NYT.com to charge for Op-Ed, other content as of Sept

[UpInArms]

http://www.marketwatch.com/news/newsfinder/pulseone.asp?dateid=38488.5334650116-835440638&siteID=mktw&scid=0&doctype=806&property=symb&value=&categories=&

SAN FRANCISCO (MarketWatch) -- The New York Times Co. (NYT) on Monday said that, starting in September, access to Op-Ed and certain of its top news columnists on the paper's NYTimes.com Web site will only be available through a fee of $49.95 a year. The service, known as TimesSelect, will also allow access to The Times's online archives, early access to select articles on the site, and other features. Home-delivery subscribers will automatically receive the service, the NYT said.

...very short newsblurb...

[BlueEyedSon]

1. Oh darn.

[UpInArms]

3. the positive side of that is

that Steno Sue - I mean Elizabeth Bumiller - won't get near as much airplay.

[Melodybe]

4. Awe now no one will read their paper.

[merwin]

2. I hear enough uneducated opinions already. These ones won't be missed.

[smoogatz]

5. Are Krugman and Rich worth $50 a year?

Well, no. And God knows we don't exactly rely on the Times for its "news coverage." See ya, NYT.

[BlueEyedSon]

6. I already pay for the treeware version. But its easier to email the online

one.

[spooked911]

8. exactly.

[madinmaryland]

11. Krugman does appear on Common Dreams.

Don't know if that will change. I think Rich writes exclusively for the Times.

[AlGore-08.com]

31. Krugman's worth $50 easily - - but the rest ain't worth a puggled nickle

eom

[high density]

37. I wonder if this is going to last

I know of a local online news source that tried charging subscription fees, but after about a year they gave up on that and went back to being an ad-supported site.

[mcscajun]

7. Rats! I knew this was coming...just not so soon, and not so pricey.

The only good thing in there is that the archives are included in the price. Right now, You have to pay by the article, so I rarely do. At least most of the content will remain free (for now.)

$50? :grr:

Well, it's inevitable — :shrug: — content isn't really free, and we're going to be seeing more and more of this as time goes on.

[Daphne08]

9. They made a big mistake with me when they decided

to become more 'fair and balanced' :( and started leaning rightward.

Barf!

A newspaper should be courageous enough to take a damn stand!!

I will miss Frank Rich.

[Webster Green]

10. Ha!...I won't even register to read their crap, much less pay for it..

Fuck those two-bit hacks!

[davekriss]

12. So much for this reader

I can't afford $49.95 just to read Krugman's occassional op-ed pieces.

[newfaceinhell]

13. not worth it, and getting less worth it all the time.....nt

[Sivafae]

32. O/T ^JONATHAN CREEK! YUM!

[newfaceinhell]

34. Heh, someone noticed one of my messings about with sig pics

He is a hero of mine, though!

[The White Tree]

14. That sucks. $50 is a little steep

I would pay maybe $20-25 but not $50.

[Kolesar]

15. If...the world survives until September...eom

[quiet.american]

16. I'll go ahead and pay the fifty for Herbert, Krugman and Rich. n/t

[liam_laddie]

21. only 14 cents per day

Me, too - It's a buy when you think of it as 13.7 cents a day for access to: the 3x/week op/eds of Krugman, Dowd, Herbert (a real hero,) usually Friedman and Kristof, (Brooks & Tierney for comic relief) and especially Frank Rich on Sundays (we get the treeware ed.)
If they don't change the proposed policy, access to all of the archives alone is a deal. Count me in, 'specially if they'll take an online payment. This first notice may be a feeler to see if it'll fly?

[Roland99]

17. Wonder how long until WaPo and LAT do this, too?

What with dropping circulation and the papers/magazines getting busted as to inflating circulation numbers.

[KoKo]

23. I think they will all go to it. It's a great way to shut down websites

which use their links, like this one. That fee is exhorbitant. And I'll bed they keep their ads on the site, so one will pay for the online and still get the ads. Sort of like paying for cable to watch 20 minutes of ads for every show, plus the "infomercials. :-(

[ananda]

18. I refuse to pay..

I will never pay for mainstream news, so I won't be visiting the NYT site at all, ever....

Surely, if everyone did that, it would have serious repercussions for the advertisers. Good.

Sue

[Benhurst]

19. Bye-bye.

[bemildred]

20. Further they wander into irrelevance. nt

[benburch]

22. Priced out of the market!

I'd happily pay them $20 a year. But not $50.

