New York Times Halves Monthly Free Article Views To Ten

Oh Well by WrongSizeGlass · 2012-03-21 02:07 · Score: 4, Insightful

It's their site, and their content, and they can decide who gets how much for free. If people don't like it they can get their news somewhere else or buy a subscription. This is how the market is supposed to work.

Re:Oh Well by nospam007 · 2012-03-21 02:14 · Score: 5, Informative

"If people don't like it they can get their news somewhere else or buy a subscription. This is how the market is supposed to work."
Or they could just delete the cookie and read on.
Re:Oh Well by Hadlock · 2012-03-21 02:24 · Score: 5, Informative

I just open all NYT and WSJ articles in "incognito mode" or whatever it's called on your favorite browser.

I like to think of it as a game, where you lose one life each time you accidentally click on an article without opening it in incognito mode. If you lose all 10 lives, you "lose" the game and can't read good journalism for the remainder of the month.

--
moox. for a new generation.
Re:Oh Well by khr · 2012-03-21 02:25 · Score: 5, Interesting

Yeah, it's working. I pay for it, not because I can't get around the paywall, but because they provide a product I think is worth the money.
Re:Oh Well by Anonymous Coward · 2012-03-21 02:35 · Score: 0

Just nuke your cookies when you hit the limit.
Re:Oh Well by Anonymous Coward · 2012-03-21 02:36 · Score: 1

Attrition is always a problem - even in a grocery store.
Re:Oh Well by realityimpaired · 2012-03-21 02:39 · Score: 1

You could just configure your browser to nuke all cookies on close. You can even whitelist specific cookies (like login tokens) if logging back into sites gets annoying, though with saved passwords it's not really that annoying.
The only thing I use incognito mode with is for online banking, though I'm effectively incognito anyway, since my chromium install has the no history addon, doesn't have flash installed, has the cache set to store in /dev/null, and is set to delete cookies on exit.
Re:Oh Well by SpectraLeper · 2012-03-21 02:40 · Score: 2

Or you can use God Mode to always win, with something like Incognito Regex for Chrome.
Re:Oh Well by samkass · 2012-03-21 02:40 · Score: 2, Funny

You know, my grocery store recently increased prices on produce despite the fact that it's easy to take stuff off the shelves and run out the door with it... What does the ease of circumvention have to do with it? Some people will steal if they can get away with it, some will pay their share.

--
E pluribus unum
Re:Oh Well by Anonymous Coward · 2012-03-21 02:41 · Score: 0

It's their site, and their content, and they can decide who gets how much for free. If people don't like it they can get their news somewhere else or buy a subscription. This is how the market is supposed to work.
Problem is when the market doesn't work in a corporations favor they blame it on the forces of evil and lobby to congress to pass bills and acts that keep their failed system propped up at our expense.
Our economy is not free market capitalism, the politicians and bankers like to convince us it is but under a free market system these big corporations would be left to fail when they refuse to adapt and let their business model becomes obsolete. Instead society is forced to keep carrying them even when we no longer want their product. It's the corporate welfare system. "Privatize profits, socialize losses", that's what we live under.
Re:Oh Well by CastrTroy · 2012-03-21 02:44 · Score: 2

That's the big problem though. What constitutes a "read", and how do they really track it? Simply clicking on a link to an article shouldn't really count as a read, as you could denial-of-service a whole bunch of people simply by sending them to a page with a bunch of iframes. It doesn't even fit with how many people use the internet, where they will open 15 links in different tabs, gloss over the first paragraph, decide the rest isn't worth reading and close the tab.

--

Anthropic principle: We see the universe the way it is because if it were different we would not be here to see it.
Re:Oh Well by yincrash · 2012-03-21 02:53 · Score: 1

Do you really think the number of people getting DoS'd to prevent their free access to the NYTimes is a significant number for the NYTimes to care?
Re:Oh Well by Anonymous Coward · 2012-03-21 02:59 · Score: 0

If you want to pay money you can just move up to the WSJ
Re:Oh Well by Nemyst · 2012-03-21 03:10 · Score: 1

There's a dozen of Greasemonkey scripts for it, too, if that's more to your likings.
Thing is, I think most of the NYT's audience doesn't know any of this stuff, so it's obvious that they just don't care if 0.1% of their readers can bypass the filter.
Re:Oh Well by Mordok-DestroyerOfWo · 2012-03-21 03:10 · Score: 5, Insightful

Oh noes! Now reading without permission is stealing! By the way, if you're reading this, then you have agreed to my terms of $0.01 per glance. I think you'll agree, with insightful comments such as mine you're getting one heck of a deal!

--
"Never let your sense of morals prevent you from doing what is right" - Salvor Hardin
Re:Oh Well by Hadlock · 2012-03-21 03:12 · Score: 1

There's a thing in SEO called "bounce rate" which you can choose to use or ignore. There's no official standard definition, but it ranges from 2-30 seconds of viewing time. It's up to the webmaster to decide how to measure this. I'm sure bounce rate is measured differently for ecommerce than it is for news sites. I'm sure their business team looked very carefully at the bounce rate among many other factors and metrics before deciding to drop it down to 10 articles per month. The web is the future of their $234mm company, you don't make those decisions lightly.

--
moox. for a new generation.
Re:Oh Well by bill_mcgonigle · 2012-03-21 03:23 · Score: 3, Funny

I pay for it, not because I can't get around the paywall, but because they provide a product I think is worth the money.
Hey, man, you're ruining this thread's neocommunist vibe.

--
My God, it's Full of Source!
OUTSIDE_IP=$(dig +short my.ip @outsideip.net)
Re:Oh Well by MightyYar · 2012-03-21 03:28 · Score: 2

LOL @ "stealing".
Tell me, did I sign some kind of a contract with the NY Times where I promise to keep their data on my machine in exchange for their services? Am I "stealing" if I load their results in a browser that doesn't support persistent cookies?
They offer up web pages on a public webserver, and even allow sites like Google to crawl (partnering really, see the robots.txt) their site.
You probably think it is "stealing" to block known advertising sites as well.

--
W..w..W - Willy Waterloo washes Warren Wiggins who is washing Waldo Woo.
Re:Oh Well by Kamiza+Ikioi · 2012-03-21 03:35 · Score: 1

I find Google search worth a much larger subscription fee, but I'd still think of them as complete idiots if they erected a pay wall.

--
I8-D
Re:Oh Well by IMightB · 2012-03-21 03:38 · Score: 5, Informative

It's actually pretty amazing to change your agent string to googlebot and see what opens up for you. For example, all those tech sites that want you to sign up to get an answer suddenly become wide open.
Re:Oh Well by MightyYar · 2012-03-21 03:47 · Score: 3, Informative

I don't pay for it because, while I think the Times' reporting is top-notch, the print side has too much power and keeps the digital version artificially high to prevent poaching. The Kindle version is $20/month and is totally gimped and does not include digital access. Meanwhile the dead-tree edition is about $30/month and comes with unlimited digital access. You can get the dead-tree edition weekday-only for the same price as the Kindle version, and that also includes unlimited digital access.
But this is the best part: just digital access, no Kindle, no dead-tree is... $8.75/week! Yes, $38/month for less product than the dead tree edition. The mind boggles. I refuse to pile up a bunch of unused newspapers just to save $18/month for digital access, so they can pound sand.

--
W..w..W - Willy Waterloo washes Warren Wiggins who is washing Waldo Woo.
Re:Oh Well by Anonymous Coward · 2012-03-21 03:53 · Score: 0

Every society has freeloaders. Not much one can do about them - it is just classified as cost of business.
Welfare always has that percentage of families that sit at home and do nothing.. there are people who go to book stores, read the paper, and then walk out.... :) You are in distinguished company!
Re:Oh Well by Anonymous Coward · 2012-03-21 03:58 · Score: 0

I find Google search worth a much larger subscription fee, but I'd still think of them as complete idiots if they erected a pay wall.
But Google is alreay monetizing you up the gazoo by letting advertisers target you based on all the information they have collected on you (inluding on this site). Of course they would be idiots, they are already selling you at a higher price than if you paid.
Re:Oh Well by Anonymous Coward · 2012-03-21 04:08 · Score: 0

Google Search is worth a lot - and you are paying for it every time you use it. Right now it goes in the form of advertising + analytics and your clickstream information. (Your clickstream is sent to Google even when you are not on Google sites 'cos a lot of sites use google analytics and or google advertising. )
You thinking of someone as complete idiots for putting a paywall, corresponds well with you thinking google search is completely free.
Re:Oh Well by joshamania · 2012-03-21 04:09 · Score: 1

Agreed. I used to read the NY Times several times a day. When they put up their paywall, even with the easy workarounds, it dropped off my radar. I even wanted to pay...but at the time (and perhaps they still are) one had to pay extra for each device class you wanted to use...$X for web access, $Y for tablet access and $Z for phone access. This worked out at the time to be something like $50 a month...for a NEWSPAPER.
I've heard claims that this is akin to the PBS model...with a minority of people overpaying for content/service and the majority using the product for free. Seems okay for PBS but economically backward for an organization like the NY Times, imho.
Re:Oh Well by Anonymous Coward · 2012-03-21 04:16 · Score: 0

The basic digital access is $15 a month, which includes web and smartphone. The one you mention has that, plus tablets, plus the ability to share it with a family member, so basically two subscriptions.
Re:Oh Well by flimflammer · 2012-03-21 04:20 · Score: 1

That's hilarious. I shall have to give this game a go.
Re:Oh Well by Maxo-Texas · 2012-03-21 04:38 · Score: 1

Absolutely. They have to earn money to pay the reporters, electricity, building rent, equipment somehow.
Of course, it's 10 times per month more than I need.
There is a glut of news sources.
We could seriously get by with much less. Due to AP wire services, etc. we basically do anyway. A lot of news is identical in every paper. If the same news is in every paper, why do we need to have 100 different papers?
Why should I care that some random lady in another state 1000 miles away was kidnapped or murdered or robbed? Give me news about my own city and my own state and I might be more interested. There's no need to report international news any more. And certainly no need to pick some random wire service article about a random crime to fill paper around the ads.
There's also an incredible glut of entertainment too. I can't keep up. So I purchase the cheapest stuff (often free).
I think the newspaper business is going to be much smaller in 20 years than it is today.

