NY Times Asks Subscribers: Is It Wrong to Charge for Online Content? (Dinosaur Media DeathWatch™)

Poynter Online ^ | July 9, 2009 | Bill Mitchell

[abb]

The New York Times is testing a price point of $5 a month for access to nytimes.com, with a 50 percent discount for print subscribers.

The Times e-mailed a survey to print subscribers Thursday afternoon inviting their reaction to that pricing plan and asking a range of questions about online pricing.

NYT survey A portion of the Times' survey on charging for access to its Web site. (Click image for larger version.)

New York Times Co. spokeswoman Catherine Mathis confirmed in a telephone interview that the Times had sent the survey, but said no timetable has been set for a decision and no decisions have been made about online pricing.

The survey reads: "The New York Times website, nytimes.com, is considering charging a monthly fee of $5.00 to access its content, including all its articles, blogs and multimedia. All of this content is currently available for free.

"When answering the following questions, please think about whether you would be willing to pay for continued unlimited access to nytimes.com.

"How likely would you be to pay a $2.50 monthly fee -- which would be a 50% discount for home delivery subscribers -- for continued, unlimited access to nytimes.com?"

"The one thing I advise people on this is that we've got a very large [online] revenue stream," Mathis said. "We looked at 30 different companies -- Weight Watchers, ESPN, Consumer Reports -- to see how much money is being generated from Web sites. What we saw is that we're doing a pretty good job monetizing content with advertising."

Of $352 million in digital revenue reported by the Times Co. in 2008, about $237 million was generated by its newspaper sites.

"People talk about how we've got to charge for content. We already do have a revenue stream for advertising, and the two are related. You start charging and it can affect the other," Mathis said.

She noted that the Times previously generated $10 million in annual revenues for Times Select.

The survey asks print subscribers if a fee for online access would affect their print subscriptions.

Offering respondents a range of choices from "strongly agree" to "strongly disagree," the survey also seeks to measure attitudes about these assertions:

* I think it is wrong for The New York Times to charge anyone for access to nytimes.com. * I would pay for access to nytimes.com because it offers more than The New York Times print newspaper. * I think that as long as subscribers get a discount, charging them for access to nytimes.com is fair. * I would pay for access to nytimes.com because it offers valuable content and features I can't get anywhere else. * I would gladly pay for access to nytimes.com in order to support the Times' quality journalism.

[abb]

Flailing away in the tar pits...

[abb]

ping

[norwaypinesavage]

Nothing is wrong about charging for online content. Of course, you have to be selling something that people are willing to buy. The NYT is selling nothing that qualifies.

[abb]

http://gannettblog.blogspot.com/2009/07/roll-call-v-we-say-goodbye-to-our-co.html
Thursday, July 09, 2009
Bulletin: GCI layoffs, job cuts rocket past 1,000; workers fear more, as mass layoff grips company; after 7 p.m. ET, severance details remain mystery

http://www.crainsdetroit.com/article/20090709/FREE/907099989#
Freep exempt from latest round of Gannett layoffs

http://gawker.com/5311055/white-house-press-corps-spent-the-fourth-of-july-hanging-out-with-obama-off-the-record
White House Press Corps Happy to Attend Barack Obama’s Off-the-Record BBQ

[devane617]

They will QUICKLY see how cheap their liberal audience really is.

[Bahbah]

I won’t even register for free to read an article.

[~Kim4VRWC's~]

I expected this to happen yrs ago...:-p

[AnotherUnixGeek]

The New York Times is testing a price point of $5 a month for access to nytimes.com, with a 50 percent discount for print subscribers.

They already tried this, charging for access to the likes of Maureen Dowd. Nobody bought it. Live on ad revenue like everyone else and try expanding readership by not being a propaganda arm of the Democratic Party.

[abb]

http://www.johntemple.net/2009/07/lawyer-behind-ideas-in-controversial.html
Lawyer behind ideas in controversial Connie Schultz column on copyright law speaks out

http://www.forbes.com/2009/07/09/bulletin-newspaper-memoir-leadership-managing-taylor.html
Freedom Of The Press Means Freedom To Fail

http://onlinejournalismblog.com/2009/07/08/end-of-news-website/
The end of news websites?

http://www.editorandpublisher.com/eandp/news/article_display.jsp?vnu_content_id=1003992316
‘Washington Post’ Ombud Writing ‘Expanded Column’ for Sunday About ‘Salon’ Debacle

http://www.telegraph.co.uk/finance/newsbysector/mediatechnologyandtelecoms/media/5786429/New-York-Times-to-decide-how-to-charge-for-its-website-by-August.html
New York Times to decide how to charge for its website by August

[xzins]

Wrong?

That’s not the question. The question is whether folks can get their news elsewhere for free.

If they can, then they’ve no need for those who charge.

[Navy Patriot]

Liberals won't support their own propaganda mill, because liberals always want someone else to pay their way.

