The older the crab, the tougher his claws
|
|
|
New York Times is erecting a paywall
THE NEW YORK TIMES (NYT) has set up a paywall system that will see readers pay a fee to receive its articles and news stories, however it is balancing the scheme with limited free access to its content, which it believes should keep occasional readers happy.
The US 'newspaper of record' has already launched the paywall in Canada and is set to impose it in the US by the 28th March. Its policy will encourage anyone that views more than 20 of its articles over a four month period to pay a subscription fee.
The changes were laid out in a letter from publisher Arthur Sulzberger, Jr. "This week marks a significant transition for The New York Times as we introduce digital subscriptions," he wrote.
"It's an important step that we hope you will see as an investment in The Times, one that will strengthen our ability to provide high-quality journalism to readers around the world and on any platform."
Casual readers are unlikely to be too affected as the NYT is targeting its changes at those who are heavy consumers of its news stories and articles. This means that should anyone attempt to view too many pages on its website, in this case more than 20 via its homepage, they will be refused and urged to pay for a subscription.
Subscription prices for the NYT vary. The smartphone version costs $15 every four weeks and the tablet option $20. A combined option costs $35 dollars, a multi-buy price that defies logic. Top news stories will remain free to view as will blog posts and classified listings.
Janet Robinson, president and CEO of The New York Times Company, said in a press release that the changes will improve journalism while also making money.
"The step we are taking today will further improve our ability to provide high-quality journalism to readers across the world on any platform, while maintaining the large and growing audience that supports our robust advertising business."
Occasional visitors to the NYT's webpages, such as those that stumble in from a Facebook or Twitter-posted link, can carry on as they were, according to Sulzberger, who added that they will be able to view as many as 20 articles per month. Search engine-lead visitors might have caps, or no caps at all, he added, making us wonder whether the NYT really gets the idea of a paywall.
Or perhaps it does, and does not want to sully itself with that kind of reputation. If the old media firms must turn to these old-fashioned fund-raising tactics, then perhaps the softly softly approach is the best way to go.
For now the NYT appears to be stepping out a precarious looking tightrope. One that might alienate existing readers and put-off potential ones. Having such a large number of articles available for viewing free each month is certainly one way of avoiding the paywall tar brush and readership exodus that follows such paywall erection initiatives.
Print subscriptions will offer access to the full suite of digital services, the firm added. µ
Tags: Internet
Share this:
Share
how they could keep up such mostly ad-free high-quality reporting for free. Well the time has come. Although I consider them to be the best in reporting quality, and I visit them many times a week, the charge of $15 for 4 weeks for unlimited view is a bit too much for me. I guess I will limit myself to the free 20 articles every 4 weeks (not 4 months as mentioned in the above).
Random IPv6 addresses :)
Or just clear cookies on one device I suspect.
Unless they are going to insist on everyone logging in with a name/password so they can be tracked, which is going to result in most people going somewhere else, and the rest setting up a dozen hotmail accounts!
"more than 20 of its articles over a four month period"
20 on my iphone, 20 on the wife's iphone, 20 on each of my several PCs. 20 on each on several browsers on each platform.
Adds up to hundreds.
Please provide a hard example for each of those 4 things.
1. rep for Bias (this may be easier as the paper has a history of being blamed for having a liberal bias)
2. rep for Inaccuracy (without citing standard simple corrections that every media company does, and might I add those are at the bottom of every corrected story)
3. Hate Mongering (really? A rep for hate mongering? Maybe fox, but not the new york times..)
4. Hiding Information
There is no better source of journalism than the new york times.. period. Whether you're willing to pay if you read over 20... that's a separate story. The model is very lenient though, so I gather just as the article has said, most will not notice. It's just no one bothers to understand that and just go "Paywall! not way.. so long times!" when they probably only read 10-15 articles a month anyway...
The Times is already getting a nasty reputation for bias, inaccuracy, hate mongering, and hiding information. The paper probably can't last much longer in the same way some of the old cable news outlets lost all of their viewership and became almost irrelevant. The lack of integrity is pretty much destroying the news media.
How useless, other companies that make more varied approaches will win the market, like you dont pay-you dont get color on your page.. get more creative you newspapaer idiots- its not forbidden or are yo like fundamentlist in iran...only this time its about MONEY and it the holy cow the priests which are the owners. And this is not a voice from US..EU has more creativity without the "priests"
So how will they know? They can collect IP's but many people have ever changing IP's, and cookies can be blocked or be thwarted by that new 'do not track me' thing if lawmakers enforce that.
And saving IP's is also a bit offensive toward privacy of course.
Or is this for pads and phones and such where some DRM will force recognition?