Arthur Sulzberger Jr. Defends New York Times Paywall

The Daily Beast:

The New York Times' new plan to charge online readers is no more complex than the print system, the newspaper's publisher insisted at a Columbia University journalism school event.

Read the whole story: The Daily Beast

Comments

[urnumbersix]

12:12 PM on 04/08/2011

"I" ain't paying.
Period.

[way2sunny]

10:31 AM on 04/08/2011

I can see why he's defensive. The paywall isn't going to work and he's in this position of trying to justify it and keep it going even when it fails.

[proggosaurus]

11:26 AM on 04/08/2011

he can explain it however he wants but there's a huge difference between what it costs to publish a printed newspaper versus an online edition. I doubt there's a newspaper around the country that hasn't suffered from subscription losses. that's a big loss in revenue by itself. couple that with loss of ad revenue from circular inserts due to lost subscriptions and it's a significant double whammy to the newspaper industry. material costs are another thing entirely and cuts even deeper into the profit margin. those costs have skyrocketed over the last 2 decades.

with more and more people turning to other sources for news, only the most loyal readers will stick with the printed versions. it is certainly a dying industry. as for online editions, once it's up and running it's only a matter of maintaining the service. even so, there's a lot of advertisers that just don't want to pay the price for doing both print and online. local advertisers especially are skeptical of not getting enough views on the web. the chaotic layouts of many online editions have kept people away as well. it's just difficult to give people what they expect from an established newspaper on a web site and turn a decent profit margin at the same time.

[lvdragonlady]

11:01 PM on 04/07/2011

There is NO justification, what so ever.
There is not a human on this planet that is worth the kind of money the corporations pay the CEOs to sit on their behinds and do NOTHING.

[StrawHat]

08:43 PM on 04/07/2011

Oh, well. I spend too much time on-line anyway. As more and more sites charge several hundred dollars per year for content, they'll just get added to my list of sites I don't visit anymore.

[ncsteeler]

08:32 PM on 04/07/2011

I have no objection to the NYT paywall; I just think the price is too high. The WSJ charges about half what the times charges. They would get me interested at $5-10/mo but $16/mo is a little steep - it's better than most news sites but not that much. If everyone starts charging then I'll reconsider.

[altohone]

04:09 PM on 04/07/2011

Not one click for corporatist propaganda.

[frank day]

03:10 PM on 04/07/2011

I have been a staunch supporter of the Times.

But they've lost me on this one.

[Nebris]

02:48 PM on 04/07/2011

I stopped reading the NYT the week before the paywall went up. F 'em.

[frank day]

03:11 PM on 04/07/2011

I would pay $1/week for the Times online.

[gregory57]

08:29 PM on 04/06/2011

Taken to it's logical extreme we are going to see newspapers fold up (no pun intended, I swear) and die just like the Bookstore/Cafe/Reading Rooms are now.

They're going to have to be more creative than charging a subscription fee, or we are gonna be getting all our news by word of mouth via Twitter soon.

Hint: It's time to start thinking in fractions of pennies for things that aren't worth a plug nickel.

[Rynchostylus]

02:51 PM on 04/06/2011

He can "testily defend" it all he wants. The current plunge in NYT readership will continue, upon which he will be canned. This was a huge mistake for them. It's only a matter of time until they realize it.

[heroine addict]

01:31 PM on 04/06/2011

In an era where most media is freely accesible why would I pay for yours when I can't even afford groceries?

[Crispian]

01:09 PM on 04/06/2011

When I hit the paywall , I say to myself "it probably wasn't worth reading anyhow," click the little "x" on the tab and find another news source.

[cdyswain]

04:14 PM on 04/06/2011

Same here.

[kath1y]

12:52 PM on 04/06/2011

New York What? Oh, you mean that website for rich people? Who cares.

[Gudrun]

12:17 PM on 04/06/2011

If they cut the price for online access in half, I would consider it. Right now, way too expensive.

[gregory57]

08:35 PM on 04/06/2011

They should be charging .01 per section and allow access for a week. They need to get real about the value of what they are selling. Advertising alone should keep them profitable. Time for a paradigm shift. Evolve or Die NYT and other news sources.

[TFlint]

12:02 PM on 04/06/2011

Why do you all expect to be paid for your work while you whine about paying others for their work? Nobody loves a freeloader . . . Except you!

[jkkFL]

03:30 PM on 04/06/2011

I would pay if I found enough content to pay for- as it is, wait a day or so, and someone will put the better articles up on feed, and you can refer back to it..