Slashdot Mirror
NY Times Op-Ed Page Goes Subscriber-Only
kevinatilusa writes "The New York Times has announced an expanded subscription service to be launched this September. Subscriptions will cost $49.95 per year and include access to both the Times archives (currently available on a pay-by-the-article basis) and to the paper's op-ed columnists (currently available for free, but probably not for long). The Times also posted a more detailed explanation (registration required) for their decision."
As expected. Seems the NYT is going more and more subscription oriented. I must really ask...What is the benifit on their side for the public to register to read articles online? Just to be able to sell their emails?
Does this mean in a short while the only source for free online commentary is going to be blogs?
The blogosphere is the next great playground in the marketplace of ideas; it's the closest thing to our forgotten history of town-hall meetings and individual participation that most of us have ever experienced. It's participatory mass media, a totally new thing that is remaking the political landscape -- not least by revealing whole new ways for major political organizations to form themselves and raise funds.
And the NYT has just opted out of the whole thing. That shiny new FUTURE thing? That's scary. We don't know how to make money off of it. So we'll give all that business to our competitors like the LA Times (which tried a similar stupid scheme and quickly recanted).
While registration does bug people many of us will deal with it (if only by using bugmenot) in order to discuss the ideas behind the firewall. Salon seems to be doing OK with ad-based day passes. But fifty bucks a year for the content of one paper based fifteen hundred miles away from where I live? What if all the other newspapers of interest started charging a similar amount? No thanks, guys. As Atrios said, we have too much to sort through as it is. We can get along without the NYT's columnists.
But how will the NYT get along without the buzz of bloggers discussing their content? I guess the answer is "like a local paper." If that's what they want to be, I guess someone else will step up to be the Newspaper of Record.
Brackets contain world's first nanosig, highly magnified:[.]
...when you have people ready to post the content on Slashdot!
"Hey guys...no need to log in! Here's the article text!"
NYTimes.com to Offer Subscription Service
By TIMOTHY WILLIAMS
Published: May 17, 2005
The New York Times announced yesterday that it would offer a new subscription-based service on its Web site...
Actually, the point of this post was only to joke about posters who regularly save many Slashdot users the hassle of creating a login for the NYT Online. And up until now, I suppose there's been no problem with it, since the material is available for free (sans the time it takes to create a login account).
But I worry a bit about this move after thinking about some dubious virtues often shown in posts by slashdotters. Stealing article text seems to be a favorite pastime for at least a few posters, but when content is copyrighted AND no longer free, what happens when someone posts it (for a joke / for mod point / for ) on Slashdot, will NYT actually respond with any of those lovely cease and decist letters?
There is more political commentary on the Web than anyone has time to read. It is the height of arrogance for them to think their editorial page is so important that they can do what no one else can afford to. I read the NYT op-ed every day, but I'm certainly not going to pay for the privilege of reading Thomas L. Friedman phone it in.
Their news reporting is another matter. There aren't many organizations in the world with the resources to rival the NYT's reporting. But this is what they plan to give away! Stupid stupid stupid.
They should do what Salon is doing: Offer a day pass to anyone willing to watch a 30-second ad. Sell an ad-free, year subscription for, I guess, $50. In addition, continue to charge a premium for access to the archives (which Salon doesn't do, but Salon's archives aren't quite as valuable as those of the NY Times...)
But of course they can't go with someone else's proven business model, because they're the NY Times and they're smarter than everybody else! Bunch of wankers. Can't wait to see them crash and burn, then hopefully learn from experience. God knows they've got enough cash sitting around for a failed experiment or two.
The Wall Street Journal, which requires a paid subscription (worth every penny, by the way, as will the NY Times subscription also surely be), has essentially removed itself from Google's index. Now I realize that the NYT already requires registration, but the effect of these attempts to monetize access is to partition the knowledge on the Internet into many small fortresses.
Wouldn't it be great if every article published in the NY Times for the past 150 years were indexed in Google? There would be a thousand really interesting uses coming out of the woodwork, uses that we can't even imagine without trying it.
Yes, I know, they need to make a living, but please, let this information be free. If the searcher/finder of record (Google) is barred at the gate from the paper of record, we're losing something really valuable.
I used to be a newspaperman, and now I fight for free speech on the Internet. I wish we could find a way to honor both of these tremendously valuable traditions.
The Wall Street Journal does the opposite, which I think is the right idea.
Their opinion page is available right here, for free. This makes sense, because they are trying to influence the world with it. Thus, they are more interested in power (number of readers) than money (subscription revenues).
Their up to the minute financial news, on the other hand, has real financial value to many people, and its wide dissemination is not as important as receiving money for it. I would think the same would be true of the New York Times - the articles would have financial value but the opinions would be better made free.
Intriguingly enough, the Times' subscription is actually excellent value to anyone who wants to access the Times archives. They were charging $2.95 per article or $7.95 for a four-pack of articles. Unlimited access to articles for $50 is a good deal if you want to read old Times articles in any volume.
D
Amen... I've been reading NYT online since 1995/6, and I really like their Op-Ed page -- it's the one place I consistently visit on their site -- but I'm not going to pay $50 a year to read it. It's not that good...
especially the refuse spewed out by KarlRove-lite David Brooks, aren't worth the energy of clicking the mouse button
Yeah, agree here too. I really liked William Safire (the NYT's previous "token conservative" columnist). His viewpoint sometimes drove me nuts, but he was a great read: intelligent, did a good job of backing up his arguments, and simply had a sense of style (he'd be a great person to argue with over dinner!). I suppose David Brooks is his replacement, but man he's pretty pathetic compared to Safire.
We live, as we dream -- alone....
Do you realy think it only costs $.50 a day to bring you a paper? the cost is just to insure that you read the copy you are delivered, giving the advertizers the warm fuzzy feeling that the ads are reaching people and the paper some number of people willing to pay to read their fishwrap.
if web ads are only 2 to 3 percent of the revenue it is because there are too many places to sell ads and not enough people buying. changing to a pay method only reduces the number of impressions and therefore also the amount of revenue.
Having them go offline (or to a pay only link) lessens the value of advertizing on the Times website
I used to have a cool sig, back when I cared
If, as may be the case, all reality is subjective, then meatspace, and yes even (or especially!) cyberspace are equally subjective members of the set of realities. Not necessarily overlapping sets, although I think that may not be supportable either in the near future, and possibly present. I think I'll stop at this point.
Ah! I feel much better now ;-P
"[I]t is a wise man who admits the limits of his knowledge or skill, and that pretending either causes harm." --Terry Go
The people at the Times need to realize that $50/year is an amazingly unrealistic sum of money. You can subscribe to Playboy for $16.00/year, and you get good interviews, good articles, classy soft porn, some really excellent short fiction, and all the liberal opinions you could ever want.
So here's a question about the price: am I going to be paying $50/year so that the op-ed writers can afford to live in New York City? Or worse yet, so that they can afford to commute from Connecticut? I've always gotten the sense that NYC was its own little world, where the local population density has amplified demand and created a surreal amount of inflation. In Washington D.C. and Los Angeles, mocking NYC's bizarreness is a little hypocritical -- but I live in DC, and agree with my LA friends: this is a dumb move, and will serve to make the electronic op-ed section irrelevant.