Would You Pay For The New York Times?

I think the real reason people read the NYT, the WSJ, or the Washington Post isn’t necessarily to keep up with the daily news cycle but rather to find well-written articles on a vast array of interesting topics. With the internet and a multitude of other outlets, the news of the day is quite literally ubiquitous. As with anything in our lives, the good stuff usually costs more money and requires a little more effort on the part of the enthusiast.

WSJ has been doing this for years. I pay the subscription fee because I feel the value of their content is worth the cost. I think that charging readers provides an incentive for the newspaper to produce more high quality, relevant content. Besides, print newspapers have never been free, so in these modern days, why should the same content be available for free online? It’s actually never really made sense to me why online news was ever free.

When I heard there was going to be a paywall, I figured it would be something sensible and reasonable, and resigned myself to subscribing. However, when they announced the way it was going to work, I decided I was NOT going to pay for such nonsense. I won’t support their byzantine set of rules that:
1) penalizes people who only read the site online (you HAVE to pay for smartphone access, even if you don’t use a smartphone)
2) utilizes a monthly “click count” while not billing monthly
3) is sneaky with respect to the amount subscribers pay — the lowest-cost option actually averages to $16.25 per month when you consider the four-week billing, even though most people are quoting $15 per month.

I would pay up without complaining if the NYT offered a simple base rate for unlimited website access at $5-10 per month with the option to add extra devices for a set upcharge per device. For example, NYT online for $7 per month; $2 extra to add the smartphone app; $2 extra to add the tablet app; and/or $2 extra for e-reader access. Pick and choose your options for the way you, individually, want to read the news. Even better, offer a discounted annual subscription with the same a la carte structure. I’m also in favor of anything displayed on the “front page” of nytimes.com being free for everyone to read, while anything in the “sections” is behind the paywall. But the forced bundles make no sense. The monthly/four-week dichotomy makes no sense. The overall price is, frankly, much higher than I am willing to pay for the unique content the NYT offers. When they come up with a sensible rate and pricing structure, they can count me in. Until then, I’m hoarding my clicks and getting most of my news elsewhere.

I wonder how this affects me since I have the NYT app? Obviously, I don’t want to pay for anything I don’t have to, but I think the NYT is worth it. I could always do this the old fashioned way and have the Sunday edition delivered to my house

http://www.smartmouthblog.com

This was the beauty of old network news before cable. Everyone who had access to a tv could get fairly unbiased news.

As some have said, Content ISN’T free. It never has been.

You could find out through word of mouth (and some blogs are often just glorified word of mouth), but as Bobby Moynihan’s “Word of Mouth Correspondent” on SNL illustrates… you’re not always going to get the facts straight. Newspapers cost money because it costs journalists to get a story. To fly to location. It costs them to pay their bills like everyone else. Writing takes time, and getting an accurate story takes money.

I am NOT a writer. This is not an internal argument. Information has always cost money, and it’s only been the last decade that music and journalism were free. And yes, I’d love for the world to continue to provide free content, but that would require subsidies from the government or, as many have mentioned, private backers.
I AM worried about the cost. I am -tax-bracket speaking- in the lower class. I am glad they are making an allowance for free content up to a point. But if I had the money I’d be pouring it into NPR, the NYT, and other sources of the Arts. People really expect art and information to be free and then are shocked when the news is swayed by the wealthy and the arts are a kind of profession/hobby for the trust fund kids.

I DO pay for the New York Times – my Kindle subscription for daily delivery is 19.99 per month, not much more than what I used to pay for home Sunday ONLY delivery. I have been notified that I will be able to set up accounts at no additional charge for my computer access. I do not feel that the NYT is required to give away their content for free – I don’t work for free. Newspapers have been under assault and need to produce revenue. Having some availability of free content may encourage some to sign up for a subscription – but constant total FREE content does not lend itself to the sustainability of the medium

I DO pay for the New York Times – my Kindle subscription for daily delivery is 19.99 per month, not much more than what I used to pay for home Sunday ONLY delivery. I have been notified that I will be able to set up accounts at no additional charge for my computer access. I do not feel that the NYT is required to give away their content for free – I don’t work for free. Newspapers have been under assault and need to produce revenue. Having some availability of free content may encourage some to sign up for a subscription – but constant total FREE content does not lend itself to the sustainability of the medium

Just remember, if you want or all digital access to the New York Times, you are better off paying for a cheaper print subscription, such as the weekender or weekday subscriptions. I can live without cable, but I can’t live without the New York Times!