Sorry, guys, there are other online news sources.

[kcass1954]

24. Bye-bye NYT!

Generally, op-ed is the only page worth reading.

[Kokonoe]

25. oh well, guess I will just depend on blogs to get my news.

:toast:

[0007]

26. Bill Moyers said that FREEDOM is real news that needs

to be reported.

I Pay $480 a year for broadband cable. I can't afford to pay $50 a year for one fucking newspaper.

[AndyTiedye]

27. How Far Back do the Times Online Archives Go?

The archives might make it worthwhile.

The Times used to be a great paper.

[benny05]

30. That was my question too

The NYT Historical Online at some libraries goes back to year one (but they paid big bucks for that right as well). My sense is that NYT Digital it may be back to 2000 or 2001.

I've known this was coming, but I also find that if one subscribes at that price, the obnoxious pop-ups could be turned off. LAT, WP, Boston.com, other newspapers will follow suit because the Columbus newspaper and the WSJ already charge for online access unless you subscribe to the print.

IMV, this advanced notice will give all of us an opportunity to say what we want, if we are willing to pay, including their pricing structure. If they are losing readers on the print, then they need to do something about their pricing models, especially public libraries, so that you all can use a library card to access it from home.

The Internet was never intended to be totally free for content, nor was it ever supposed to be a substitute for a library. Publishers have been doing this for years in which some librarians have termed it the cocaine effect. They provide the content for free to get you hooked, and easier ways to get it (via RDF or RSS readers), then they start charging moderate to big fees for continued access.

I hope you will consider giving donations to your public libraries to access online content. Your tax-dollars are not sufficient as many cities have slashed their operations budgets. Your monies will help them get or retain these necessary resources.

The Democratic Party just called me for a donation. I told them about this move by the NYT and said I hope the Dem party will speak to them about their high pricing models. After all, the NYT op-eds pieces represent more of our views.

[mcscajun]

41. There are two groups of archived stories available on the NYT Site

Te first is NYT Since 1996
The second is NYT 1851-1995

I just did a quick test of the latter, and was able to locate stories on Ulysses S Grant's inauguration in 1869, an assault on his nephew in 1893, his death in 1929, the death of his wife, and more. Of course, right now I can't see these stories without paying for each one.

So, this is one hell of a treasure trove available for $50.

[tblue37]

28. Nah.

You can get toilet paper cheaper than that!

[tritsofme]

29. What a great idea!

Your circulation is decreasing, so what do you do?

Charge more for your product!

I don't know very many people who care about the NY Times enough to pay $50 a year to hear their oh so enlightened opinions.

[daleo]

33. Propagandists should pay their victims

Not the other way round.

[emcguffie]

35. Someone send this threat to NYT.

I can't from where I am.

[emcguffie]

50. gee, I meant "thread" not "threat". Was awfully busy. sorry nt

[RamboLiberal]

36. Ferget about it - my local paper publishes Krugman

a day or two later. I'll miss checking the NYT, but there are other sources online. Bye Bye NYT!

[Bridget Burke]

44. The Houston Chronicle runs Krugman, too.

Not worth almost $50 a year....

[RPM]

38. i guess they noted my reading patterns there...

since leaving NY metro, thats the main section i read...

[Princess Turandot]

39. If you have a NYPL card..

you can access the NYT on line through their digital collection, along with a variety of other papers in NY and elsewhere. I'm not sure how fast the archive is updated, but I've used it to read articles that the Times already has in their pay archive.

Added: I just checked, and Krugman's piece for today is there.

[ProudToBeLiberal]

40. Where the NYT goes others follow

Pretty soon the other newspaper like WP and LaTimes will follow suit.

[no_to_war_economy]

42. zilllions of websites will post them for free

they cant keep the truth from us

[AngryAmish]

43. The NYT has now become irrelevant

Subscriptions means no hyperlinks means any tech savvy person will ignore it.

[C_U_L8R]

45. They'll Probably Be Back

NYT is turning to a business model that has simply never worked on the internet (at least so far). Look at CNN... they tried the exact same thing by charging for premium content. The result... a big fat flop and CNN just announced that they will return to an all advertising-supported model.

