Slashdot Mirror
New York Times Ends Its Paid Subscription Service
Mike writes "The New York Times has announced that it will end its paid Internet service in favor of making most of its Web site available for free. The hope is that this move will attract more readers and higher advertising revenue. 'The longer-term problem for publishers like the Times is that they must find ways to present content online rather than just transferring stories and pictures from the newspaper. Most U.S. news Web sites offer their contents for free, supporting themselves by selling advertising. One exception is The Wall Street Journal which runs a subscription-based Web site. TimesSelect generated about $10 million in revenue a year. Schiller declined to project how much higher the online growth rate would be without charging visitors.'"
Now we can actually read all those articles that are lined from Slashdot!
You can get the article here.
If they opened up the archives, their website would instantly become *A LOT* more useful.
To make laws that man cannot, and will not obey, serves to bring all law into contempt.
--E.C. Stanton
Money for nothing, pix for free
I used to read the Times Editorial page once, twice, sometimes three times a week. Until Times Select. Then it was, "Krugman? Friedman? Who?" Putting the content behind that wall made the Times' columnists practically irrelevant. For better or worse, the Times has some of the most talked-about columnists in the country, and their importance evaporated almost instantly when the unwashed masses (me) could no longer read them. I, for one, am more than happy to look at a picture of a car or a book or whatever a few times a week if it means (in some small way) invigorating the national conversation.
... turning to the 3-D map, we see an unmistakable con
It costs you nothing. You'll increase your ad generated revenue on people wanting to revisit this today's date one year ago.
Second thing is allow commenting on stories, but then you'll be flamed by the readers.
Heaven forbid the old gray lady figure out why people don't read her pages any more. We've been trying to clue her in for years now.
Good security is based upon reality and common sense. Common sense is a function of having common knowledge.
Putting your most influential op-ed writers behind a pay wall is a sure way to make their voices irrelevant in the Internet age.
Where do I sign up to read the announcement?
Full Tilt
What's wrong with "just transferring stories and pictures from the newspaper"? Seems like a pretty good revenue-effort ratio to me. What do they have in mind, a threaded, moderated discussion forum associated with each story? That's an idea, not the solution to a "problem".
The question is whether they're going to free the crosswords. Not to shortz the rest of the paper... but that's what everyone really cares about.
"42"
Unfortunately their innovative Times Reader appears to be pay-only as of yet.
One would think that there are two sure-proof things NY Times could do to secure large audience for their advertisers.
1. Their image as a respect newspaper, not just NY, not just US, but world-wide. Their journalists are respected, and their content verified, their analysis intelligent.
2. Better presentation than the average site.
Well, Times Reader is that point 2. If they gave me the reader for free, I'll most likely to there for my shot of news and editorials, since it's simply better than browsing a web site.
And hence, the NY Times won't have to compete with the other blogs and sites as much as if they remained free only in-browser.
... In other news, the use of bugmenot has drop by ninety-eight percent, and the owners of that website can now be found at West 23rd and Broadway bumming for change.
I'm happy to filter a picture of a car or book with Adblock for the same.
I guess the phrase "national conversation" is enjoying a bit of life. I'll have no part of it. I think of national teenagers wielding national cellphones and sending national text messages to each other with their national thumbs.
http://www.bugmenot.com/
Can we?
The best planning can be done after the project completes.
Personally I like to have the option to pay for no ads. As I do on slashdot (mind you the slashdot cost is very low).
Although these days there is less point paying for a single publication/site. NYTimes seems good, but as a non-citizen it was never enough to pay for...
For every expert, there is an equal and opposite expert. - Arthur C. Clarke
I do not believe all information on the internet is supposed to be free (in terms of price). Wayyy back in the 90's before the internet was mainstream I had a paid subscription to NY Times, even though they were 2-3 times more expensive than my local paper, because I felt the quality was so much greater and was willing to pay for that quality. The newspaper still had ads from revenue back then, but I still had to pay for it and was willing to do so.
Fast forward to today and I still believe that - the news quality of a NY Times piece is still premium quality, but the difference now is that the news is 100% paid for by advertisers. My conscience is making me turn off my browser's adblocker plugin when I go to NY Times's website now.
Then along comes the internet and they say "subscription model!"
scratches head
From article:
The Times will also make available its archives from 1987 to the present without charge
Funny that the Fox types constantly trot out the NYT as an example of left-wing bias in the media...
A house divided against itself cannot stand.
