MichaelinPhilly]

So when the Times, and the Post, and the Wall Street Journal all disappear because the generation that pays for their content is no longer alive, what will you clever under-30s do? Freeloaders.

[singlemalt]

If I'm paying for a print subscription to the NY Times, then I should get complete access to their online content for free.

[GreatNews27]

Paying for government propaganda, what a novel idea!

[NavigatorOne]

How did it get to be government propaganda?