So, the New York Times is going to make it harder for you free-loaders to read their online articles. Everything is going behind a paywall. You'll get to see 20 articles for free every month, but after that, you'll get hit up for money.
Since I'm a heavy linker to the New York Times, I'm not sure how I should handle this. I could just lift more of their text and put it into the blog, so you won't have to bother with the paywall. Or I could stop linking to the Times articles and find similar sources on free websites. Not sure what I'll do yet.
Is anyone planning on paying for a subscription who didn't pay before?
Is this a smart move for the Times? Will it bring in more revenue? Stanch the movement towards making content completely worthless?
Apt. 11d 
They’ve tried and failed before. But, they need to do something. I can’t help but note how much thinner the print edition is getting.
We pay for the print edition, so the new policy won’t change things for us. I would pay for the subscription in order to access more than 20 articles a month (if we didn’t already subscribe to the print). The NYT is valuable enough to me, my major source of news.
My other major source is the Wash Post, for which I do not pay. I think if the implemented a limited access policy, I’ll subscribe to them, too. I think part of what I need e-publishers/e-providers to do is to figure out, really, what their costs are and then share the costs with me. They don’t want to, of course, ’cause they’re for-profit industries who want to maintain their profit. In order to get me to subscribe, though, they’ll have to behave more like not-for-profits or regulated utilities (i.e. a cost+ profit).
LikeLike
What would I do if I were you? Well, it depends on how much you want to support the NY Times, and their ilk. If you want to support them (and, as I said, I do), you could continue linking (and mention that they’re behind a paywall after 20 articles). But, if you do, you’re are acting as their marketing arm, for free.
If you’re not willing to do that, I’d first go to others who aren’t requiring payment (Wash Post & LA Times both have good content).
I don’t think it’s right to just borrow more of the actual content, especially if you’re doing it because they’re asking folks to pay. I am not enough of a reader of sources like TPM & Huff Post & Politico to know whether I’d find their of adequate interest. But that’s another experiment.
LikeLike
My understanding was that people could read articles for free if they came from an outside link, like that from a blogger. (That’s what Kevin Drum was reporting, anyway.) If that’s right, and _you_ pay for a subscription, I don’t see why you’d have to change your blogging practices at all.
LikeLike
Looks like someone’s found a way around it:
http://andrewsullivan.theatlantic.com/the_daily_dish/2011/03/you-could-see-this-coming.html
LikeLike
I’m planning to pay and will do so gladly. It’s been a good ride but they have to try and make money. One of the other commenters mentioned the LA Times, to which I subscribe, and they have cut back on their reporting thanks to Zell’s mismanagement of the Tribune Co. Keeping teams of investigative journalists and foreign correspondents does not come cheap!
LikeLike
What Matt said. Link away for our benefit, Laura.
LikeLike
“Keeping teams of investigative journalists and foreign correspondents does not come cheap!”
The corporate stuff behind the LA Times debacle is terrible, but the online paper is still pretty good, in my opinion. They broke the Bell scandal, released teacher performance info (including analyzing it), are digging into the community college building scandal. I disagreed with the release of teacher performance data in the way that they did it, but I also think that it is the *kind* of thing that a newspaper should be doing.
NY Times is doing $15/4 weeks for their lowest tier (which doesn’t get you the tablet access). I’d pay that for the Wash Post, definitely & LA Times, potentially, I think, if they implemented the plan.
I’d be irritated about the lack of access on my tablet though, and I question their tiered service. It violates my principle that they should be charging me based on what it costs them rather than their guess about what the market will bear.
LikeLike
“What Matt said. Link away for our benefit, Laura.”
Boy, talk about the tragedy of the commons and free riders. Do you guys not pay for public radio, as well?
Mind you, I understand that I’m one of the people who has to “donate” for “free” things if those things are to remain available (i.e. one of the people with the resources to do so). So, I can only apply so much pressure; I wouldn’t pressure a homeless person to subscribe to the NY times so that it remains a viable institution into the future. But, really?
