Posted on 03/17/2011 9:08:38 AM PDT by longtermmemmory
NEW YORK (AP) The New York Times says it will start charging for access to its website and for the use of smart phone and tablet applications later this month in the U.S.
Beginning March 28, prices start at $15 for four weeks of full access to the website and the smart phone app.
Subscribers to the printed edition will keep free access to the website and apps. Others will be able to view 20 articles a month for free on the website and see the "Top News" section in the apps.
Newspapers are trying to increase digital revenue as online ad revenue, while growing, hasn't fully offset the declines in print.
(Excerpt) Read more at google.com ...
Well, we often link to them here so people can see what the opposition is saying. Never mind, it gave them extra advertising hits.
I remember when Freepers used to link to Mo Dowd every week, so we could all get a laugh out of it and see those lovely pics of her rival. That ended when they started charging for OpEd access, and we got on very well without Mo.
When that didn’t work, and Mo became free again, she was rarely linked here. Just wasn’t worth the trouble.
I expect the same thing will happen to the whole paper. People will pay to read the WSJ, but I doubt whether they’ll pay to read the NYTimes. At least, not very many of them.
“Turn out the lights, the party’s over.”
I don’t read them anyway. The only way I would buy their rag is to use for puppy pee.
Only the rich Libs making over $200/k should pay for the NYT website. Isn’t that part of the change they voted for in 2008?
Make the rich pay their fair share ay NYT? Or don’t they practice the propaganda that is published in the Grey Rag?
only for those who pay already.
the 20 will probably be excerpts.
I don’t see how this will work for them.
how about NYT affirmative action subscription fees?
Rich libs making over $200k should be REQUIRED to pay for NYT online, and not just $15 but their ‘fair share’ of $600
“only for those who pay already.
the 20 will probably be excerpts.
I dont see how this will work for them.”
I hope you’re right...
“Let me know how that works out for you!”
If I manage to circumvent the paywall and read for free, will they be kind to me as an undocumented subscriber?
songs can be replayed and enjoyed more than once, newpaper articles not so much.
ZUNE was an immitation of the ipod only without the user in mind. Microsoft just announced they are discontinuing it. Just because some other paper does it does not mean the NYT can do it.
The WSJ news division is liberal enough.
“any business that gives away its product isnt going to be around for long”
Not entirely true. Much television and radio are essentially given away for free along with paid advertising from the sponsors. In those cases the end consumers pay nothing.
Millions of web sites also make money using that same model.
Maybe this will mean Apple will stop using the NYT in their ads. I swear they milked the NYT front-page of Obama’s inaugural for a year.
“Why should I pay for anti-American propaganda when there are so many places on the web that will give me that for free?”
Exactly. I always say, “Why should I PAY for lies when I can get all the lies I want for free on the Internet?
Free markets are a wonderful thing. Via the miracle of the price discovery mechanism they will find out the true value of their “information”. They better make sure the windows in the executive suite are nailed shut and are constructed with triple pane glass. Bwahahahahahahah.
“That website has not been free for years now. “
Actually, if you access WSJ-online via entry from a google search, you can see read whatever you want there for free. WSJ-online wasn’t willing to give up the traffic hits received via google. Many of the pay-walled sites operate the same way. It’s pretty much the only way to stay relevant on the web, too. A completely walled-off site becomes largely irrelevant. AOL proved that a decade ago when they had to give up their walled compound when the Internet tsunami swamped their playpen
Oh, my. Now, where will I get my news.
Oh wait, I didn’t read them anyway.
Liberals/Socialists/Marxists.
Isn't life grand?
I agree. The point I made was different and smaller: instead of pointing to Zine, which is in a different product category, why not to look closer to home --- a product in the same category.
The WSJ news division is liberal enough.
I am lost here: how is this relevant to what business model is closer to a newspaper. Incidentally: WSJ is now the only paper being purchased by some because of the editorial page.
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.