--
She was like chocolate when she drank... semi-sweet at first and then increasingly bitter.
Re:Oh Well by MightyYar · 2012-03-21 04:57 · Score: 2

I was just comparing same-level-of-access. Yes, you can get the web and smartphone for just over $16/month ($3.75/week)... of course you can also get the print edition weekly for $3.85/week that comes with the full digital access, so a 10 cent/week difference between the $16 smartphone only and $38/month full access plans, with a free paper thrown in to boot.
Makes no sense unless you consider their print edition trying to hold on for dear life and calling the shots at the marketing level. At the very least, I should be able to buy the print edition for my Kindle without having to take delivery of an actual paper newspaper. As it is right now, the Kindle version is not complete and costs more than weekday delivery. The Times will die out when their print customers do, and they seem fine with this situation.
To me it is an amazing squandering of an empire. They could have been Amazon... offer the print edition on an ebook reader of their own design. Throw the reader in for free. Put up a store offering books and other periodicals for the same reader. BAM, instant userbase and just like that they are in the 21st century. The Kindle came out in late 2007, so it should have been technically possible to create a NY Times Kindle back then, when they still had a circulation over 1 million. Probably too late now for the Grey Lady.

--
W..w..W - Willy Waterloo washes Warren Wiggins who is washing Waldo Woo.
Re:Oh Well by TheVelvetFlamebait · 2012-03-21 05:24 · Score: 1

I like to think of it as a game, where you lose one life each time you accidentally click on an article without opening it in incognito mode. If you lose all 10 lives, you "lose" the game and can't read good journalism for the remainder of the month.
Have you considered subscribing? As you said, it's "good journalism", clearly something you value enough to go to the trouble of gaming the cookie. Perhaps this is something you should be actively rewarding, rather than taking active steps to avoid rewarding?

--
You know, there is a difference between trolling and pointing out the flaws in your reasoning. Just saying.
Re:Oh Well by Hadlock · 2012-03-21 05:41 · Score: 1

I've probably spent $2000 in physical copies of the NYT over the last three years. I usually read them on my lunch break. I have little remorse for what I do.

B&N has a deal where if you buy a year's "digital subscription" to the NYT, you get their e-ink reader for free. I'm looking at buying one of those. No idea if that allows me to bypass their paywall on the PC though.

--
moox. for a new generation.
Re:Oh Well by fahrbot-bot · 2012-03-21 05:58 · Score: 1

it's easy to take stuff off the shelves and run out the door with it
I tried taking one of their servers and running out the door, but the power cord got stuck in the elevator. That thing is heavy, by the way; I had to bring my own handcart. Sure, I asked to borrow theirs, but nooooo. And... security guards were mean to me.
So. Your analogy is a bit flawed. Maybe this will help, from Steven Wright:

Last time I went to the movies I was thrown out for bringing my own food. My argument was that the concession stand prices are outrageous. Besides, I hadn't had a barbecue in a long time.

--
It must have been something you assimilated. . . .
Re:Oh Well by tlhIngan · 2012-03-21 06:07 · Score: 3, Informative

That's the big problem though. What constitutes a "read", and how do they really track it? Simply clicking on a link to an article shouldn't really count as a read, as you could denial-of-service a whole bunch of people simply by sending them to a page with a bunch of iframes. It doesn't even fit with how many people use the internet, where they will open 15 links in different tabs, gloss over the first paragraph, decide the rest isn't worth reading and close the tab.
I know the old exception is quite easy. You could go to NYTimes.com and read 20 articles a month there.
Linked articles from blogs don't count, and neither do articles linked from search engines. The reasoning for this is simple - blogs and search engines bring in viewers. If they stay, they can read 20 more (or 10 now) articles for free on the main site.
Basically, occasional readers (those who read via blogs and such) aren't subject to much paywalling at all.
And that's why the NYTimes paywall is a success where other paywalls failed.
Other paywalls let you read a paragraph or two before demanding payment. NYTimes lets you read the rest for free. If you like it, you may read more until you hit your limit. But you won't hit your limit if you only read NYTimes via another website.
There are enough ways to bypass the paywall that those who really wanted to could (basically by googling the headline and clicking that way), but most people are lazy and having to google to read another article gets old fast.
Basically, NYTimes found a way to get its articles read (via blogs and news aggregators like Google) but still being able to get some money from those who like it enough to read it (by not offering it entirely for free). So it doesn't matter how many times NYTimes articles appear in say, /. since they don't count. But those who wanted to read the NYTimes for free by using its website is blocked.
Pretty brilliant, actually. Blogs and aggregators bring people in, and you only charge them if they stay. First hit's free.
Re:Oh Well by bws111 · 2012-03-21 06:10 · Score: 1

You are forgetting the income from ads. According to their annual report, 79% of their ad revenue comes from print. Over half of their total revenue comes from ads. Unless over 40% of their total cost is for printing and distributing, print is still carrying more than it's share of the load. The only solutions for the problem of print going away is to either generate more income from on-line ads (unlikely), have digital subscriptions cost more than print (to offset the loss of ad revenue), or some combination of both.
Re:Oh Well by Anonymous Coward · 2012-03-21 06:17 · Score: 1

who says that NYT and WSJ have a monopoly on "good" journalism?
Re:Oh Well by Hadlock · 2012-03-21 06:33 · Score: 2

Trap sprung, nerd!

--
moox. for a new generation.
Re:Oh Well by MightyYar · 2012-03-21 06:43 · Score: 1

Had they went to the "printed" edition on eReader, I don't think their ad revenue would have dropped off. Heck, Amazon can afford to sell a Kindle for $30 less for what must be the least obtrusive ad system ever (the "screen saver" when the unit is not in use and a banner on the main menu).

Unless over 40% of their total cost is for printing and distributing, print is still carrying more than it's share of the load.
From their financials:
cost of goods sold 957.5
selling general & admin expenses, total 1,006.0
depreciation & amortization, total 116.5
So if you assume that COGS is mostly printing costs and you lump all of the other costs away from print, and even if we don't include depreciation & amortization (which is probably mostly print equipment and delivery equipment), print is 46% of costs. Of course, "selling general & admin expenses" is going to include a LOT of print expenses, so in reality print costs are much higher.
The really sad thing is that print scales really well up, but not down. At a certain point you are spending a ton of money on the print infrastructure and the delivery network but not getting much return. They respond by making their print subscriptions really, really expensive, which of course leads to fewer subscribers, which leads to... well, their current unsustainable situation.

--
W..w..W - Willy Waterloo washes Warren Wiggins who is washing Waldo Woo.
Re:Oh Well by svick · 2012-03-21 07:01 · Score: 1

If you personally consider it a good journalism, maybe it's time to reward it by buying the subscription?
Re:Oh Well by mcgrew · 2012-03-21 07:18 · Score: 1

I can read the New York Times print version at the library for free, how is reading it on a library computer and circumventing the paywall any different?
If I steal an orange, the store is out the price they paid for that orange whether or not I would have paid for it and whether or not I eat it. If I circumvent a paywall I would never pay to get past, how is that costing anyone a penny?

