LA Times Paywall Announced: Online Access Will Cost $3.99/Week

Would you pay to read the Los Angeles Times online? The paper announced Friday that it will charge for digital access starting Mar. 5.

Here's how it will work, as The Wrap first reported:

~ 15 online articles each month: free

~ First month of online subscription: 99 cents/month

~ After first month, online subscription: $3.99/week

~ Print plus online subscription (plus Sunday paper): $1.99/week

The paper will also stop printing its Health, Food and Home sections and instead deliver a new lifestyle section on Saturdays, the Times explains. The Health, Food and Home sections will remain online. The paper also clarified that, if you are already a home deliver subscriber, you will not have to pay for online access to articles.

The move to charge for online content follows the example of other major news outlets, including The New York Times, the Wall Street Journal and the Dallas Morning, AFP reports. Just this week, Gannett, the nation's largest newspaper company, announced it will launch similar online subscription programs at 80 publications.

Comments

[marika48]

01:24 PM on 04/13/2012

Just discovered today that even as a subscriber, to access the online content, you will be required to set your browser to accept 3rd party cookies. In other words, Tribune will earn extra revenue by selling advertisers tracking access to their subscribers. As customer service agent explained to me " to access the online service , you will have to reduce your security settings". LOL Thanks for that!

[Brian Rowe]

04:06 PM on 03/18/2012

no

[Joe Biden is Smart]

01:09 PM on 04/09/2012

Count me in with the 'no' bandwagon.

HuffPo is a far more respectable leftist news source than LA Times at this point and they don't charge me anything to rant against leftists!

[rhodaryder]

04:48 PM on 03/11/2012

I learned that the LA Times now charges for online reading. I do believe the LA Times will lose many readers and their ability to influence readers, sell ads that encourage readers to consume. Definitely, I will not be paying to read the LA times online. Adieux to the LA Times.

[zaglossus]

01:56 PM on 03/11/2012

Bye bye L.A. Times. I don't live in Southern California. So you're just not that important to me to pay to read anymore. Besides you are not the great paper you used to be when the Chandlers owned you.

[rahul 123]

04:34 AM on 03/08/2012

A new service called MyCube lets you receive money for content that you have posted. It is a very interesting system of digital content and seemed very promising to me

[johnpet]

09:04 AM on 03/06/2012

Far, far too expensive. They're gonna get hammered. I get my state's physical paper for $1.50 a week.

[mrhandyman3105]

01:50 AM on 03/06/2012

Ha. The newspaper already sucks. No way will people pay when they can get the same or better info elsewhere online.

[cityprof]

06:49 PM on 03/05/2012

Every year my subscription comes up, I bargain the rate. I think I'm paying about $105 for home delivery for a year. Did you know you can bargain your home delivery rate? Try it if you take delivery now and your subscription comes due. If it doesn't work for you, you can always just refuse to renew. If I have to pay much more than that for the year, I'll give it up. There are so many other sources for news just as reputable or as il-reputable. hehe.

[marika48]

02:59 PM on 03/05/2012

The online LATimes is ridiculous, it is already mostly advertising, links to blogs of dubious quality or interest, and local reporting that could only be volunteers it is so bad. What few journalists still write for the times are impossible to find online because of the supremely awkward website architecture.The web presence of this hugely diminished , institution in name only, LATimes is in no way comparable to the online version of other national papers and periodicals, to say the least , it is not the NYTimes.
As if that is not enough annoyance, poor subscription customer service for the LATimes is infamous. If you are foolish enough to accept the 99 cent introductory offer for the first month, and give them your credit card info, you will enter the 6th dimension trying to cancel your service,IMHO.

[RickinBoca]

01:44 PM on 03/05/2012

Didn't the NYT try this with a disasterous result?

[LuLou Murder]

01:33 PM on 03/05/2012

$16 a month for the Times online? That's the same price as the hard copy, assuming you get a new subscriber deal.

[mutabobeira]

11:22 AM on 02/26/2012

In my 66 years I never would have predicted saying good-bye to the Los Angeles Times.

Good-bye, Los Angeles Times.

It appears we'll soon be saying farewell to The Huffington Post, as well. Will HuffPo soon be renamed the AOL Gazette?

[BriS]

01:44 PM on 03/05/2012

I can understant your sentiment, but to expecting news that is only free is a relatively recent anomoly. We have always paid to have a hard copy of the paper, why should it be any different with a digital version?

[TheAntiOkie]

12:01 PM on 02/25/2012

Would you pay to read the ___________________________(fill in the blank) online?

No.  Why should I?

If they can't monetize their online presence, they don't deserve readers.  It's not rocket science.

[platners]

09:55 AM on 02/25/2012

Yes! Los Angeles needs a better newspaper. A better newspaper costs money. Of course Tribune bears some responsibility for the LA Times decline but not all; just look at the Chicago paper, it's still Tribune and it's pretty decent.

[The Complainer]

08:38 AM on 02/25/2012

We predict that overall traffic will fall significantly when Gannett—and the LA Times—introduce paywalls. Instead of charging readers (for what many believe is less-than-exceptional content), they should have looked at ways to improve advertising revenue by increasing traffic and engaging more out-of-region readers in their online communities.

The New York Times and The Wall Street Journal might be able to get away with digital subscriptions because they have become a truly global newspapers/news-sources of record, with strong, proprietary content driving traffic for global readerships. Few of Gannett’s papers (or, the LA Times) can come close to matching anything close to that level of content—or community. Expect to see growth for the NY Times and the WSJ.

[skraeling]

03:27 PM on 03/05/2012

LA Times is a shadow of itself...the worst sports page of any bigcity newspaper, poor editorial page, and very little little news of substance, but a daily news item concerning Israel, rarely complete coverage of local, state or actual government doings, but, like here, and the Cable news networks, endless stories of the presidential race while the country falls apart. Still, I read it with morning coffee...cover to cover....hoping in vain that it will become relevant again.