Many people are opposed to the idea of paying to read The New York Times online, but others think differently. The resistance to this new plan does not want to pay because they have not paid before. The newspaper has placed itself in a difficult position by allowing their journalism to be read for free in the first place, because it will be hard to take that luxury away now. People in support of the online subscription plan argue that there is tremendous value in online newspapers because information is extremely timely. Also, our advancing technological era allows accessing newspapers online to be very easy and convenient. Several people own some kind of computer, whether it is a desktop with a monitor, a personal laptop, or the newest innovation from Apple, an iPad. Both sides have logical points, so it will be interesting to see if the new move will attract online subscribers or not. Would you be willing to pay a monthly bill for a newspaper you can access online?
Personally, I do not fully support the Times’ decision. I understand that we are now part of a world full of new technological advancements almost daily. However, I do not find it necessary to charge the public to read an article on the Internet.
First off, the newspaper has attempted to have an online subscription plan very similar to this new idea in the past. From 2005 to 2007, The Times experimented with a model called TimesSelect. Readers had to pay for access to opinion columnists like Frank Rich and Maureen Dowd and for The Times’ archives. This program produced $10 million in revenue, with 227,000 subscribers at $49.95 a year (Peters). However, after examining this new trial, the company realized that the limitation on access to the site eliminated potential for more readers and advertising. TimesSelect eventually came to an end, and when it did, traffic to The New York Times website almost doubled. Currently, the website has more than 30 million domestic visitors a month (Peters). As a firm believer in learning from the past, I see something very similar happening for the newspaper this second time around. Although our economy is showing improvement after a major slump, we are recovering very slowly. Many consumers are not ready to be spending unnecessary cash because they just do not have it anymore. I do not really see the Times showing much more progress with this endeavor than they had last time. Do you think many readers will be willing to pay for this journalism?
I also feel that it depends on personal opinion. I would not pay for an online subscription because I would rather read a newspaper in print. Therefore, if I had to pay for anything, I would pay for the printed subscription of The New York Times. However, I do not purchase it now and will not purchase it when this plan comes into effect. I am sure I will use the 20 allocated articles I am allowed to read per month, and should be satisfied with that. I do not really think this is the best idea for The New York Times, but am anxious to see the future results of this new online subscription plan.
Works Cited
Peters, Jeremy W. "The Times Announces Digital Subscription Plan." The New York Times. 17
Mar. 2011. Web. 21 Mar. 2011.
Peters, Jeremy W. "Times’s Online Pay Model Was Years in the Making." The New York Times. 20 Mar.
2011. Web. 21 Mar. 2011.
I believe the New York Times made the right decision by charging a fee for an online subscription to their paper. In the past, when the internet wasn't as much of a staple of everyday life, posting their paper for free was relevant. It was able to promote the company and keep users connected. There are obviously going to be many people upset with the new online fee. Who wants to pay for something that they are used to getting for free? To understand the New York Times' decision we have to analyze the changing market. The new popularity of eBooks and devices such as the kindle and iPad is making paper copy reading more obsolete. The only way for companies like the New York Times to gain back revenue lost in this changing market is to charge a fee for their online service. Today, a world without hard copy newspapers isn't unimaginable. If this world develops, and the New York Times only charges for paper copy subscriptions, they will become a charity. It was intelligent for them to allow a certain amount of free online articles per month. It both promotes the service, and keeps other people who many not be willing to pay the online fee yet connected with the company. However, the New York Times needs to watch their competition closely. If another paper can give more for free, consumers might no longer be willing to pay for their service.
ReplyDeleteIn today’s day, I can see why the NY Times would impose a fee on their online newspaper, but to me this would not be the best decision nor do I support it. Like Wade was saying, who isn’t going to be upset by this? As a personal user of the New York Times online paper, it would honestly deter me from wanting to read it. It is currently set to my homepage, but why would I continue to read from a paper that is going to charge me for the same information I can read elsewhere from as just a reputable source? Now according to the website it would be a 9$ weekly fee for the paper. That’s roughly $400 a year and running on a student budget, I don’t think I would be able to make that work. It was a good move to continue a free amount of articles monthly by the Times but I would like them to take it a step further. What if the cost for the paper included a digital subscription? Especially in today’s day and age, with the generation gap of technology, there are those who won’t be willing to get a digital subscription because they like the print but it could encourage the movement towards technology. The popularity of the tablets and eBooks is booming but it will be interesting to see how the readers respond to this. As Erin put it, we should learn from our past. Will there be a repeat? Time will tell.
ReplyDeleteI personally believe that the New York Times made the right decision in charging online users to pay to view their articles. Almost every online newspaper website that I have visited, such as the Wall Street Journal and the Asbury Park Press, charge visitors to the website a certain fee after a certain number of article views. I agree with Erin, Wade, and Dilshan in that there are going to be many New York Times readers upset with the change, and thus it may affect the number of visitors to the website. This may affect revenue in the short run in terms of advertising, but I don't believe it will make a difference in the long run. Our economy is climbing out of a recession and so people are being much more stingent with their discretionary cash, but once things level out again people who avidly read or rely on the New York Times online are going to worry less and less about the cost. The New York Times is one of country (and world's) leading newspapers, and although their first attempt at charging online customers did not work I don't believe they will have a problem this time. I think the major problem with the last attempt was that they didn't give it enough time to take full effect.
ReplyDeleteI think that the New York Times should definitely charge online readers for articles. Compared to the many sources of information online, the New York Times provides superior quality to blogs and smaller news sources. Although they make money off of selling ad space, the New York Times can charge their readers subscription fees because people will pay. Many readers appreciate the convenience and quality of the online New York Times articles and understand that you cannot really get anything for free. Because the articles provide value for people with up to date news and information, subscribers will pay. I think overall that this is a smart decision for the New York Times. Although there will probably be some resistance to charging a fee initially, the company needs to adapt with changing technology and competition and move online.
ReplyDeleteI have to say I agree with the above comments. I think the New York Times is making a very strategic move by charging users to access their online archives. The print newspaper business has slowly been becoming more and more obsolete. One of the main newspaper companies in my hometown recently had a huge staff cut because their profits are so low. It is no wonder why a newspaper like the New York Times would adapt with our technological advances rather than fight them. With that said, I think that the NY Times should charge a similar price for subscriptions to their website as they would for print copies. This is sure to make the transition for hesitant customers easier. The NY Times could even increase their advertisement space online to increase profits. Like Google, they could charge companies to post ads and then receive profits based on how many hits the advertised website gets. It will probably take time for the NY Times to understand their opportunities on the Internet; however, I think by charging their online readers is a great start.
ReplyDelete