New York Times To Impose Paywall
The New York Times announced today that as of March 28, full access to the newspaper’s web site will no longer be free. This is not a surprise, but what is a shock is the price. The Times offers three prices: for web and tablet access, it’s $20 a month. For web and smartphone access, it’s $15 a month. But for access using all three platforms, it’s $35 a month. That’s $420 a year to read the New York Times on multiple devices, a price that approaches the cost of a print subscription. (Full 7-day home delivery in New York City costs about $608 a year.)
Current home delivery subscribers will get full, free access to the digital content. Interestingly, it seems that even those who only subscribe to the New York Times Book Review at a cost of $91 a year get that access, as do those who get full weekly, weekday or weekend subscriptions. (I know someone who subscribes to the Book Review alone, at $1.75 a week. When they the page about the free access to the new digital version for home delivery, the texts there seemed to indicate that their subscription would give them free access.)
I’m all in favor of paying for news. I think it’s important, and I think the “free” experiment we’ve been living with for years has greatly hurt the ability of newspapers to provide quality news. But even just for web and tablet ($260 a year) or web and smartphone ($195) access, I find these prices to be too high. I’d gladly pay, say, $100 a year to access the New York Times web site, but I can’t see committing to much more than that. Especially because even subscribers will still see ads! It’s also worth noting that even those subscribers paying $455 will have to pay more for crosswords, if they wish to have online access to them. And, one more thing, they really need to improve their crappy iPad app to give value to tablet subscriptions.
Granted, all users will be able to read 20 articles a month, and some trickery will allow them to read articles if the enter the site via links on other sites. But many users will simply go to other sites. This was bound to happen no matter what the cost, but this high pricing scheme will certainly turn off a great many readers (such as myself) who would be willing to pay for content on the site.
My guess is that this will be a resounding failure. The New York Times has already sent out e-mails to existing users saying, “As a loyal reader of NYTimes.com, you will receive a special offer to save on our new digital subscriptions,” and I think many people, with a “special offer” will try out the service. But I think the New York Times is pricing themselves out of the market.
Time will tell, but on March 28, I think the New York Times is in for a surprise.
Posted: 3/17/2011 by kirk | Filed under: Miscellanea | Tags: newspapers | 4 Comments »
Kirk,
I’ve thought for years, “Why don’t they charge for this?” The online Times is now a part of my routine and I wouldn’t spend the money for the print version.
But Arthur’s explanation and the multi-tier pricing are confusion wrapped in bafflegarb.
I can’t wait to see what happens.
They SHOULD follow the Apple App model: sell a lot of apps at low cost and make up in volume what you lose in individual pricing.
Steve’s on to something there and the Times would be wise to study his model.
Funny, too, that the WaPo just started promoting its FREE and “redesigned” website.
Michael Scott (me, not the guy from The Office) truism: Any changes made to processes or products in the guise of improving customers’ experiences are immediately indistinguishable from the predecessor process or product.
MPS
If papers are going to nickel-and-dime us (and I, like you, am all in favor of paying news), they’re not going to get very far.
I get the Sunday paper delivered (in Texas) and they give me the same access as if I got it every day. This is a little strange. When I lived in NY, I used to buy the paper at the train station on my way to work. I wonder if they still sell it there. That guy is going to take a hit, because people who get the print version every day are going to switch to home delivery to get free web access.
There are going to be unintended consequences, but I understand why they are doing it. The NYT gives away an awful lot of good stuff.
I would think they should let it be free to someone logging in from a non US IP address.
Today is the day. I agree with a lot of the sentiments above — free outside US, steep price, curious-ness of the work arounds. I don’t subscribe, but have become a daily reader online and probably would exceed the 20/mo. amount (only by a little!) But even this past week, I found myself clicking through less often.
I heard about @freeNYT and was intrigued enough to look at that feed. The comments were very interesting; I don’t figure that will amount to enough traffic to make the NYT shut such backdoors.