It’s Official: NYT To Start Charging For Content In 2011

by Glynnis MacNicol | 9:38 am, January 20th, 2010

» 8 comments

It has finally happened. After twelve months (or more) of rumors and speculation the New York Times has announced that it will start charging for content in 2011. Here’s the money quote from the press release:

The new approach, referred to as the metered model, will offer users free access to a set number of articles per month and then charge users once they exceed that number. This will enable NYTimes.com to create a second revenue stream and preserve its robust advertising business. It will also provide the necessary flexibility to keep an appropriate ratio between free and paid content and stay connected to a search-driven Web.

Also worth noting is that the Times says will spend the next year creating and building their own “new online infrastructure,” which is good news in the sense that the NYT.com has continually been a leader in what a news organization should look like online. Hopefully they will apply the same ingenuity to whatever pay model they create. That said, the metered system is viewed by many as a way of ‘punishing’ the most loyal readers; people who use the site most have to pay the most, which in most other industries would make perfect sense, but in this one may prove a challenge.

Meanwhile, before everyone gets too riled up, according to Times media reporter Richard Perez-Pena the details are still super foggy:

But executives of The New York Times Company said they could not yet answer fundamental questions about the plan, like how much it would cost or what the limit would be on free reading. They stressed that the amount of free access could change with time, in response to economic conditions and reader demand.

In a memo to staff ‘Arthur and Janet’ [Sulzberger and Robinson] explain why the change now:

We are doing so because we believe that a second revenue stream will be an important part of our future…Fundamentally, this is an important step in our effort to support The New York Times’s high-quality, professional journalism….We also selected the metered model because it offers a number of important virtues from a financial and growth perspective. It allows NYTimes.com to remain a vibrant part of the search-driven Web, which has proven to be an integral reason for why we have become an industry leader in display advertising.

Also, rest assured print subscribers, according to the same memo you will not have to pay an additional fee for online access.

Full press release after the jump. Full memo at Romenesko.

Pages: 1 2

New York Times, paid content, Richard Perez-Pena, The State of Journalism

http://www.zachinthehighlifeagain.com Zach Linder

Any word on if home delivery subscribers will have to pay for online content?
Glynnis MacNicol

According to the internal memo from Sulzberger and Robinson (I just added an excerpt and link above) they won’t. From the memo: “New York Times home delivery print subscribers will continue to have free access to NYTimes.com”
http://www.sailrabbits.com Magister

I’d be interested in this new infrastructure and how it might enhance the product, but I have to also caution that once you get to a price point above $30 to $40 per annum, they’d really be looking at diminishing returns.

IOW: I’d pay $29.95 a year tomorrow for unlimited access to their current product and if they adopted the right kind of improvements, I wouldn’t blink at $39.95. But if they go up from there, I’d really need a return on my investment because though I love the Times, it’s not the end-all of the web.
http://www.sailrabbits.com Magister

Note: I probably should’ve used a “probably” to modify my blinking at $39.95.
http://www.facebook.com/people/Joe-Callan/100000200979966 Joe Callan

It’s good to see that the NYT has faith enough in their brand to charge money for the online site. Theirs is a publication worth paying for.

Now here’s the thing–I kind of sound like a hypocrite because I poked fun at Murdoch when he discussed the same move with his publications. The difference is in the tone, though: NYT’s memo to discuss this new plan is not a scathing attack of its web consumers (or internet users in general). It calmly and rationally explains the need for the NYT to move in this direction in order to continue to bring its readers top-quality content.
http://www.adamsherk.com Adam Sherk

No one may know what the future holds, but I’ve got the inside scoop on the (not) real reasons that the NYT is moving to a paid model :) Top 10 Reasons The New York Times is Really Putting up a Paywall
http://www.adamsherk.com Adam Sherk

Sorry, that link didn’t work: http://www.adamsherk.com/publishing/top-10-reasons-for-new-york-times-paywall/
ChrisNH

The dilemma is that a move like this naturally will shrink their audience. How will people like Krugman and Rich (et al) react to their leftist shrieks reaching fewer eyeballs? That’s the consequence of a move like this.