I left America several years ago to live in London and one of the few things I miss was the straight to the point of dull news from the New York Times and their thought-provoking columnists. Putting a third of the paper - and the most unique elements of the paper - behind a paid wall seemed to be a one-way ticket to irrelevance. I can read wire stories for free anywhere, but the editorial and op-ed pages really do influence the American national discourse - keep them open-access for all to read, discuss (or completely dismiss and ignore).
Just wanted to reply to some people:
1). "The archives should be free"
The archives for the last 20 years are now free. Those over 60 years (public archive) are also free. The ones between 20 to 60 years ago are the only ones you get charged for.
2). "I'd pay extra for ads free/The TimesReader should be free"
The TimesReader is still a charge for service, but it contains no ads. This is probably why it isn't free. The big problem is that it is "Windows Only", so Linux and Mac users can't use it. (Yes, I know you can run a Windows emulator, but that's not the point!).
About a decade ago, the idea of paying for your webpage with ads and actually make money seemed silly. "That would never happen." "IIt was a dot.com pipedream". Now, as the New York Times discovered, subscription services are simply not as profitable as ad supported websites. TimesSelect made money, but not as much as if the content was free. Plus, now that it is free, Google searches are more likely to include New York Times articles.
Any bets when the Wall Street Journal will drop its subscription service?
"The longer-term problem for publishers like the Times is that they must find ways to present content online rather than just transferring stories and pictures from the newspaper."
Why?
For chrissakes, no matter what you think of the paper as a journalistic entity, nor what you think of its editorial decisions, nor what you think of its columnists, it really is the newspaper of record for the United States.
They have an extraordinary breadth of content. Why can't they just "copy stories and pictures from the newspaper"? If anyone in the media business would be able to generate bulk traffic (read: advertising $$) from sheer content without any particular bells and whistles, it would be the website that simply mirrors the staggering amount of content from the NYT.
Add to that a searchable archive of the NYT going back to the beginning, and I frankly can't think of a single media outlet in the world that could match it for comprehensive historical information on daily events pertinent to the United States.
Huge content, daily updates, impeccable credentials - yeah, who'd imagine THAT could draw significant pageviews?
-Styopa
That being said, I don't think the original poster is right wing, he is complaining about the positive coverage of the war in Iraq, the positive coverage for a war with Iran and he refers to Goebbels.
I used to love reading Maureen Dowd before this whole Time Select Stuff. I hope at least the editorial content is available , because whatever the NYT does ( all the news that is fit to print ) they do have some good talent in the editorial dept ( no matter whether you agree or disagree with their opinions)
I'd agree that The New York Times tries to appear to be left wing, and on inconsequential matters it may succeed, but mongering for war the last time I checked was definitely not a liberal persuasion.
It isn't just the constant news coverage citing "unnamed sources" in an effort to implicate this or that group of Muslims in various imagined transgressions, even after they promised to swear off using unnamed sources, it's deciding to wait until after the 2004 election to tell us about Bush's illegal wiretapping, or not telling us about the 9-11 Commission Report citing American support for Israeli atrocities against Palestinians as the reason for the attack, or continually over-reporting acts of violence committed by Muslims against Jews while under-reporting acts of violence committed by Jews against Muslims (did you know that Israelis have killed nearly four times as many Muslims as vice versa? My point exactly.)
When you put it all together -- and by no means is the above a comprehensive list of their transgressions -- a picture emerges of a paper driven by racism and allegiance to Israel above all things, including America.
Everybody goes on about the corporate media when talking about media support for this war, well, here's some news: The New York Times is by far the worst offender in this regard, and it isn't corporate-owned at all! It's a family paper.
Ad Block them. Starve the war machine. Kill the propaganda machine before it succeeds in killing us.
Who was stupid enough to pay for that garbage before now? They've lost a lot of credibility recently and therefore lost readers.
I found funny that one tag is bugmenotwins... unfortunately (or fortunately, depending on your POV), I am sure the NYT will be a bit disappointing by the differences in the stream revenue after doing this. I believe that the people that would pay for reading the new york times is the same that is going to read it without ad blocking and maybe click on the ads, whereas people that used bugmenot or other means to bypass payment are the ones that will use AdBlock or any other advertisement blocking mechanism.
Ubuntu is an African word meaning 'I can't configure Debian'
The best part of this change is that Paul Krugman's columns will now be available again. He's the guy who beat up on Bush the most. Very smart guy and pithy as hell. This is a great change.
