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...
Posted on 07/09/2009 6:02:43 PM PDT by 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.
ping
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.
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
They will QUICKLY see how cheap their liberal audience really is.
I won’t even register for free to read an article.
I expected this to happen yrs ago...:-p
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
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.
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".
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.
This is something they should have done from the beginning. I can’t believe they’ve held off for so long.
For any normal business, it would be an economic issue.
But, for the New York Times, it's a moral issue.
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...
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)
Good idea
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
HA....go ahead and “charge”.....see who buys....
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.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.