The whole problem with charging a fee for content is that you need total exclusivity and a huge percieved value. Now this is the internet.... and opinions are as plentiful as users. Yes NYT opinion may be a bit more informed and insighful.... but you can find competitive content for free in thousands of alternative places. Hence... there's no overwhelming reason to BUY into NYT's offering. Simple marketing. Supply and Demand.

The stumbles that Neisenholtz and his team have made over the years (and apparently continue to make) are hilarious to watch from afar. I'm really curious to see how this pans out for them. I think they'll be back with ad supported content in a year or two.

[Mizmoon]

46. That's why the Wall Street Journal can charge a fee

they have highly specialized info that people feel they can't get elsewhere. The NYT has nothing that I cannot get elsewhere. One columnist or another doesn't matter to me, really. Smart liberal opinions are available elsewhere.

And as for the "the web was never meant to be free" garbage - the web was never "meant" to be anything. The web is what WE make it. And the web I'm making has mostly free content.

[Daphne08]

47. The more I consider this, the more I think we need to write

letters to the NYT and let them know our thoughts on the subject!

I personally wouldn't find $20 a year an exorbitant amount, but $50 annually seems a bit much.

Of course, we would ALL like to see complete access remain free because we ALL believe the Fourth Estate has a certain responsibility to our democracy... even in this Profit Above All Else new America we find ourselves living in today.

Just my thoughts.

[Chicago Democrat]

52. Precisely my point

see other post

[benny05]

48. I've been looking at the their shareholders lists

and some of the larger institutional shareholders have been withdrawing large sums. Even some of their own leadership has been playing stock market of buying and selling their own stock in the past couple of quarters, which means they may have made this announcement to boast their stock up a bit.

One of my mutual funds still has quite a bit invested there. I'm considering looking at it from that angle.

I agree with some posters here that $20-25 would be reasonable. And it may be they will offer some options: the $50 buck option will get the content back to year one; the $25 option will get back to 1996.

For those with the idea of a "treasure" trove is that you may have to click an agreement that says you may not copy or redistribute ANY of their content. As a customer, I would be reticient pay for such an agreement and also they may not archive all of their photos because of the Tesani vs The Times Co settlement some time ago (meaning free-lancer are entitled to their own copyright).

As some of you have pointed out, their op-editorials are syndicated. It would be interested to see what they (those columnists) think of this move. I suggest you write them.

I will continue to follow this and talk to some distributors of NYT (such as LexisNexis, Proquest, Factiva) about this initiative. After all, this may impact their business too in what they charge libraries, especially public libraries and larger public academic libraries.

And for the person who has a NYPL card, keep using it. You truly have access to a real treasure trove--one of the premier research collections in the country. And stop by and see them--tell them you appreciate them.

[depakid]

49. Whatever- go ahead and pull a Salon

I just won't read it anymore-

It's not like there aren't dozens of better sources available.

[Chicago Democrat]

53. Salon at least allows free viewing after a commercial!

so poorer folk at least have some option!

[Chicago Democrat]

51. We need to write NYT AND GET THIS CHANGED

Here's my letter:

You bastards. $50 to read online. $50 is ALOT OF MONEY. $50 MEANS SOMETHING OUT HERE, MR NEW YORK TIMES!

ITS WAY WAY WAY TOO MUCH. I would be willing to watch an advertisement or pay like they do at Salon. SO POOR PEOPLE HAVE ACCESS!

You are elitist.

Its shocking. It sucks. I guess the nation wont know what's going on anymore, not that they ever really did. You suck beyond all belief.

[Simeon Salus]

54. NYT--"Golden Goose Must Die"

Are they trying to kill newspapers?

Media Suicide bombs.

[anitar1]

55. Adios, NYT

Not worth a dime IMO except for Krugman, Herbert, Rich and Dowd. And there columns will be pasted elsewhere. I see them often on Common Dreams.

[Straight Shooter]

56. I'm in agreement with other poster, but I pay $720/year for satellite.

Now for the privilege of reading NYT online I should cough up another $50 per year?

I need satellite speed because it's critical to my business and DSL isn't available here in the boonies. NYT isn't critical to my life, BBC is still free. Adios, NYT. I'll miss Krugman, but not Miller or that other brown-nosing bushie, Lizzie.

[struggle4progress]

57. Pay for Friedman's war mongering bullshit? Pay to hear Brooks ..

.. try to put a "nice boy" spin on whatever crap the Rove and Norquist gang is shoveling this week? Well, I, um ... no thanks!