(I think newspapers have to start developing cross-marketing, too, like museums have. For example, if I subscribe to the print edition of the NY times, I should get access to online versions of other newspapers I read less frequently, and vice versa — a print subscriber to the LA times should get online access to the NY Times).
LikeLike
Do you guys not pay for public radio, as well?
NPR is something inflicted on the world by the more self-aware atheists who haven’t been to church since they were small kids. Because they don’t believe in God, they don’t go to church. Because they know they have flaws, they still feel the need to try to improve. Unfortunately, being bored by somebody droning on and on was the only part of church they remembered.
LikeLike
In other words, you should pay for NPR if you listen and have enough money to do so.
LikeLike
I’ve thought that major news organizations made a mistake by not charging for online access from the start—they should have emphasized what they can do that bloggers and aggregators can’t, chiefly more intensive investigative journalism and on-the-scene reporting from foreign correspondents.
I’d happily pay—I want journalism to remain a profession and not become only a hobby, which is where we’re headed—but I do think that the price they’ve set is steep. They’d do better—meaning attract many more subscribers (and the cost to them is no greater)—offering subscriptions for $5 per month or $50 annually for basic online access. With a $195 a year subscription as the lowest tier, they’re pricing out too many of their readers.
LikeLike
“(I think newspapers have to start developing cross-marketing, too, like museums have. For example, if I subscribe to the print edition of the NY times, I should get access to online versions of other newspapers I read less frequently, and vice versa — a print subscriber to the LA times should get online access to the NY Times).”
Very good, bj. You’re getting at a big part of the issue, which is the annoyance factor of having to deal with all of these entities individually. If I could just go over to Amazon and sign up for a bulk pack of newspapers, it would be much more attractive. I once made the mistake of registering for the Minneapolis paper in order to read an article and they’ve been spamming me ever since with Minneapolis-focused advertising. The only time I tried to unsubscribe to their spam, it proved impossible to locate “unsubscribe” on their site. I may try harder to wiggle free, next time. I shudder to think what would have happened to my inbox, had I registered more promiscuously with other newspapers. (I’m not going be giving out fake or fakish email addresses, which is a popular solution.)
“The NYT is valuable enough to me, my major source of news.”
Please continue to balance your media diet with other media. The NYT has become notorious for what it chooses not to share with its readership (for instance, it was very, very late in mentioning the absence of physical evidence and the presence of several rock-solid alibis in the Duke lacrosse rape hoax case).
LikeLike
And, what a blogger’s to do? the Times seems to be encouraging people to link to them from Facebook and Twitter by making access to articles posted at those venues free. It wasn’t clear to me that the same was true of blog posts, but I didn’t read all the policies.
If that is the case, then I say link away; it’s with their blessing. I don’t really like the idea of “lifting” extensively because it’s against the spirit (and the letter) of copyright law, but I’m an editor and I care about such things. I’d say stay within fair use parameters, though it’s true that it’s a murky doctrine.
LikeLike
MH, I have invented a word, and I think your NPR post needed it. ‘Lugubriate’ As in, “NPR was lugubriating about Wisconsin union…”
Whaddaya think? English NEEDS this word.
LikeLike
I find NPR annoying, but I’m also not a big fan of turning other parts of speak into verbs without a very good reason.
LikeLike
How about “earnesting”?
LikeLike
You know, two weeks ago I might have subscribed. But after their coverage of the Great Tohoku/Kanto earthquake and tsunami, nope. I was definitely not impressed, occasionally outraged, and occasionally amused by the signs of bad translation from Japanese news sources. I’m having to institute the same sort of news blackout I did after 9/11, its getting so distressing. It’s back to just the book review and the science news (a whole ‘nother kettle of issues about reporting complicated topics) for me. And I have a library I can use.