The best way would be to tame the PURE VERTIGO that comes out of this paper. It's so one-sided it's obscene. Why do some papers think it important to sell to only one half of the populace?
--- For a good time mail uce@ftc.gov
The New York Times is indeed right-wing, and Fox News even more so. There are no mainstream left-wing newspapers in the USA anymore.
so now they'll give it out for free.
That's the sound of a giant big city newspaper's head finally being pulled out of a goatse-sized asshole.
And there was much rejoicing.
OSGGFG - Open Source Gamers Guide to Free Games
The Times, like many papers, are struggling to find a way to make money in the digital world. The current share price is half what it was 3 years ago. They are losing money hand over fist and have negative cash flow.
They have got to do something to build the brand back up. Given that they own a significant chunk of NY real estate, TV stations and other real property, I wonder if they could be a target for a takeover and breakup. Their market cap is only $2.8 billion.
It would be very funny to see the stats on the hits their site gets from google bots. I bet over time it drops off as people turn off or do not re-set their google bot browser setting in Firefox.
...when I first signed up for my NYTimes account back in 1999 all the articles were free - or at least the same group they just made free. (Perhaps the ones that are not free now are so because they are not guaranteed to be on-line and someone has to type them in?) I was a little annoyed when they started charging access for anything older than 2 weeks - it made a good chunk of my inbox (where I stored my daily e-mails from them, that includes headlines, etc.) irrelevant.
Fortunately for me, they did this after I left college, as I used that portion of my inbox for a number of class assignments regarding current-events. When I needed to turn something in, I could search the my NYTimes folder for some articles and pull out stuff easily. Paying for the content on a per article basis would have made the work a lot harder, and I probably would not have used them as a local paper would have been a lot cheaper. (And keeping daily papers around in a dorm room would have been a nightmare.)
So, for that brief time of doing that they got a long time reader - and I do forward articles to friends & family. So they get a lot of advertising from me too. Now I can once again rely on providing URLs instead of having to provide the article when I forward articles.
Now if they - and the rest of the publications industry - would get their editors to do their job and start catching the grammar and spelling errors that are so prevalent, especially in the on-line editions. (Suffice it to say, due to some of the grammar and spelling errors, I hope they are only on the on-line version...though that is not likely.) It just doesn't reflect well on such a major publication.
Truth is like the sun. You can shut it out for a time, but it ain't goin' away. - Elvis Presley (source: imdb.com)
The NYTimes archives have been available to university students for the past few years through other services which purchase the data from the Times. It really is an amazing tool. Every page of every NYTimes article is SCANNED in (ads included) and converted into readable, searchable, plaintext. I hope that they their offerings are implemented well...
It is my top net news site due to its original content. That would have been one of the few online services I would have paid money for had it gone to a full subscription business.
However, I felt it was stupid to go halfway. People would pay fro all-or-nothing, not half-and-half. They basically cut 2/3rd the audience of their more interesting columnists like Krugman and Friedmen. I dont agree with them, but liked their insights.
Hopefully Murdoc will liberate the Wall Street Journal soon too.
I'm am concerned that scientific journals in university libraries are disappearing. I used to love to browse the current issues on open shelves, but libraries are increasingly subscribing to all-electronic editions. In many university libraries this now requires student enrollment or being an employee to read these.
I find this ironic, because the modern system of knowledge is contructed on open publication, replication and repudiation. Only the professorial "elite" will have access. Further ironic becasue the Net was supposed to make libraries available everywhere.
Good thing I'm using Adblock Pro...
There's more info in the NYTimes' own article: http://www.nytimes.com/2007/09/18/business/media/18times.html
those few cents per newspaper aren't exactly "free".
If John Noble Wilford went to work for another paper, the NYT could and should shut down.
It's amazing that a competent reporter would want to work for such a pile of shit as the NYT.
"Ladies and gentlemen, my killbot features Lotus Notes and a machine gun. It is the finest available."
"Ladies and gentlemen, my killbot features Lotus Notes and a machine gun. It is the finest available."
@media screen {
a[href*=".nytimes.com/"]:after { content: " [reg]" }
a[href*="//nytimes.com/"]:after { content: " [reg]" }
}
Goodbye, link-flagging client-side stylesheet rules. Good times.
Oh, say does that Star-Spangled Banner entwine / The myrtle of Venus with Bacchus's vine?
http://today.msnbc.msn.com/id/20214963
Wait, they were irrelevant before they went behind the wall!