--
Free Martian Whores!
Re:Oh Well by bws111 · 2012-03-21 07:18 · Score: 1

COGS is probably not 'mostly printing costs'. Their annual report breaks that $957M into:
Raw Materials: $162M
Wages and benefits: $496M
Other: $300M
The $162M is certainly all printing costs. I would think the bulk of the wages and benefits are for the staff (reporters, columnists, editors, etc). I have no idea what is in 'other', but it probably does contain at least some printing and distribution costs as they use outside printers.
They use outside printers (and probably outside delivery), so it is unclear that depreciation and amortization includes any printing or delivery costs. No doubt much of that is computers.
If we assume all 'raw materials' and 'other' are printing costs, that makes less than half of the cost of goods printing costs. Out of approx $2B in costs, a little less than 1/4 is for print.
As for keeping ad revenue with ereaders - I do not know. I would suspect that their advertisers do not view ereaders as equivalent to print and would not be willing to pay the same rates.
Re:Oh Well by Anonymous Coward · 2012-03-21 08:18 · Score: 0

If you lose all 10 lives, you "lose" the game
You just lost the game!
Re:Oh Well by Anonymous Coward · 2012-03-21 08:29 · Score: 0

I just open all NYT and WSJ articles in "incognito mode" or whatever it's called on your favorite browser. I like to think of it as a game, where you lose one life each time you accidentally click on an article without opening it in incognito mode. If you lose all 10 lives, you "lose" the game and can't read good journalism for the remainder of the month.
I pay them the nominal fee they ask for and pat myself on the back for supporting good journalism. Then I "win" the game of sustaining a functional democracy and civil society.
Re:Oh Well by Anonymous Coward · 2012-03-21 08:46 · Score: 0

Yeah, it's working. I pay for it, not because I can't get around the paywall, but because they provide a product I think is worth the money.
Hehe, only on Slashdot is paying for a product because you think it's worth the money +5 Interesting. Do tell us more about your fascinating "paying" culture! I understand there are two sexes who sometimes interact there.
Re:Oh Well by MightyYar · 2012-03-21 08:53 · Score: 1

I'm glad you looked into the numbers, because you can learn like I did how deliberately they hide the costs of printing. :) There's a reason I don't own their stock...
I think you are right about ereaders not getting as much revenue per reader - of course, the per-reader distribution costs are also much lower. It seems to work for Amazon, and even smaller players like B&N, which is wisely spinning off their Nook so that their stockholders don't have to lose everything when the big ship goes down.

--
W..w..W - Willy Waterloo washes Warren Wiggins who is washing Waldo Woo.
Re:Oh Well by Shadow+of+Eternity · 2012-03-21 13:30 · Score: 1

Or in my case a game of making sure I always open a NYT link in chrome (which can ALWAYS read their articles) rather than firefox, which ALWAYS gets a paywall/login page.

--
A bullet may have your name on it but splash damage is addressed "To whom it may concern."
Re:Oh Well by mjwx · 2012-03-21 17:33 · Score: 1

"If people don't like it they can get their news somewhere else or buy a subscription. This is how the market is supposed to work."
Or they could just delete the cookie and read on.
Or they could just go to the BBC, ABC (Australia) or dozens of other, more reputable news sources that aren't asking for money.

--
Calling someone a "hater" only means you can not rationally rebut their argument.
Re:Oh Well by Anonymous Coward · 2012-03-21 19:05 · Score: 0

I made this joke back in 2005, a prior, I have proof that I will be sending you forthwidth, and I demand 90% of your proceeds.
Re:Oh Well by JBaustian · 2012-03-22 16:18 · Score: 1

I guess not enough people were hitting the 20-articles-a-month limit. Maybe more people will decide to subscribe when they hit the 10-article limit? No, probably not.

And? by thePowerOfGrayskull · 2012-03-21 02:11 · Score: 3, Insightful

It's working for them, that's actually pretty cool. Those who want it pay or circumvent; those who don't move on to other options. '

Correct me if I'm wrong, but isn't this the way it's supposed to work?

Re:And? by Anonymous Coward · 2012-03-21 02:24 · Score: 3, Insightful

It's working for them, that's actually pretty cool. Those who want it pay or circumvent; those who don't move on to other options. '
Correct me if I'm wrong, but isn't this the way it's supposed to work?
It is. But the larger question is, can this model be useful for everybody. You must remember how a lot of people were (and are) of the opinion that this won't work in the long term. NYT has been kind of pigheaded about this... and it's apparently working. For them.
So... can anybody copying this can expect the same? Is there a formula that can tell us with some precision, how many of your readers you can expect to retain if you implement a paywall? That's the interesting part.
Re:And? by thePowerOfGrayskull · 2012-03-21 02:38 · Score: 4, Insightful

It will work for anybody in a similar position: producing a lot of content that people want to read, and are willing to pay to do so. Since NYT is unlikely to release detailed numbers, the only formula is trial and error to find the right balance between alienating customers and attracting them. (And this move indicates that they're still refining that balance.)
Re:And? by MisterSquid · 2012-03-21 03:25 · Score: 1

It's working for them, that's actually pretty cool.
The summary (and presumably TFA) assert that the paywall is working. If that's the case, why is the NYTimes reducing the number of free articles from 20 to 10? I suppose to get every last bit of subscriber mojo. Another possible explanation is that (subscriptions * X) + ad revenue - dropoff < (subscriptions * Y) + ad revenue.
In any case, the pay wall has NOT been up for a year. The pay wall has only gone into effect starting January 2012.

--
blog
Re:And? by Anonymous Coward · 2012-03-21 04:15 · Score: 0

If "work" means only 454,000 subscribers total, compared to Spotify adding 1.5 million customer to a total of 2.5 mil, or Hulu reaching 1.5 mil customers in a year... I don't think it's working for NYT.
Re:And? by localman57 · 2012-03-21 05:35 · Score: 2

If "work" means only 454,000 subscribers total, compared to Spotify adding 1.5 million customer to a total of 2.5 mil, or Hulu reaching 1.5 mil customers in a year... I don't think it's working for NYT.
That's 2001 think. How much revenue has Hulu gained from those 1.5 mil customers? Volume doesn't help you if you aren't making an average profit per customer. Lexis Nexis and other such firms have relatively small customer bases, but generate a large amount of revenue per customer. That's 2012 think. At least for the majority of new companies that will still be around in 2016.
Re:And? by thePowerOfGrayskull · 2012-03-21 05:44 · Score: 1

Seems to me that they're tuning the parameters. If subscriptions went up by Y when X = 20, what effect does it have when X = 10?
The fact that they're adjusting down instead of up indicates that they've met with better-than-expected success at 20. If they incurred sufficient readership loss at 20, they would have increased it instead of decreased.

Frist they draw you in, then BAM! by crazyjj · 2012-03-21 02:13 · Score: 1, Funny

The dealer always gives you a free sample of his book reviews. Then, when you're hooked, that's when he jacks up the prices on you!

--
What political party do you join when you don't like Bible-thumpers *or* hippies?

Re:Frist they draw you in, then BAM! by Anonymous Coward · 2012-03-21 02:19 · Score: 0

they also did that with the real news papers all those years ago.....
nope...
Re:Frist they draw you in, then BAM! by Frank+T.+Lofaro+Jr. · 2012-03-21 03:48 · Score: 1

Still do in some cases.
I've gotten copies of the Las Vegas Review Journal delivered even when not a subscriber (on a couple of occasions).
Too bad that paper has become so right-wing it is unbearable to read. Just look at their online site and how they keep bashing the Las Vegas Monorail. It was a really good paper before.
And WTF is with Firefox spell check, highlighting the "Las" in "Las Vegas" and "WTF" as spelling errors.

--
Just because it CAN be done, doesn't mean it should!
Re:Frist they draw you in, then BAM! by Gilmoure · 2012-03-21 04:00 · Score: 1

Yup, Tor and Baen books will give you one free book by an author but then you have to buy or scam a download to read the rest. Man, first world life SUCKS!

--
I drank what? -- Socrates

"trivial to circumvent" by circletimessquare · 2012-03-21 02:15 · Score: 5, Insightful

you realize that for most people deleting cookies only from nytimes.com is technically challenging

and even if it isn't, the hassle factor is enough to move people to buy

--
intellectual property law is philosophically incoherent. it is your moral duty to ignore it or sabotage it

Re:"trivial to circumvent" by Sir_Sri · 2012-03-21 02:24 · Score: 3, Interesting

And the point is a polite reminder that they can't get enough advertising to cover the cost of the content you want, so if you want the content you should pay them.
There are a lot of ways around the paywall. I don't think they are deeply serious about making it half free, half subscription, because people who don't want to pay really won't, and they may come up with a relatively bad scheme to make the NYT involuntarily free if they can't simply circumvent it. I'd rather those who know just delete cookies, than start doing a daily/hourly torrent dump of my website or something. If you annoy pirates enough they'll come up with such and easy way to pirate that no one will ever pay. The NYT seems to have fairly successfully (for the moment) found a middle ground between getting people to pay, while giving away content to those who absolutely wouldn't pay anyway.
Re:"trivial to circumvent" by Stewie241 · 2012-03-21 02:33 · Score: 3, Funny

I just feel sorry for the poor information that just so desperately wants to be free but is destined to live its life trapped behind a paywall.
Re:"trivial to circumvent" by Anonymous Coward · 2012-03-21 03:03 · Score: 0

If I hit the paywall frequently enough I would pay a modest amount just because I want to support people who provide valuable goods and services. The fact of the matter is that I haven't hit a paywall in well over a year and I read a large number of articles daily.
Re:"trivial to circumvent" by Columcille · 2012-03-21 03:44 · Score: 1

You won't feel so sorry for it when the *real* Information Revolution begins. Information Winter will make Muslim Spring look like Junior Field Day - once Information rises up in revolt, the world will never be the same.