The reality is that whether its print or pixels it costs a lot of moola to run a News Media co. So if Social Media is the way things are going, I see nothing wrong for content that is worth reading. Eventually the supply of content will be too much for the demand, so the most stand out journalists will beat the competition and they will definitely want to be compensated for it.

Nothing wrong with getting paid for your work.

Plus, online media is pretty Green. I see that we will have both. We didn’t get rid of the radio when the TV came around… we use both.

Paying for online news content is really no different than ponying up some quarters to get the print edition. Perhaps this is a good reality-check for everyone NOT in the publishing world that publications of any kind–print or other media–still costs money! If you want to read quality reporting, then be willing to pay for it. So many news services don’t even employ many reporters anymore (all hail the wire services) because they’ve become so cash-strapped they can’t afford the workforce.

Thank you NYTimes!! It’s about time!

Paying for online news content is really no different than ponying up some quarters to get the print edition. Perhaps this is a good reality-check for everyone NOT in the publishing world that publications of any kind–print or other media–still costs money! If you want to read quality reporting, then be willing to pay for it. So many news services don’t even employ many reporters anymore (all hail the wire services) because they’ve become so cash-strapped they can’t afford the workforce.

Thank you NYTimes!! It’s about time!

Paying for online news content is really no different than ponying up some quarters to get the print edition. Perhaps this is a good reality-check for everyone NOT in the publishing world that publications of any kind–print or other media–still costs money! If you want to read quality reporting, then be willing to pay for it. So many news services don’t even employ many reporters anymore (all hail the wire services) because they’ve become so cash-strapped they can’t afford the workforce.

Thank you NYTimes!! It’s about time!

I’d have to say a big fat no to paying for reading my news online. First of all, when newspapers start reporting facts and stop distorting the truth, then they may actually be worth reading. And secondly, life is actually a lot more pleasant without the constant barrage of bad news, bad information and pop culture. I can find out about things in other ways.

I’d have to say a big fat no to paying for reading my news online. First of all, when newspapers start reporting facts and stop distorting the truth, then they may actually be worth reading. And secondly, life is actually a lot more pleasant without the constant barrage of bad news, bad information and pop culture. I can find out about things in other ways.

I’m not exactly clear how people think that all those quality journalists get paid in the first place. Granted there’s advertising, and the amount the reader paid was always a fraction of the actual cost. But the same people who seem to think we should have free access to whatever the hell we want also seem to dislike advertising, which makes me question whether or not they can do basic math.

I’m not exactly clear how people think that all those quality journalists get paid in the first place. Granted there’s advertising, and the amount the reader paid was always a fraction of the actual cost. But the same people who seem to think we should have free access to whatever the hell we want also seem to dislike advertising, which makes me question whether or not they can do basic math.

I’m not exactly clear how people think that all those quality journalists get paid in the first place. Granted there’s advertising, and the amount the reader paid was always a fraction of the actual cost. But the same people who seem to think we should have free access to whatever the hell we want also seem to dislike advertising, which makes me question whether or not they can do basic math.

I don’t see anything wrong with them (or Hulu) charging for online content, but I won’t be subscribing.
I’ve never paid for a news subscription and see no reason why I ever would need to. Of course, I couldn’t afford it, even if I wanted to, so I guess that is irrelevant.

I am a librarian in NY, and while the New York Times has not yet come up with a model for institutional piecing for libraries (some of my colleagues are in discussions to try to get this), we are hopeful that eventually we will be able to offer our patrons online, remote access to the NYT, via some kind of access code, such as a library card barcode. We do this for many resources; why not the Times? Right now, my library subscribes to Lexis Nexis, which includes full text articles from the NYT, though you don’t get the Times on a daily basis, and you can’t browse easily (you have to search). By going through libraries, you get your articles without any additional charges beyond the portion of your taxes or tuition (for academic libraries) going to support libraries. Use your libraries!