Slashdot readers interested in the news that the NYT is "free" might be interested in other free as in beer newspapers. Who could possibly resist the temptation to visit the best newspaper in the English language - The Sun. http://www.thesun.co.uk/
You can check out if it is going to be a Zoe McConnell day, which legend has it, augurs good luck.
The Miami Herald http://www.miamiherald.com/ is free too and available in a Spanish edition. Speigel (the English version) http://www.spiegel.de/international/ is free too, and the Guardian http://www.guardian.co.uk/ and the Telegraph http://www.telegraph.co.uk/ are also free. Oh and the Independent http://www.independent.co.uk/ which could once claim to be the finest newspaper in the English language is free also. Robert Fisk appears in that one, I believe he finds some sympathy with some slash dotters. Private Eye http://www.private-eye.co.uk/ remains annoyingly non-free for cheapskates like myself and neither is Viz http://www.viz.co.uk/- which used to be funny once. Top Tip number eleven is quite funny. A very brief trawl of the internet should probably result in an appropriate newspaper for every possible shade of opinion.
Posts, MyBio or Sig, may contain satire, sarcasm, bolded nouns be sardonic or even witty & be Church of SD
Now we can get pro-pedophile and anti-american propaganda for free.
this country." I hear Friedman writes hilarious books.
Welcome to Slashdot! And you have such a low UID. I'm impressed.
Faster! Faster! Faster would be better!
but it works. no one has time to read all the comments. just check the first few threads and then back to boingboing, 7chan, 4chan, moid, 12chan....
Public libraries wouldn't exist without some socialism. These libraries are crucial to the American Dream, as they give even the poorest people the opportunity to educate and improve themselves. Some conservatives want to destroy these institutions, and that would be typical: they spout all day about the beauty of the American Dream, but in practice they do all they can to make it difficult to achieve.
Perhaps the management thought the peacenik columnists like Krugman, Herbert, and Dowd were too influential. I've always thought that Times Select was a brilliant way to muffle the columnists without actually seeming to be censors.
Of course, now that the Iraq invasion is a proven disaster, the same peacenik columnists are doing an enormous lot to save the Times' reputation. How ironic.
It took them long enough. I exchanged email with the NYTimes years ago about the whole issue of paid internet subscriptions. I told them right out that it wasn't going to work but they didn't listen. I can't imagine how many readers they lost because of that move. It's nice to see them finally come around.
Even so, it is a sign of our times that news sources are being forced into these lower-revenue situations. The quality of the news we get has been degrading slowly for decades but the internet has seriously accelerated the problem. Most news stories these days are factually incorrect and contain very little actual information. They operate more as one big rumor mill wrapping a tiny bit of first-hand reporting and content.
Will the new consumer-driven news mechanic work? So far its been a disaster (and here I am not talking about the NYTimes but the state of news in general). Right now we have 24-hour coverage of trivial things like OJ Simpson and Britney Spears and virtually no coverage of the issues that matter the most to our future.
-Matt
"I left America several years ago to live in London and one of the few things I miss was the straight to the point of dull news from the New York Times and their thought-provoking columnists. Putting a third of the paper - and the most unique elements of the paper - behind a paid wall seemed to be a one-way ticket to irrelevance."
You mean like a newsstand wall? I don't think the fact that it was paid was all that ornery. Any more than going down to the grocery store and picking up the Times was ornery. The people who think the Times is worth it, but too cheap to pay for it might have had a problem? But then those people will always have those kind of problems and it won't stay confined to newspapers.
---
And for those who pull the "well hell who needs them?" I suggest you look on the PBS site about news organizations. We need them more than you think.
since most everything they report news about
is available in 3,495 other places on google news,
i've made it a point to generally avoid them, because
its 'just one more !@#$ password i have to deal with'...
looks like they've decided to broaden their readership.
2cents
This will probably be most (it is more than 12 hrs that the story was posted, so the likelihood of this being read diminishes exponentially inverse).
Why are the Slashdot editors so lame and lazy? Instead of pointing to Reuters for the story go a link to the original editorial by the New York Times!
http://www.nytimes.com/2007/09/18/business/media/18times.html
It explains that editorials are now free. That some (but not all) the archives are free.
That the decision is driven by the importance of search engines and the traffic that they generate. That
they see readers of the archives as potential opportunities that should not be turned away.
Edit the story, lazy slashdot editors!
dmg
Cool! I've been missing reading their insightful and non-biased commentary.