NY Times Announces Paywall (Which Google Will Help You Dig Underneath)

by Alex Alvarez | 12:03 pm, March 17th, 2011

» 20 comments

The New York Times today announced the launch of its “digital subscriptions” – known more commonly as a paywall – in Canada. On the 28th of this month, NYT readers in the U.S. will be offered digital subscriptions as well. (The company hopes to work out any kinks in the system before launching the new paywall in the U.S. Sorry again, Canadians.)

The paper sent out an email to readers highlighting the different restrictions and regulations that will come about due to the change. Non-subscribers will be able to view 20 articles each months at no charge, after which they will be prompted to join as a digital subscriber for additional access. The “Top News” section, viewable on smartphones and other electronic readers, will remain free. Home delivery subscribers will also have free, full access to the paper’s website and apps. In addition, the NYTimes.com home page and all section fronts will remain free to browse. The paywall is metered, meaning one will have the option of paying different amounts for different levels / means of access. So: Interested readers will have to shell out $15 for a month’s worth of access to the paper’s site and a mobile phone app, $20 for online access and an iPad app, and $35 for an all-access plan.

And here’s where things get interesting (this is via the email sent out by the NYT):

Readers who come to Times articles through links from search, blogs and social media like Facebook and Twitter will be able to read those articles, even if they have reached their monthly reading limit. For some search engines, users will have a daily limit of free links to Times articles.

Now, this isn’t news for anyone who has worked with paywall-restricted sites in the past – Googling a paywall-protected article’s title or URL will, in many cases, allow you access to the full story.

As expected, Twitter is exploding (or, at least, exploding if you happen to follow various media types) with mixed reactions about the announcement, despite the reality that news of an eventual NYT paywall has loomed over us for some time now. Some say it makes a lot of sense, given the changing media landscape, to expect to pay for online content in a way that is similar to – but not exactly the same as – paying for print content. Others make the point that so much news is available through other, free outlets (like aggregators and other sites that link to the NYT as a source), that there’s no real need to pay for online access.

Would you pay for a digital subscription to The New York Times – or any paper, for that matter?

Digital Subscription, New York Times, Paywall

Ardiva

Let’s just say that if Net Neutrality fails then many people will not have access to many things on the internet. NYT…..hope you don’t cancel regular hard-copy subscriptions.
Ricia

Pretty expensive bird cage liner.
perceptorii

If the New York Times had content that was worth paying for…maybe.
Pablo

Ardiva said:
Let’s just say that if Net Neutrality fails then many people will not have access to many things on the internet. NYT…..hope you don’t cancel regular hard-copy subscriptions.

Huh?
zombietimeshare

Pay them? I wouldn’t read the NYT if they paid me.
http://www.facebook.com/#!/pages/Make-BP-appear-on-AC360/122998907734005 mklitt

NY Times tried this *very briefly* several years ago. So not their first rodeo! It sounds like a model that may work this go round with people now accustomed to paying for apps.

Many have dropped paper subscriptions because online content is fresher and why pay for what is free? If NY Times is not making the advertising online model work, then who can?
J Baustian

Twenty articles a month ought to be enough for me. A few science stories, a couple book reviews, a couple music reviews.

If that’s not enough, well, I’ll just learn to live with it. Because I will not contribute anything to support the Times’ leftwing propaganda machine. If it goes broke and ceases publication entirely — something I expect to happen in the next 3-5 years — then I will not shed any tears.

As for whether I am willing to pay for online content… I’ve subscribed to the online edition of the WSJ for longer than I can remember. Maybe eight or ten years, I don’t know.
TeaPartyPatriot

Only a lunatic-left socialist miscreant would pay for an ethically-challenged and totally biased leftist extremist rag containing “All The News That’s Fit To Fake”. In fact, d-crat socialists be be overjoyed that this leftist propaganda sheet charges its very few viewers – they will think of it as a TAX, and we all know how much the d-crat socialists love TAXES!
chatmandu002

Color me gone from the NYT website. I’m not paying for more liberal/progressive/socialist drivel.
http://politicallyincorrectlibertarian.wordpress.com PoliticallyIncorrectLibertarian

I’d rather get my news from Gawker and perezhilton.com before giving the NYT a dime.

Restaurant Owner Threatened for ‘No Speak English, No Service’ sign.
http://libertarians4freedom.blogspot.com/2011/03/restaurant-owner-threatened-for-no.html
Phocus2

Ardiva said:
Let’s just say that if Net Neutrality fails then many people will not have access to many things on the internet. NYT…..hope you don’t cancel regular hard-copy subscriptions.

What?
Raygun

TeaPartyPatriot said:
Only a lunatic-left socialist miscreant would pay for an ethically-challenged and totally biased leftist extremist rag containing “All The News That’s Fit To Fake”. In fact, d-crat socialists be be overjoyed that this leftist propaganda sheet charges its very few viewers – they will think of it as a TAX, and we all know how much the d-crat socialists love TAXES!

They’re the single most highly reputable journalistic entity in the country. Just because you disagree with their editorial page, doesn’t mean their entire reporting is compromised. Also, try less caffeine, my god.
Phocus2

Raygun said:
They’re the single most highly reputable journalistic entity in the country. Just because you disagree with their editorial page, doesn’t mean their entire reporting is compromised. Also, try less caffeine, my god.

You write for the Onion…right? If not, seek help.
Raygun

I’d pay if I needed to, but it takes so little effort to bypass a website paywall. Financial Times, WSJ, etc. all have easily passable paywalls.
George Sore-ohs

It will flop. The NYT does not have a license on news. People will get their news for free elsewhere.
fhjtyikyu

+++ ( http://u.ly/73I ) ++++++++++

+++ ( http://u.ly/73I ) ++++++++++
Nationman

hell no, old media is dying slowly I refuse to give these morons my money.
J Baustian

Raygun said:
They’re the single most highly reputable journalistic entity in the country. Just because you disagree with their editorial page, doesn’t mean their entire reporting is compromised. Also, try less caffeine, my god.

At one time, what you say about the NY Times may have been correct. But not anymore.

Now the Times is just a daily version of The Nation or Mother Jones. the National Enquirer has a better record for accuracy and impartiality.

I do not know whether the Times is following the MSNBC business model, or if MSNBC is copying the Times. But it’s a bad model that can only end in utter failure.
noquarterasked

Comments everywhere I’ve looked are running like the ones here: 20 to 1 against the Times. I agree, though I think the negative sentiment is overdone, commenters being consciously snarky and all that. I’d guess that the NYT will do a little better than the London Times and clearly better than a few locals like Newsday, but it won’t do the business any good. The Times has a newsroom full of people who probably average 100k a year plus benefits and a few floors of a new build building in midtown. How much value do they add?

But here’s a look at the poor state of competition in the news: http://blog.unbiasedeye.com/2011/03/new-york-timess-big-bet.html

Times likes to blame sites like this one for its painful decline. It has much bigger troubles.
Raygun

Phocus2 said:
You write for the Onion…right? If not, seek help.

If you don’t think the NY Times reporting has broken important stories over the decades, you’re blindly partisan.