--
I love my sig.
Re:"trivial to circumvent" by Chemisor · 2012-03-21 04:24 · Score: 1

> the hassle factor is enough to move people to buy
I don't know about you, but I'm not in the habit of doing business with people who annoy me. Why would anybody want to reward this kind of behaviour? If the hassle factor is big enough, I'll just go elsewhere; NY Times is not the only source of news in the world and it is not the best. And if all the news sites suddenly decided to make me pay, I can happily live without them altogether.
Re:"trivial to circumvent" by mrsquid0 · 2012-03-21 05:35 · Score: 1

"Information Wants To Be Free. Information also wants to be expensive."

--
Just because you are paranoid does not mean that no-one is out to get you.
Re:"trivial to circumvent" by Sir_Sri · 2012-03-21 05:58 · Score: 1

As someone who produces information for a living, whether that's research papers, books, source code or the like, I like eating. The fact that the government pays me to write code and papers that can be published for all to see (or at least, anyone who will pay for the journal in some cases) means I'm ok with free. But if I was actually paid per view of a paper, or my lecture notes or something, I'd be out of business very quickly with people not paying.
Newspapers employ a hell of a lot of people in some cases, who are the sources of that information. They all need to be paid or the source of information dries up. The NYT tried free, and it couldn't pay for the production costs, advertising wasn't worth enough. Nor apparently, anywhere near enough. Hence they want 15 bucks a month for the cheapest sub.
Re:"trivial to circumvent" by mcgrew · 2012-03-21 07:38 · Score: 1

And the point is a polite reminder that they can't get enough advertising to cover the cost of the content you want
Odd, a little weekly newspaper here in Springfield gets enough advertising dollars to publish both a print and web edition, and both are free to the reader. How is it they can make a profit yet the New York Times can't?
Seems like the Times doesn't have good enough content to attract enough eyeballs for the advertisers to pony up.
The town's daily is swimming in debt, laying off people, and their website (also with a "premium content" paywall) is a disastrous mess of advertising, popups, slideovers, and other such nonsense.
Seems to me simply a matter of incompetence. It sure seems so at SJ-R's site and newspaper.

--
Free Martian Whores!
Re:"trivial to circumvent" by Sir_Sri · 2012-03-21 09:23 · Score: 1

Well lets see, the NYT is a hell of a lot bigger than the Illinois times, and has a much larger readership. The Illinois times probably also has a partnership with a bigger outfit for more national stories, if they cover them at all. Narrow focus, less expensive staff, not being based in New York all help the bottom line somewhat.
To extend your comparison: The student newspaper at the university I'm at is solvent. Does that mean that the NYT should be solvent?
If you're the Illinois times you have a very captive audience of advertisers too, those guys would be drowned out on the NYT, or any big national news outfit, but the big national outfits probably have very low uptake on their advertising because most of it is either brand recognition adds. I'm not in the US, I'm never going to have any reason to click on an ad in the Illinois times, ever, but I'm not going to read it either. On the other hand I probably still won't click on an ad on the NYT, because they're mostly US ads, but I will click on their articles, because those might say something insightfully relevant to me.
Re:"trivial to circumvent" by Anonymous Coward · 2012-03-21 10:01 · Score: 0

I'd be happier if all the information our government paid to develop was actually free. And good for you that you get paid for the privilege of 'developing' such.
But if the NYT (or any other brand of fish wrap) has to scale back its operations because they can't figure out the dynamics of the newopoly, then so be it. I have to filter so much of what gets set to print in the publications like NYT through my BS-meter because the 'privilege' of owning the editiorial power is valuable, and throughout history people have paid a great deal for it. The bully pulpit takes many forms worldwide. I some sympathy for writers but none for publishers.
Moreover, information doesn't have a desires, only uses. The public can live without so much (fill_in_the_blank), and unless the 'free market' disagrees, it will.
Re:"trivial to circumvent" by kerrbear · 2012-03-21 12:37 · Score: 1

I discovered that simply hitting the "stop loading" button after the text loads but before all the other suff loads in is enough to prevent the pay wall notice from appearing. That's pretty easy. I don't know if this works on all browsers but it does on mine.
Re:"trivial to circumvent" by Tim+C · 2012-03-21 23:57 · Score: 1

"Information wants to be free, rent wants to be paid".

--
It's official. Most of you are morons.

Good: the writers get paid. by concealment · 2012-03-21 02:18 · Score: 3, Insightful

I'm glad the NYT has found a way to get money for its content. Internet advertising is slowly being recognized as bunk because most of the people spending a lot of time on the internet are not going to buy anything. They're usually retired, young, or unemployed. As a result, the writers aren't going to get paid if the newspaper relies on advertising, and this means that there will be less quality writing for the rest of us. It's better to pay for something and have it be of a higher quality.

The real travesty is that they paid $40 million for that goofball paywall.

Get Over It Already by eldavojohn · 2012-03-21 02:19 · Score: 5, Insightful

I pay almost zero attention to east coast media; mostly because they don't pay any attention to the west coast (except for Hollywood).

Yeah and us midwest coast people that read The Star Tribune? We should just totally ignore everything that's happening on the West and East coasts because attention isn't focused on us, the reader, one hundred percent of the time? I shouldn't partake in the enjoyment of the New York Times' excellent book reviews or international coverage because none of those happen to be about me where I live? I shouldn't read the LA Times because even though their 1992 riot coverage won them a Pulitzer, they didn't cover the riots that followed my college hockey team's national championship loss?

Seriously, this East coast/West coast bullshit has got to stop. Get over yourselves and appreciate good news with good factchecking and a budget to send your reporters to be first hand sources.

--
My work here is dung.

Re:Get Over It Already by Sir_Eptishous · 2012-03-21 02:39 · Score: 0, Flamebait

Until you've experienced the full-throttled self-aggrandizement West Coasters(I used to live there...) swear by, you won't understand their puffery.

--
We play the game with the bravery of being out of range
Re:Get Over It Already by Spad · 2012-03-21 02:48 · Score: 1

You guys do know there are other countries, right? Stuff happens in them all the time that could arguably be called "news" and doesn't involve America at all.
Re:Get Over It Already by Anonymous Coward · 2012-03-21 03:03 · Score: 1

Seriously, this East coast/West coast bullshit has got to stop
Yea, it's bullshit. Why'd both Tupac and Biggie Smalls have to die? (and the punch line: but Vanilla Ice is still alive!)
Wait, wrong east coast/west coast
Re:Get Over It Already by Mordok-DestroyerOfWo · 2012-03-21 03:11 · Score: 1

You guys do know there are other countries, right? Stuff happens in them all the time that could arguably be called "news" and doesn't involve America at all.
Citation please...not from the NYT obviously

--
"Never let your sense of morals prevent you from doing what is right" - Salvor Hardin
Re:Get Over It Already by quarterbuck · 2012-03-21 03:20 · Score: 2

I think of it as a progression.
Before 90s New York Times and the Post were the only sources of real news. They had actual reporters on the field. They were playing the role of both news aggregators (like Reuters/AP) and a paper (with the paper version). Local newspapers then added local content to Times/Reuters/AP news and printed it .
Then after internet, their paper business shrunk while their online version did not catch up enough. So NYTimes became a paper with a lot of reporters on the field, but with not enough ads sold to pay for them. The local newspapers got killed because everyone figured out that you could get 90% of the news on the NY times website for free and the remaining regional coverage on local radio/TV.
Now NYTimes is making the online version expensive. This should really have helped the local newspapers, but they are all dead and people did not grow up subscribing to local newspapers and will not start anymore.
You can still get news from AP or Reuters online for free and without any of the editorial biases (real or perceived) of the Times. East Coasters can still get a slightly biased coverage from Bloomberg (and Bloomberg Businessweek).
The people who missed out are indeed the midwesterners -they lost their local papers while times won't serve them anymore at zero cost.

--
http://slashdot.org/submission/1062723/Cheap-mobile-data-plan?art_pos=2
Re:Get Over It Already by rthille · 2012-03-21 03:23 · Score: 1

It could be worse, we don't refer to ourselves as "the real America", nor generally believe that despite his ravaging where we live with tornados on a yearly basis, we've got a direct line to God.

--
Awesome furniture, accessories and cabinetry in Santa Rosa, CA: http://humanity-home.com/
Re:Get Over It Already by cayenne8 · 2012-03-21 03:24 · Score: 1

You guys do know there are other countries, right? Stuff happens in them all the time that could arguably be called "news" and doesn't involve America at all.
Yes, but for the most part...that news has virtually no effect on the common American's daily life...so we generally don't care that much what else is happening in the world.
It is a large country, and it is easy to grow up here, and never see the majority of our own country, much less see what's outside our borders. Honestly, unless you want to travel, there's not that much need for it....the US has so many diverse areas that visiting inside can be one and one can still get culture shock.
Americans in the NE are quite different (cuisine, accents, colloquialisms, scenery, etc) from the west coast, and the middle of the US and for damned sure of the South and Southwest. In many ways, often the states are like small countries unto themselves, which isn't a bad thing....
But really....not a lot of news in the rest of the world has much effect on the common US citizen, and hence...we don't go out of our way to look at it.
Heck, there's enough going on HERE...and people here don't seem to really keep up with it much, which is sad.