More front page lectures on how privileged whites should pay more because they are guilty should really bump up gross for the Times.

They could call the campaign "Say you're sorry to Karl Marx".

[Arguendo]

I read it at least three or four times a week, and there’s no way I’d pay to subscribe online. If I paid for a print subscription, I’d be even more pissed if they asked me to pay for the website.

[Zhang Fei]

This is something they should have done from the beginning. I can’t believe they’ve held off for so long.

[okie01]

* I think it is wrong for The New York Times to charge anyone for access to nytimes.com.

For any normal business, it would be an economic issue.

But, for the New York Times, it's a moral issue.

[DJ Frisat]

"The New York Times is testing a price point of $5 a month for access to nytimes.com..."

Nope, they're gonna have to pay me a LOT MORE to access their claptrap. Even more, if they expect me to read any of it. And they don't have enough millions to make me believe a word they write.

Might as well forget the whole thing...

[DoughtyOne]

Put unslanted just the facts news in your paper, and you’ll be surprised what will happen to your subscriptions, providing you have destroyed every bit of your credibility by now. (Which they’ve done with me)

[GOPJ]

Live on ad revenue like everyone else and try expanding readership by not being a propaganda arm of the Democratic Party.

Good idea

[abb]

http://www.johntemple.net/2009/07/what-would-happen-if-publishers-and.html
What would happen if publishers and editors read only on the Web for two weeks?

http://www.broadcastingcable.com/article/311660-Greenfield_Get_in_the_Pool_ABC.php
Greenfield: Get in the Pool, ABC
Says O&Os’ cost structure is out of whack without content shares

http://www.nytimes.com/2009/07/09/business/media/09journal.html?_r=1&ref=media
Newspaper Payout Plan in Closings Clears Court

http://www.forbes.com/2009/07/08/television-internet-magazines-business-media-media.html
For Media Business, The New Normal Is Ugly

http://www.ft.com/cms/s/0/e53465b6-6c1e-11de-9320-00144feabdc0.html
Moguls talk down Twitter at Sun Valley event

[goodnesswins]

HA....go ahead and “charge”.....see who buys....

[Recovering_Democrat]

lol. TAR PITS. i LOVE IT.

Yeah, go ahead and charge, slimes. please. you’ll see how much demand there is for your brand of CRAP.

[Chode]

[cartoonistx]

Every print newspaper that has tried this has run away from it eventually. Far from being a monetizer for these organizations, charging for on-line content has the effect of further diminishing their over-all presence and thus their ad rates in both print and on-line versions. Content just isn't THAT unique or even that good at any newsite or print paper anymore. And readers, what's left of them, are not that descriminating or as loyal as they were 30 years ago and more.

Just because the dinosaur sprouts feathers, while an advancement indeed, doesn't mean that it has become an eagle!

[abb]

http://www.editorandpublisher.com/eandp/news/article_display.jsp?vnu_content_id=1003992547
‘Des Moines Register’ Lays Off 36, 6% of Staff

http://www.mediapost.com/publications/?fa=Articles.showArticle&art_aid=109519
Sorrell: Bearish on Future of Advertising

http://www.mediapost.com/publications/?fa=Articles.showArticle&art_aid=109532
Bad Business: Editorial Integrity of Newspapers Under Fire

http://www.mediapost.com/publications/?fa=Articles.showArticle&art_aid=109435
Nielsen: Global Ad Spend Drops 7.2% in 1Q ‘09

http://www.wordyard.com/
“Images are not a representation of reality”

[Titus-Maximus]

It will drive readers away.

[TCats]

“I won’t even register for free to read an article.”

You got that right. To boot, once you register the Spam starts. I’m certain that will be another ‘Benefit’ of the Fee Based version only worse.

[Texas Eagle]

Uhhhhhhh.......why, no. No, it is not wrong to charge for online content (or whatever constitutes content when it comes to the NY Times).

Be bold, NY Times. Charge, charge, charge.

We're behind you all the way.

[Publius6961]

If they raise that, and send me $10 a month, I might consider subscribing.

: )

[YHAOS]

Is The Times getting nervous?

[Gator113]

Selling our country’s secrets is wrong. Selling lies is wrong.

Oh let’s just skip to the chase... NYT’s continued existence is wrong, period.

[ken5050]

The Times is obviously confused. They are stating the question incorrectly. What they should be asking their readers is.."If you were to pay $2.50- $5.00 per month for unlimited access to the NY Times websites, would you also be willing to continue paying several hundred dollars a year additional to receive a hard copy of the paper, most of the time delivered to your home or office on time?"

[AFPhys]

I, too, have refused to sign up for their “free” propaganda, LOL. It is going to be very interesting to see how much they find they can charge. I bet that they are going to have to give free subscriptions to their print subscribers, though.

[indylindy]

Why pay for lies when you can get them for free?