LikeLike
The NYT of course had the egregious Judith Butler and her enabler Howell Raines, but they are gone now: it’s still the single best newspaper in the country. They also publish Paul Krugman and Bob Herbert, lone voices of reason speaking in a howling media wilderness.
I agree with Kevin Drum: it seems a reasonable compromise to ask heavy users to pay. Since no-one has figured out how to monetize actual reporting (very expensive) in our brave new world, they have to try something.
In the meantime, just link to them, and we’ll test to see if the links from blogs are in fact free 😉
LikeLike
I may just go back to subscribing to the Sunday paper. You get all the digital stuff with that, I think. It costs the same as the digital only subscription and you don’t need to worry about dropping it in the toilet.
LikeLike
I was just watching a Krugman interview clip from last year where he was making the case for another $800 billion stimulus and insisting that it won’t be hard at all to pay it off–the important thing is putting people to work now.
http://timiacono.com/index.php/2010/08/31/krugman-on-the-need-for-more-stimulus/
The funny thing is that Krugman says this at the very same time that he is predicting continuing economic weakness for at least the next several years, which means that there will be an ongoing temptation to keep doing stimuluses every couple of years until the economy recovers, by which time we may be well on our way to equaling Japan’s 196% of GDP national debt. Throw in a known unknown like the near certainty of an expensive major catastrophe during that period of time, and we’ll wind up in a situation very similar to Japan’s–up to the eyeballs in national debt, and facing major reconstruction.
If that’s what it looks like to be a lone voice of reason speaking in a howling media wilderness, heaven help us.
LikeLike
I don’t know if I will subscribe. I am a grad student, so there is probably a way I can access the online content through my university for free anyways. That aside, as someone who wants to support journalism but is on a tight budget, I don’t think I would pay $15 every four weeks. From what I gather, there are a huge number of people who are will to pay something for content but not $200 a year. It seems like it might have made more sense to price the lowest tier at, say, $50 a year and keep ads on the website, and maybe for $200 a year you get access to an ad free site. My guess is they could easily get 4X the number of subscribers will to pay $50 than those willing to pay $200. Also, it sounds like they’re going to charge $200 and keep the ads, for which there is much grumbling in their comments section. I feel $50 a year is low enough that people wouldn’t mind ads, since the the amount feels nominal enough to be more like a donation than a subscription. For $200 a year, I would probably feel like I could demand improvements in viewer experience.
On news quality, the NY Times has its shortcomings, but I can’t think of a better American newspaper, nor one with so much nation-wide coverage. The BBC is a good counterpoint, but their online news has little in-depth coverage, and other national newspapers, eg. “The Australian,” “Le Monde,” “The People’s Daily” have their own strengths and weaknesses.
LikeLike
Amy P: I have to admit, I don’t quite get the Krugman love either. Not that I adore the work of other contrary economists either. One of these days I’ll write my expose study on standards and burdens of proof in economics and how they developed… and then get depressed when it’s roundly ignored. (I’ll be in good company in my field, at least. The NYT Magazine piece on why Science and Technology Studies led to global warming denial was bizarre and showed some real ignorance of the Sokal hoax, for starters.)
I suppose I’ll miss coverage on the US once I calm down (although the economic situation and congress ain’t making that easy), but I’ll probably just rely on Laura and other bloggers to let me know what stories are out there. Or I’ll read the Japanese press’ take on it–the coverage of what it means that the Republicans took the House filtered through the lens of Japanese political history was at least diverting….
(Obama’s not really loved by the Japanese-language internet right now. His speech yesterday (?) didn’t go over well.)
LikeLike
lmc,
I feel like there’s a good Krugman and a bad Krugman. The good Krugman won the Nobel Prize. The bad Krugman writes a lot of NYT opinion pieces.
LikeLike
They flipped the switch up here.
I’m waiting to see when I hit the cap and how much I care at that point. I like reading the NYT and I want to support journalism but they may have priced me out of the market, at least this year.