--
Light travels faster than sound. This is why some people appear bright until you hear them speak.........
Re:Get Over It Already by Anonymous Coward · 2012-03-21 03:28 · Score: 0

Yeah and us midwest coast people that read The Star Tribune?
..."midwest coast"?
Dude, the only way you can get away with a phrase even remotely like that is if you live in Michigan, and even then you'd have a hard time with it.
Re:Get Over It Already by Gilmoure · 2012-03-21 03:57 · Score: 3, Informative

Everyone's too polite in Canada to make news.

--
I drank what? -- Socrates
Re:Get Over It Already by Anonymous Coward · 2012-03-21 05:17 · Score: 0

We should just totally ignore everything that's happening on the West and East coasts because attention isn't focused on us, the reader, one hundred percent of the time?
You jest, but the Strib's MO (most MN media, for that matter) is not too far from that as it is. Read any national or international story, and notice how the writer vigorously plays up any Minnesota connection, no matter how slight. Especially if it reflects well on MN as the paragon of whatever, but even infamous connections are relished. It's a game regional media plays everywhere, I've just never seen it as pervasive as in MN. It comes across as some kind of weird local insecurity--and I say this as a native.
Re:Get Over It Already by Anonymous Coward · 2012-03-21 05:27 · Score: 0

Of course you don't have "a direct line to God." If God paid attention to the West coast, Real Wives wouldn't exist. (Same can be said for West - Jersey Shore).
Re:Get Over It Already by mrsquid0 · 2012-03-21 05:31 · Score: 1

>> You guys do know there are other countries, right? Stuff happens in them all the time that could arguably be called "news" and doesn't involve America at all.
> Yes, but for the most part...that news has virtually no effect on the common American's daily life...so we generally don't care that much what else is happening in the world.
Actually, a lot of what happens outside of the US has a strong effect on the common American's daily life. For example, most of the things influencing gas prices happen outside the US. The US is deeply integrated into the rest of the world, regardless of whether or not people in the US realize that or not.

--
Just because you are paranoid does not mean that no-one is out to get you.
Re:Get Over It Already by Anonymous Coward · 2012-03-21 05:34 · Score: 0

No one in the Midwest refers to themselves as "real America". Only politicians do that. (Posting from Minneapolis.)
Re:Get Over It Already by theNAM666 · 2012-03-21 06:16 · Score: 3, Funny

>believe that despite his ravaging where we live with tornados on a yearly basis, we've got a direct line to God.
If most of the people in the South called me on a daily basis, and I had tornado powers, I'd smite them too.
Re:Get Over It Already by Anonymous Coward · 2012-03-21 06:50 · Score: 0

The difference between east coasters and west coasters is that the west coasters recognize the west coast as being part of the United States.
Re:Get Over It Already by lennier · 2012-03-21 10:51 · Score: 2

You guys do know there are other countries, right? Stuff happens in them all the time that could arguably be called "news" and doesn't involve America at all.
Yes, but for the most part...that news has virtually no effect on the common American's daily life...so we generally don't care that much what else is happening in the world.
And if only that were true in reverse.
Sadly, anyone living in the rest of the world has to become familiar with what is going on in the USA, not only because we import most of our entertainment media from the US, but also because the USA tends to export its policies aggressively, via military, diplomatic and economic channels. So that today's NYSE financial trivia or Washington soap opera tends to become tomorrow's drone strikes in Afghanistan or FBI extradition raid in Switzerland or New Zealand. This accelerated during the Dubya years, we took a deep breath when against all odds Obama got in, and now, with the US Presidential elections raising the odds of a Republican uber-Bush wanting to start more wars, we're all biting our nails and anxiously looking at the USA like we do Iran, Israel, North Korea, Putin's Russia, and China. Wondering just how the chips will fall, which of several hardline warmongering factions will gain control, and where the missiles will land next.
Slashdotters aside, I'm not sure many average Americans really actually understand this glass-fortress effect. It seems to me that there's still this strongly held folksy belief that America is somehow an isolated little farming town wanting nothing more than to stay blissfully uninvolved with the world, and that the world just "hates our freedoms" or "feels jealous". But the "city on the hill" is now more like a brightly lit Last Days of Nero's Rome themed Hell's Angels rock arena spectacular with real guns.
I really do wish middle America were the sleepy farm town so many of you folks seem to think it is. We wouldn't be nearly so scared of (and for) you.

--
You are not a brain: http://books.google.com/books?id=2oV61CeDx-YC

So maybe by Compaqt · 2012-03-21 02:21 · Score: 4, Funny

Slashdot should post half as many links to NyTimes.com per month?

--
I'm not a lawyer, but I play one on the Internet. Blog

JavaScript off and the NY Times by Anonymous Coward · 2012-03-21 02:22 · Score: 1

Surfing without JavaScript allows you to read all the nytimes articles you want

Already stopped by vlm · 2012-03-21 02:24 · Score: 2

Already stopped. I see the same from my friends and relatives. You get the weird pop up, then "oh, its just the times, skip to the next article" in the future. If they have 1/2 mil subscriptions, thats great, but realize thats around a third of one percent of the population. Low enough to not have influence on the population anymore.

Its like making a psuedo-news story that I'm now only allowed to buy half the number of Kia cars that I bought in the past. Hmm 0/2 is still 0.

The bad part is they've moved themselves from the "interesting online newspaper" category to being something to avoid and skip over like ExpertSexChange.

--
"Science flies us to the moon. Religion flies us into buildings." - Victor Stenger

Re:Already stopped by jbeaupre · 2012-03-21 03:17 · Score: 2

Not sure what your browsing to bring up that kind of link, but I hope you're not skipping ExpertSexChange to go to something like DIYSexChange.

--
The world is made by those who show up for the job.
Re:Already stopped by Daniel+Dvorkin · 2012-03-21 03:19 · Score: 1

If they have 1/2 mil subscriptions, thats great, but realize thats around a third of one percent of the population. Low enough to not have influence on the population anymore.
I guess the question is, how does that number compare to the number of paper subscribers they had in the pre-web days (or, for that matter, the number they have now) especially outside NYC and environs? The NYT has an influence out of proportion to the number of people who actually read the thing; it's the "paper of record," the "Gray Lady," and starting out with "The New York Times reports ..." has long been a way to lend a story an air of gravitas.

--
The correlation between ignorance of statistics and using "correlation is not causation" as an argument is close to 1.
Re:Already stopped by SolitaryMan · 2012-03-21 05:08 · Score: 1

In case you are wondering: the whooshing sound you've just heard, was joke flying over your head.

--
May Peace Prevail On Earth
Re:Already stopped by Anonymous Coward · 2012-03-21 05:27 · Score: 0

ditto ...

Can't RTFA by tepples · 2012-03-21 02:24 · Score: 3, Interesting

If people don't like it they can get their news somewhere else

How many NYTimes.com articles does Slashdot link to per month? Expect a bunch of "can't RTFA" comments that until now had been reserved for the major scholarly journals and WSJ.

Re:Can't RTFA by MightyYar · 2012-03-21 03:33 · Score: 1

I wonder if you can hit your limit by browsing through coral cache? Slow as hell, but I guess I'll try it and see.

--
W..w..W - Willy Waterloo washes Warren Wiggins who is washing Waldo Woo.
Re:Can't RTFA by quintus_horatius · 2012-03-21 03:45 · Score: 1

Links from other sources (like /. and nytimes emails) are 'soft' counts against your monthly quota. If you're under your allotment then reading the linked-to article increases your count, but if you're over you're still allowed to read it.
Re:Can't RTFA by tepples · 2012-03-21 04:07 · Score: 1

Links from other sources (like /. and nytimes emails) are 'soft' counts against your monthly quota.
I thought this applied only to specific other sources, such as Facebook and Twitter, not necessarily Slashdot. Can you link to a page describing these soft counts?
Re:Can't RTFA by quintus_horatius · 2012-03-21 07:50 · Score: 1

http://www.nytimes.com/subscriptions/Multiproduct/lp6128.html?campaignId=39UWL

Can I still access NYTimes.com articles through Facebook, Twitter, search engines or my blog?
Yes. We encourage links from Facebook, Twitter, search engines, blogs and social media. When you visit NYTimes.com through a link from one of these channels, that article (or video, slide show, etc.) will count toward your monthly limit of 10 free articles, but you will still be able to view it even if you’ve already read your 10 free articles. Like other external links, links from search engine results will count toward your monthly limit. If you have reached your monthly limit, you'll have a daily limit of 5 free articles through a given search engine. This limit applies to the majority of search engines.
Re:Can't RTFA by reve_etrange · 2012-03-21 09:10 · Score: 1

If you read /. and can't delete or refuse a cookie then the presence of the "paywall" wont affect your ability to usefully RTFA.

--
.: Semper Absurda :.

I suscribe - and I'm annoyed! by sampson7 · 2012-03-21 02:29 · Score: 2

But probably not for the reasons you think.... I have been a subscriber to the Sunday dead-tree edition of the paper for several years now. This, in theory, gives me free access to all online content. But the login system never remembers me. Not on my work computer, not on my iPad, not on my home computer. And the login is often squirrely too.

