Comments on: The NYT’s blogs are set to be paywalled A slice of lime in the soda Sun, 26 Oct 2014 19:05:02 +0000 hourly 1 By: lambertstrether Sat, 11 Dec 2010 00:15:48 +0000 So, I’ve got to subsidize Judy Miller by paying to read Paul Krugman? Such a deal!

By: Kachingler1 Sat, 27 Feb 2010 07:00:40 +0000 There is another alternative — “social cents”.

“Social Cents” are voluntary payments based on a flat rate and distributed fairly across the user’s favorite sites based on usage (as a proxy for value received).

The NYTimes blogs are the perfect place for Kachingle — “social cents for digital stuff” because each blog has a loyal user base many of whom would not only like to support the blogger, but would also like public association with the blog.

Kachingle went live on Feb 14, 2010 and there are now 65 sites including a newspaper (The DailyCamera of Boulder, CO), quite a few investigative journalism sites (e.g. Center for Investigative Reporting, Center for Public Policy, Pulitzer Center on Crisis Reporting), and (the “Politico of Germany”), along with many others.

Check it out at

Cynthia Typaldos
Founder, Kachingle
cynthia A*T

By: AnnB Tue, 23 Feb 2010 03:01:00 +0000 “But few blog readers are loyal enough to pay for the privilege of reading that blog. And if you’re someone who participates regularly in the Freakonomics comments section, for instance, you’re going to be very annoyed if you’re forced to buy a subscription to the entire site in order to do so.”

Do you have any data to support this? Has there ever been a case of a popular blog being taken private and charging and failing?

Certainly, if one of the blogs I love and rely on went paywall, I would consider paying.

By: russms Mon, 22 Feb 2010 15:39:40 +0000 Putting the blogs behind the pay-wall is a remarkably dumb idea. I don’t think news sources should give up on charging for content online — the revenue to support a newsroom has to come from somewhere — but no one will pay for blogs, and no one will pay for opinion writing. (Wasn’t this largely why TimesSelect failed?) I think that most people view blogs as easily substitutable, which is why few people will pay for that sort of thing.

If the Times wants to charge for anything, it should focus on charging only for certain kinds of hard news. Obviously, not everyone who visits now will be willing to pay for news, but serious news consumers recognize that much of the actual news in the Times is not duplicated elsewhere.

By: vk9141 Mon, 22 Feb 2010 11:50:21 +0000 I still like to think of myself as young (I’m 28) and I’ve never subscribed to a paper, print or online. Luckily I have a Bloomberg terminal to keep me up to date and the rest, the commentary I pick and choose online.

The newspapers ought to believe that a one size fits all regular subscription may make a bit short term but over the long term is to accept an eventual decline into irrelevance, ie one day the NYT may be like the New Yorker, something I might buy every once in a while when stuck in an airport layover.

I consume news content like I consume food, and I like variety. I’m about as likely to opt for an NYT subscription as I am to sign up to a 12 month deal to eat at the same restuarant every Saturday night.

By: sport Sun, 21 Feb 2010 23:07:08 +0000 Younger people don’t subscribe to newspapers, they’ve been used to receiving content for free, and to top it off it’s becoming a mobile world and we’ve all been trained by our iphones to think in terms of “apps” which are free or cost relatively little for the ones that we want. When are these print dinosaurs going to come into the new age and cut their losses and make the basic NYT a moderately priced app and spin off the “hot” properties such as the crosswords or Sunday Magazine for additional app revenue?

Didn’t they learn anything from what Jobs did with iTunes and the $.99 songs that have sold bazillions instead of albums that most people are reluctant to buy for $10 when they only want 2 or 3 songs at a buck a pop?

These grand subscription schemes will fail and they’ll come around in the end – new media will rule.

By: HBC Sun, 21 Feb 2010 22:38:08 +0000 The main purpose of buying the NYT is to have some sort of wall between the reader and fellow occupants on the subway. The only paywall worth paying for doesn’t work on an iPad…

By: muchstardude Sat, 20 Feb 2010 17:19:25 +0000 Lousy economic times are forcing households to cancel the newspaper, phone company, maybe even part of their cable bill. As long as they have Internet access. I work for where we have the most read home foreclosure and job hunting stories on the web. 7 million homes right get 100% of their video consumption from the web.

By: Benny_Acosta Sat, 20 Feb 2010 12:38:44 +0000 It will be interesting to see how many people will want to pay just to read another person’s opinion.

By: BarryKelly Sat, 20 Feb 2010 07:31:28 +0000 I don’t think they’re following the chain of causality back quite far enough with respect to Google as a source of traffic. How do they think Google determines which articles are newsworthy, and should be placed highly in results? By inbound links, a proxy for the degree of interest by the commentariat, to a greater or lesser extent.

In other words, there are second and third order effects here that NYT doesn’t sound like it’s considering.