Comments on: The NYT toughens up its paywall

By: jrconner

jrconner — Sun, 12 Dec 2010 08:55:29 +0000

$240 is toothpick money if you’re a partner at Goldman Sachs, but it’s a daunting sum if you’re nearing retirement on a nest egg more modest than those owned by New York’s uppercrusters. If the NYT thinks $20 a month is a modest amount for online access, it’s a bit out of touch with the real world.

But I don’t think that’s the problem. The NYT is a premium product, and its owners and managers think it should sport a premium price. That’s partly a strategy to protect the paper’s value, partly a strategy to protect the managers and owners from the humiliation of offering Wal Mart prices.

It’s also an old way of thinking. I’d price the paywall for unlimited access at a dollar a month, and work to get 30 million subscribers.

By: eksommer

eksommer — Wed, 08 Dec 2010 14:41:59 +0000

A paywall is OK, but it needs to be properly priced. That is, modest. We are paying for content, not delivery, and anyone who is remotely familiar with the economic truths of media understands that circulation pays for circulation.

The actually delivery of Web content is minuscule when compared to home or newsstand delivery.Operating revenue is generated by ADVERTISING.

What the NYT needs is proof of demographics of readers so that they show those demographics and “page views” to advertisers. What is the difference if I read the ad in the paper or online? I am still exposed to the advertising. As an online reader, I should be rewarded with a lower price per “view” as I am saving the Times money as they do not have to deliver the paper to my doorstep (not to mention the waste of natural resources–and sad to say the demise of the “paperboy.”

Reasonable, even low, prices for online access should prevail in exchange, readers must submit to some demographic scrutiny.

By: eortiz

eortiz — Wed, 08 Dec 2010 13:45:34 +0000

Felix, Reuters should put you behind a paywall and put you on a 100% commission compensation plan.

By: SFGary

SFGary — Wed, 08 Dec 2010 12:19:27 +0000

I agree with your $5-$10 price point. I check out at least a dozen news sites or more every day including NYT. While I would pay $5 a month for a few sites, there’s no way I would pay $20/month for a dozen sites if paywalls become common.

I wonder if they tested the pricing model with the huge number of visitors they get every day or whether they just did a dartboard model to see what sticks.

By: ARJTurgot2

ARJTurgot2 — Wed, 08 Dec 2010 02:13:04 +0000

If the NYT is going to experience anything other than the 90% drop in access the London Times did it will need to be vastly different. There’s really nothing there I can’t get elsewhere. I have a copy of Keynes General Theory, so nothing Krugman says surprises; does anyone seriously think anyone is going to pay money to read Maureen Dowd? Lots of hubris for a cage-lining commodity content.

Now Reuters is doing interesting things, and I’m not saying that boost egos there. We have full contact blogging using Felix, financial Netflix with Chrystia, but most importantly an attempt to understand a new thing that is changing things at a cellular level by experimenting with new things. NYT looks like it is still trying to figure out how to make money without changing. Not sure what the future of journalism looks like, but I’m pretty sure that it doesn’t look like the NYT does today.

By: efnj

efnj — Wed, 08 Dec 2010 01:37:48 +0000

I plan on purchasing an online subscription to nyt.com, at pretty much any of the price points I’ve seen. I probably view 150-200 articles per month. I am 23 years old without much disposable income, but NYT is my primary source of news, and I value it quite highly. Above all else, I feel some kind of responsibility to ensure that a highly professional news organization like the NYT continues to exist, and for that reason they will definitely get a bit of leeway on prices.

By: Gorillameek

Gorillameek — Wed, 08 Dec 2010 01:15:07 +0000

Personally, I’m still awaiting my refund from the unused portion of TimesSelect.

By: Curmudgeon

Curmudgeon — Tue, 07 Dec 2010 23:51:45 +0000

I won’t do a paywall at any price, not because I’m cheap or that I don’t appreciate content (content in one form or another is how I make my living), but because it’s too annoying and tedious to keep track of individual subscriptions to one-off websites. If I could have a single fund that gives my access to multiple paid sites of interest, I would almost certainly do so, but publishers are interested in being islands, not communities.