So I typically use my "20 free articles a month" rather than login each and every freak'n time. I know, this doesn't exactly rise to the level of suffering that really warrants a post - but it's pretty damn annoying. Going to 10 just makes the site even less user-friendly than it already is. Is it really that hard to develop a login system that works???

Re:I suscribe - and I'm annoyed! by ColdWetDog · 2012-03-21 02:44 · Score: 1

Yeah, it's like writing good software was hard or something.
(I'm looking at YOU Slashdot and your unicode hating attempts at AJAX / Web 2 / whateverthehellyouaredoingthatscrewsupeverybrowserontheplanet coding.)

--
Faster! Faster! Faster would be better!
Re:I suscribe - and I'm annoyed! by swb · 2012-03-21 03:14 · Score: 1

I had problems with my login at one point, but it's been pretty bulletproof across 3 computers, an iPad and my iPhone for a couple of years at least.
What annoys me more is the new JavaScript "dynamic" comments engine. I really enjoy the comments on articles and the new system is borderline unusable on the iPad.
Re:I suscribe - and I'm annoyed! by rthille · 2012-03-21 03:58 · Score: 1

Someone else may be accessing your ID, or there may be something going on with your browsers. I never have to re-login to the times (despite not being a subscriber, I've got a free account from way back when), Safari and the Times seems to work out who I am every time.

--
Awesome furniture, accessories and cabinetry in Santa Rosa, CA: http://humanity-home.com/

latimes hard to bypass by peter303 · 2012-03-21 02:31 · Score: 1

I know a way around the WSJ and NYTimes. But not he latimes yet.

If "everyone" implements strong paywalls, I'll subscribe to the NYTimes because it is the most valuable.

Whatever! by mholve · 2012-03-21 02:37 · Score: 0

I stopped reading NYT (which admittedly wasn't much to begin with) when they first introduced their paywall.

That's fine - now I can just ignore their site altogether. Congrats, NYT.

Re:Whatever! by Oswald+McWeany · 2012-03-21 02:41 · Score: 0

As far as I'm concerned New York Times is an "Ex-Newspaper" they once existed but don't anymore.
Sure, there are rumours they still exist, but I see no evidence of it because I refuse to pay.

--
"That's the way to do it" - Punch
Re:Whatever! by 0123456 · 2012-03-21 02:43 · Score: 2

Sure, there are rumours they still exist, but I see no evidence of it because I refuse to pay.
Yeah, I was shocked when I saw this story here because I hadn't seen anyone link to a New York Times article in a long time and thought they'd gone bust or something.
Re:Whatever! by TheTrueScotsman · 2012-03-21 03:35 · Score: 1

All three of you are idiots with your freetard moralizing. Are you so technically retarded that you can't even work out how to get free access to the site? NYT has excellent journalism that (probably) can't be supported by an ad-based model. Sometimes you get what you pay for.
Re:Whatever! by 0123456 · 2012-03-21 04:17 · Score: 1

You know how people find you on the Web? Links.
You know what happens when you set up a pay wall? People don't link to you because they don't want to force their readers to faff around clearing cookies to read your articles.
As to NYT journalism, weren't they one of the biggest cheerleaders for 'Saddam's WMDs', or am I confusing them with some other newspaper in New York?

Problem with Digital Subscriptions by jcern · 2012-03-21 02:42 · Score: 2

Since I purchased an iPad, I have started reading more and more of my newspapers and magazines on their apps. I find that the overall experience is just as enjoyable, and the convenience is great. For most of what I generally read there is complimentary digital access for their print subscribers. So, I get both versions and this is fine for weekly or monthly periodicals. However, for newspapers this can be annoying.

When it came to the NYTimes, after they started charging I called to find out about subscription options. While I don't mind the idea of paying $35-40 per month for something I read, what I found was that it was significantly cheaper if I ordered the print version which also includes digital access. The reason for this is that print ad rates remain significantly higher than digital, so therefore they make up for this by charging extra for digital only access. I suppose you could always donate the paper to the library or something, but that involves too much effort for me, and I for one didn't want to waste the paper by not reading it. So, I ended up using a print subscriber's digital access (which is surprisingly legal). I think many publications are in the same boat.

I think it is great that papers are starting to find a way to make money off of their efforts, and the NYTimes has been smart by easing into their pay model. However, the issue as I see it is that until they can find a way to level the playing field with their old-school paper offerings, the digital version is going to continue to be seen as a throwaway by advertisers who find little value in it - and then consequently by readers since it can be perceived as a ripoff. Hopefully, a successful pay model is a step towards this, but I think this may just be finding a way to make some extra money without getting to the root of the problem. I guess the alternative is that we move toward an economy where we recognize and pay for the actual value of something and not a heavily subsidized price.

and by kelemvor4 · 2012-03-21 02:50 · Score: 1

Nothing of value was lost (or reduced).

Except for Spinal Tap by AioKits · 2012-03-21 02:51 · Score: 1

Their ability to view New York Times free articles will go to 11.

--
"Quote me as saying I was mis-quoted." -Groucho Marx

And nothing of value was lost. by JustAnotherIdiot · 2012-03-21 02:52 · Score: 2

Journalism is pretty dead anyway, but have fun on your trip to obscurity NYT.

--
What do I know, I'm just an idiot, right?

Re:And nothing of value was lost. by Anonymous Coward · 2012-03-21 03:10 · Score: 0

I agree, the NYT has the most poorly written/edited articles imo as well.

It's the NYT's loss by Anonymous Coward · 2012-03-21 02:54 · Score: 0

I used to be an avid reader of the NYT years ago, and even made it my browser homepage. Since the restrictions began I read it less and less, and prefer the Economist and the BBC instead. It's also no longer my homepage.

Perhaps the restrictions made good business sense for them, I wish them well.

Customer Service by Anonymous Coward · 2012-03-21 02:57 · Score: 0

I stopped reading once I had to deal with their atrocious customer service

500,000 subscribers by ledow · 2012-03-21 03:00 · Score: 3, Interesting

According to a quick Google:

Half a million PAYING subscribers is in line with the number of people with an Iridium satellite phone, the number of people who use MuveMusic on their smartphone, or the number of people who pay to play Star Wars: The Old Republic MMO, etc.

I.e. statistically insignificant, especially if you only count the US. I can't name anyone in the above groups, for example, and it's the amount of people Spotify attract in just two months.

I can't remember the last time I saw an NYT article (despite, a few years ago, coming across them all the time online). I certainly can't remember the last time I tried to "bypass" anything to see a website like that. Or the last time I subscribed to any website (I did have a subscription to LWN.net - and Slashdot - at one point but more as a donation to them than providing any benefit to me).

Hell, the last time I actually bought a paper, there *wasn't* a decent online version of any UK paper (but I was still getting all my news from the Internet), and the paper wasn't even for me.

You can try singing about your paywall all you like but the more restrictions you put on non-paywall activities, the more it confirms my suspicion - they know they will die if they don't get more subscription readers, if they aren't already dying. If they were happy and comfortable and making lots of profit, they wouldn't care about the article limit, or they'd raise it, or they'd have "free" versions and "premium" versions and not have to crowbar you into the premium version all the time.

My granddad's generation - who took whatever news was fed to them - would probably be that loyal to a paper, or even a political party, without thinking. Nowadays? If you don't put your news online where I can see it, it won't get seen.

Re:500,000 subscribers by Anonymous Coward · 2012-03-21 03:09 · Score: 0

Well, by your wonderful 'reasoning', Google, Facebook. CNN, MSNBC, etc, are all even more insignificant than the NYT, because they have ZERO paying customers.
Re:500,000 subscribers by jmcbain · 2012-03-21 03:13 · Score: 0

they know they will die if they don't get more subscription readers

Amazing analysis. A company will go out of business if they don't make money.
It must suck for you to be so low in the 99%. Good luck in life.
Re:500,000 subscribers by MisterSquid · 2012-03-21 03:35 · Score: 2

This move comes 6 days after I sent an email to the NYTimes.com about the paywall. Here's what I wrote:

First, I want to thank you for providing your articles free of charge for so many years. I also want to acknowledge the high quality of your reporting.
I've been reading the NYTimes online since 1998. My username is mistersquid. I have a low-traffic blog and have frequently linked to the NYTimes. Most of the articles I read from the NYTimes I find through RSS. I know how to route around the NYTimes paywall to retrieve articles, both by using 3rd party aggregators and by URL-rewriting.
However, in the last two months I have severely curtailed my reading of the NYTimes online because I understand the NYTimes wants to monetize online reading and I am unwilling to pay money. That is, I consciously avoid clicking links to NYTimes articles and look for other sources (eg. BBC), even though I know how to get around the restrictions.
I know I am only one person, but I wanted to let you know that even the nominal restrictions on article availability discourages me from reading your articles even though I know how to get the information for no charge. Insofar as readership is only as valuable as the money they pay, the NYTimes editorial perspective is valueless to the public. I don't believe this is what the NYTimes wants, but it is the situation that obtains in my particular case.
I don't have any ideas about how the NYTimes can generate revenue from people like me. I do know, though, that a paywall makes me look for the information elsewhere.
Sometimes I consider paying, but the non-discounted price for online access seems unreasonable given there is no physical distribution. I will not condescend to you by suggesting a reasonable price; I only know it will have to be lower than it currently is for me to consider paying instead of avoiding NYTimes online content.
Thank you for taking the time to consider my views regarding your pay wall.

tl;dr: You're charging WAY too much for your digital-only subscription ($180/year minimum) which costs much less than paper to distribute.