LikeLike
They should have a student rate. That would be a good way to get converts. But, you might be right that you can get access somehow through your university.
I don’t think that they could have managed the always pay for access idea (never having been open) because part of what was happening was that people were getting used to getting their information online. Way more people read the NY times now than did before (and that’s not even considering the LA Times, which was almost certainly only read by people in Southern CA before the internet). Now, I read it. I’m guessing that’s also true about the Wash Post. I’m not a regular reader of the Tribune or the Boston paper, but I’m guessing they have some national audience as well (though both those newspapers are even more dire straights).
Right now, we have the Wash Post because it’s subsidized by Kaplan and the NY times because it’s subsidized by the Sulzbergers. I think the long run solution is going to be some form of not-for-profit.
MH: There’s certainly no moral obligation to pay for NPR if you don’t listen to it. But, Matt & Ianqui were asking Laura to link to NY times, indicating that you do want it.
LikeLike
There’s certainly no moral obligation to pay for NPR if you don’t listen to it.
Are you part of the Tea Party?
LikeLike
Kidding. But, I don’t see why a blogger should try to avoiding linking to the NYT to avoid exploiting the NYT’s own policy. Presumably the editor wants to try to get more subscriptions or notice and letting bloggers links be free was a deliberate choice.
LikeLike
I just remembered that we have an umbrella from Slate’s mid-90s subscription-only effort. The pay-wall didn’t last, but the umbrella has been durable. The white panels have a bit of mildew staining, but it works fine. (It was my wife’s subscription, before we married, not mine.)
LikeLike
I really didn’t think too much about this. I read the NYT daily, and figured I’d pay for it. I believe in paying for things I use. I donate to NPR, I used to pay for Salon. $15 a month seems excessive though. I think if they had a lower flat fee for a year, they’d likely get more subscribers.
So now, I will likely be juggling my real estate slide shows and news articles between work computer and home, hoping I don’t exceed the free limit.
LikeLike
“So now, I will likely be juggling my real estate slide shows and news articles between work computer and home, hoping I don’t exceed the free limit.”
That’s not quite in the spirit of the thing, but I guess if they set it up that way, it’s OK.
LikeLike
I’m not sure what I’ll do. I live in a rural area where we can’t even get the two-hour-away-big city paper delivered, much less the NYT. If I could get Sunday delivery + online access, that’s what I’d do. But I won’t pay $15 a month; that’s way too much, as much as I spend each month on my whole limited cable package. I also wish they would bundle a few sources together; maybe $50-100/year would be reasonable for just the Times.
I do happily support NPR, and have been thinking about increasing my donation. Do people who rag on it actually listen to it? I just spent an hour listening to excellent news coverage of both Libya and Japan. Plus I learned about the Babylonian origins of the week day names on the Stardate segment! NPR has its flaws, but between news and This American Life it’s worth a lot to me.
LikeLike
Do people who rag on it actually listen to it?
I only listen to bad pop music, most of it extremely dated. Radio is supposed to be stupid.
LikeLike
I love NPR, too. I’ve experienced the cliche moment of sitting in the car to finish listening to something too many times to count.
(but it is mostly a car thing, though I have now discovered I can listen while doing some mindless tasks on my computer).
LikeLike
I’ve stayed in the car to let Laura Branigan finish singing “Self Control.”
Speaking of the serious news (as other people are wont to do), who is naming military operations now? Is “Odyssey Dawn” supposed to make us think it will take ten years to get the troops home or remind us of video games that were 2nd rate from the moment they were released?
LikeLike
Incidentally, I received a promotional offer in my email (spam filter caught it initially) from Lincoln for a free year’s access to the NYTimes. I can’t think that I was the only one….
(And honestly, torn, since I *am* trying to swear off US news media. Although, as always happens when I do, we’ve started military action in another country. Happened with Iraq several times in college, Afghanistan, Iraq 2, and now Libya. It’s enough to give someone a superstitious complex.)
LikeLike