--
blog
Re:500,000 subscribers by Dhalka226 · 2012-03-21 04:25 · Score: 1

500,000 subscribers would also rank them #8 in the country among print newspapers. #7, actually, if you remove the print edition of the NYT. That's not insignificant. If you add them together I believe they end up #2 or #3.

they know they will die if they don't get more subscription readers
Well, yes. When you have employees who enjoy getting a paycheck, equipment costs, hosting fees, delivery fees, printing costs, advertising costs, processing costs and more -- yeah, from time to time you need to actually bring in money. If you consistently fail to bring in more than you spend, your company will die. That you seem somehow smug or surprised by this is quite simply baffling.
Online advertising may or may not cover it. If you paid a journalist $40,000/year (which isn't unreasonable in the grand scheme of things but is not high at all), assumed no extra costs or support staff whatsoever and that he wrote 365 articles a year he would still need to make just shy of $110/article in ad revenue just to break even. Multiply that out by all the writers (and then throw in those pesky editors on top) and I think you can see where the potential problem comes from.
"Herp derp I like free stuff" is well and good; I like free stuff too. Assuming that the bills magically get paid that way is unrealistic. Maybe they're delaying the inevitable; I guess we'll find out. But I don't think them trying to find a way to survive is worthy of derision. Journalists serve an important societal function and we will all be worse off without them.
Re:500,000 subscribers by Nidi62 · 2012-03-21 04:42 · Score: 1

500,000 subscribers would also rank them #8 in the country among print newspapers. #7, actually, if you remove the print edition of the NYT. That's not insignificant. If you add them together I believe they end up #2 or #3.
But didn't the NYT include the digital subscription with any print subscription? Therefore you would be counting a fairly large number of people twice.

--
The only thing necessary for evil to triumph is for it to be pitted against a slightly greater evil
Re:500,000 subscribers by Crispy+Critters · 2012-03-21 05:21 · Score: 1

"costs much less than paper to distribute."
This is almost certainly not true in any practical sense.
We are concerned about the cost to consumers, so the cost to produce the copy is not important. What matters is that cost minus the advertising revenue. Advertisements on the web don't make anywhere near as much money for the NYT as ads in the paper. A digital-only subscription does not necessarily bring in more money for them; there is however a shift in the fraction of the cost paid by the reader vs. the amount paid for by ad revenue.
Re:500,000 subscribers by theNAM666 · 2012-03-21 06:27 · Score: 1

>If you paid a journalist $40,000/year (which isn't unreasonable in the grand scheme of things but is not high at all),
$40K a year? In New York? Including expenses? Let me go take a shit I'm laughing so hard.
The fully loaded (ie, including benefits, expenses etc) F-T-E cost for a NYT journalist is closer to $125K average.
Regardless, their paywall model is BS.
Re:500,000 subscribers by elmasguapo · 2012-03-21 09:28 · Score: 1

Of course they know that they need to get more subscription readers. The past two decades have shown conclusively that, presently, online advertising isn't enough to foot the bill. In light of that, chances are they're willing to give up 500 people who have no loyalty for 1 person who is willing to pony up the money for it -- and it makes economic sense. But the beauty of the NYT strategy is that they don't see treat it as a dyad.
Digital content is an intangible good; that is, the cost remains mostly fixed once it has been produced, regardless of how many people access it. Thus, the New York Times' strategy is rather clever (even if they overpaid for it by an order of magnitude): generate the bulk of your online revenue from the 5-10 percent of your readers who absolutely love the product (and value it enough to pay for it) through subscriptions and then generate some advertising revenue from the folks who have no interest in paying for your product.
By making the paywall easy to circumvent, they're able to generate ad revenue from those who have the time to engage in those practices (usually people with limited disposable income who probably wouldn't subscribe to begin with). Meanwhile, those who do have disposable income are likely to be willing to pay for the added convenience of not having to delete their cookies or run an extension (if they know how to do so). Also, by allowing people to access the content if they come from external sources, they ensure that they're still able to capture a wide audience, which can be converted to subscribers. They also ensure that bloggers continue to link to them (FT.com found out the hard way that by not distinguishing local traffic and external traffic, the paywall would make bloggers feel uncertain about whether their readers would be able to view FT articles; they soon stopped linking to them). Lastly, by gently asking consumers to pay, they're able to gain more goodwill and develop a social norm that paying for content you value is a good thing. Indeed, those who sign up willingly are more likely to be long-term, loyal customers than those who feel forced to sign up.
As to whether it's working or not, the numbers seem to favor them. Digital subscriptions have almost doubled since last year (281,000 in 2Q, 2011 to 454,000 in 1Q, 2012). Digital advertising revenue saw modest growth. Web traffic has remained relatively level. Churn is less with digital than print customers. Of course, we can't say that they would be better off by staying completely open/free, but the numbers don't look bad at all -- especially in face of predictions that the paywall would scare all their traffic away.
Re:500,000 subscribers by ledow · 2012-03-21 20:15 · Score: 1

You are not their customer.
The people who pay for Ads are. That's why Google makes billions from ads every single you. In fact, you are their PRODUCT that they sell to their customers (advertisers).

The question I have is... by pdboddy · 2012-03-21 03:10 · Score: 3, Insightful

If you are a paying subscriber, do they remove the ads?

--
Julie Moult is an idiot.

Re:The question I have is... by Talennor · 2012-03-21 03:42 · Score: 2

I used to by the paper version. It had ads.

--

//TODO: signature

I damned-near rely on smoke signals by Cazekiel · 2012-03-21 03:13 · Score: 1

Here I am on /., where you'd all laugh at me for not even having TV, complicated cell phone (NO cell, at the mo) or anything starting with an 'i'. For real and for serious, not even a conversion-box to watch HD local channels, just a TV set (a giant box, not a flat-screen; it came free when we saved an abused teenager from his gay-hating mom, as he brought it with him and let us keep it) VCR/DVD player and five shelves/one giant bureau drawer of movies. Couldn't keep up with the Crackberry payments. Don't care about Apple products.

Everything I need to know about the world is through the 'net, and I don't subscribe to any news-sites that require pay. I hop in here, google shit, whatever else. So the NYT charging money makes me turn my head and go stupid-eyed like a confused dog. I know WHY they do, they gotta charge, and why people prefer their services to others, but I've never subscribed to an actual paper, never mind pay for pixels. Am I too backwards? It's nothing against anyone/anything, or choices people make... I just don't find it necessary. I may not know everything that's going on in the world, but I'm not under a rock, either.

--
You want to know how to help your kids? LEAVE THEM THE F*&K ALONE. --George Carlin

Re:I damned-near rely on smoke signals by theNAM666 · 2012-03-21 06:28 · Score: 1

^ Moocher.
Re:I damned-near rely on smoke signals by Cazekiel · 2012-03-21 06:42 · Score: 1

No, just shit-poor, really.

--
You want to know how to help your kids? LEAVE THEM THE F*&K ALONE. --George Carlin
Re:I damned-near rely on smoke signals by theNAM666 · 2012-03-21 06:46 · Score: 1

Heh. Just making a point!
Re:I damned-near rely on smoke signals by Cazekiel · 2012-03-21 06:50 · Score: 1

Hey man, I don't mind if some places/sites/businesses charge for people to know things. I just don't think one should HAVE to pay to gain knowledge in every case, unless there's the end goal of a doctorate and a $Googolplex paycheck at the end of the workweek. :P

--
You want to know how to help your kids? LEAVE THEM THE F*&K ALONE. --George Carlin
Re:I damned-near rely on smoke signals by theNAM666 · 2012-03-21 08:45 · Score: 1

Hey man, I was just making fun of the Ayn Rand meme ;)
As far as NYT is concerned, it's that their system is so heavy-handed and backwards-looking...
Re:I damned-near rely on smoke signals by Cazekiel · 2012-03-21 09:02 · Score: 1

Ah. The reference was slightly vague, lol. Jerk. ;)

--
You want to know how to help your kids? LEAVE THEM THE F*&K ALONE. --George Carlin
Re:I damned-near rely on smoke signals by theNAM666 · 2012-03-21 09:07 · Score: 1

Hey! It was on the front page of the NYT last week :P ;)
Re:I damned-near rely on smoke signals by Cazekiel · 2012-03-21 09:37 · Score: 1

Next time, as my title sez, smoke-signal it to me. I'm more likely to get it that way. :D

--
You want to know how to help your kids? LEAVE THEM THE F*&K ALONE. --George Carlin
Re:I damned-near rely on smoke signals by theNAM666 · 2012-03-21 09:45 · Score: 1

Are you suggesting I burn a copy of the New York Times? :)
Re:I damned-near rely on smoke signals by Cazekiel · 2012-03-21 09:53 · Score: 1

Actually, the New York Post is probably better for that. Smoke away, I'm waiting to know stuff! :D

--
You want to know how to help your kids? LEAVE THEM THE F*&K ALONE. --George Carlin

The Old Feedback Loop Marketing Trick by SirBitBucket · 2012-03-21 03:20 · Score: 1

Post a link about the pay walled NYT site on the pay walled WSJ site. Then post a link back to the pay walled NYT site on the WSJ site. You use up everyody's ten free views and people realize how cool these papers are and start paying for them..

Either that or we end up in a Chronic Hysteresis...

Irony by Anonymous Coward · 2012-03-21 03:23 · Score: 0

The submitter included a link to the WSJ article on the change, which appears to also be paywalled.

Nicely done, submitter. I bet your mother...

(To read the rest of this comment, please subscribe today!)

Ethics? by Anonymous Coward · 2012-03-21 03:25 · Score: 0

Isn't Slashdot supporting circumvention of business security by distributing that kind of information in the summary? Regardless of the circumvention methods's technical simplicity, doesn't a US based website need to be concerned about the DMCA in this day and age?

Or do the editors simply not care?

Cost of print subscription cheaper than digital? by Sir+Homer · 2012-03-21 03:33 · Score: 3, Insightful

Am I reading this wrong? It seems that the cost of a print subscription is $3.85 a week but INCLUDES the $35/mo (holy crap that's expensive) digital subscription.

It kind of baffles me 500,000 people paying as much as ISP service for access to a single newpaper? Are they including print subscriptions in that number

The real question by HangingChad · 2012-03-21 03:39 · Score: 2

The real question is whether anyone will notice the NYT going behind a pay wall? I keep hoping Fox News would disappear behind one, but finally had to throw in the towel and install MurdochBlock.

I doubt I'd notice if either one of them disappeared. It's so amusing to watch colonial media struggle with a new frontier.

--
That's our life, the big wheel of shit. - The Fat Man, Blue Tango Salvage

Re:The real question by SleazyRidr · 2012-03-21 04:15 · Score: 1

Thanks for letting the world know about MurdochBlock. I've just installed it on all my computers, I'm sure it'll make my life a lot less stressful.

--
Is 1563649 a prime number?

Good by IGnatius+T+Foobar · 2012-03-21 03:40 · Score: 0

This is good. The less of NYT's liberal propaganda people are reading, the better.

--
Tired of FB/Google censorship? Visit UNCENSORED!

Re:Good by Anonymous Coward · 2012-03-21 03:45 · Score: 0

Blow it out your ear. You'll find way worse over at Think Progress.
Re:Good by Anonymous Coward · 2012-03-21 04:13 · Score: 0

Die in a car fire, commie. Go back to Kenya with that terrorist you put in the white house.
Re:Good by Anonymous Coward · 2012-03-21 09:31 · Score: 0

Darn right - only commies bail out private enterprise

Then Google should pull them from their news feed by Frank+T.+Lofaro+Jr. · 2012-03-21 03:40 · Score: 1

Google should pull any paywalled sites from their feed on Google News.

I don't want to get sent to a pay site, when there are free sites available.

And Google needs to crack down on those journals (mainly medical) giving Google full copies of articles so that they get search traffic and give people a paywall.

That is against Google rules and I report it and suggest others do. (now I just block the sites from my Google search usually)

--
Just because it CAN be done, doesn't mean it should!

Simple workaround . . . by Anonymous Coward · 2012-03-21 03:55 · Score: 0

When you load a NYT page and it blocks your access, just delete everything after the question mark (?) in the URL, then reload and all will work as if you're a subscriber.

Re:Cost of print subscription cheaper than digital by SleazyRidr · 2012-03-21 04:13 · Score: 1

Are they including print subscriptions in that number

Yes, 500k people have some kind of subscription to the NYT. I tried to find a number for the people with online-only subscriptions, but they don't seem to publish that number...

--
Is 1563649 a prime number?

Is deleting the NYT cookie considered theft yet? by ankhank · 2012-03-21 04:17 · Score: 2

How long til deleting the cookie they put on your computer equals breaking the lock on their door and stealing their stuff, eh?

Airport Newspaper Economics by mtrachtenberg · 2012-03-21 04:27 · Score: 1

Has anyone noticed how newspaper vendors have implemented paywalls around the physical papers. Airport staff, on pain of death, will never leave one flight's passenger's left-behind newspapers for the next flight's passengers. Two readers and the economy would be destroyed. "Protecting our economy" by ensuring inefficiencies remain is why our country doesn't function any more.

Who? by flanders_down · 2012-03-21 04:37 · Score: 1

That's still ten more NYT articles than I would bother to view.

Bundling and Boiling by Mandrel · 2012-03-21 04:50 · Score: 1

I greatly benefit from the NYT articles I read, but am not willing to pay given that it involves purchasing a subscription bundle rather than paying a per-article charge. Given the number of articles that interest me, a subscription would mean that I'd be paying between $1 and $3 each.

I'm prepared to pay for information services, but want to pick the eyes out of the entire Web, not just a single site. As one of the top sites, the NYT may be successful forcing its readers to make bundled purchases, but I don't think papers further down the chain will be able to do it.

The question is: is the NYT smart for implementing a slowly-tightening paywall because it's like boiling frogs, or dumb because it's like weaning babies?

Gannett? by edmicman · 2012-03-21 05:00 · Score: 1

More disconcerting to me was mention in a few of these articles that Gannett was going to start implementing paywall's for their papers' sites, too. I don't read the NYT, but my local area paper is a Gannett publication. I don't have time to read a newspaper, digital or print, to make it worth subscribing. But I'll check out the headlines every so often to keep up on what's going on. They already charge for archives and archive anything older than about a week so I'm already locked out of historical things.

Will a paid digital subscription open up the archives and get rid of the ads on the page? Gannett websites are some of the absolute worst I've come across in terms of ads, layout, Flash crap, and just overall awfulness.

Heh by lightknight · 2012-03-21 06:01 · Score: 1

And nothing of value was lost.

--
I am John Hurt.

That's a funny coincidence cause... by Anonymous Coward · 2012-03-21 06:04 · Score: 0

I just halved my monthly NYT article views from zero to zero.

Re:And?.. Paywall HAS been up for a year by theNAM666 · 2012-03-21 06:19 · Score: 1

>In any case, the pay wall has NOT been up for a year. The pay wall has only gone into effect starting January 2012.

WRONG. It was implemented in March 2011. Thank you for playing the game of "shoot off your mouth when you don't know jack shit."

and nothing of value by Anonymous Coward · 2012-03-21 06:21 · Score: 0

and nothing of value was lost

I was wondering why I saw no paywall by Skapare · 2012-03-21 06:51 · Score: 1

My cookie monster is running loose.

--
now we need to go OSS in diesel cars

ways to get around WSJ, NYT paywalls by Anonymous Coward · 2012-03-21 07:07 · Score: 0

clearing cookies is one way to do it, using a 2nd browser is also an option. using google/bing/whatever to search for the unpaywalled url also works.

ie, i just tried out searching the url of the (paywall/regwall) WSJ article cited by the OP. it worked -- the complete article came up when i clicked on google's link.

Just a sign of the times by nurb432 · 2012-03-21 07:26 · Score: 1

More and more restrictions on content, best get used to it.

--
---- Booth was a patriot ----

What constitutes a read is wrong question by minstrelmike · 2012-03-21 08:19 · Score: 1

I believe the only thing they count is if you click around inside the site itself.
If you only ever click to it from some place else, the paywall doesn't track you _even_ as it tracks your account (I can post comments on any page that is open). If you only click on links to NYT from google's news page or even better, signup with NYT itself for emails and then link from them, you can read anything that has a link.
That's even easier than deleting cookies and you don't have to try to navigate the newspapers table of contents.

In the Soviet US .. by Anonymous Coward · 2012-03-21 08:55 · Score: 0

you pay to read state propoganada

Inevitable backlash by goodmanj · 2012-03-21 10:19 · Score: 1

"Hey, why pay for news when there's perfectly good free news?"

So long as good news is available for free, nobody recognizes its value, so nobody will pay for it. But good news does cost money. A lot of money. Right now, that cost is being bankrolled by investors and the gradually-depleting capital held by news companies.

But a day will come when there will be no good free news. There will only be shitty free news -- glorified advertising that only says what it's being paid to say. I predict that for a long while, nobody will notice. But eventually, when your city council starts selling eminent domain power to the highest bidder, when your kid comes home from school and his only textbook is a Bible, when your federal taxes triple to pay for a war you never even heard about, you will be willing to pay for your news.

Let's just hope journalism is still legal when that happens.

New York What? by Anonymous Coward · 2012-03-22 06:18 · Score: 0

Never read their articles before, I have the internet.

Slashdot Mirror

New York Times Halves Monthly Free Article Views To Ten

178 comments