Comments on: The NYT paywall arrives A slice of lime in the soda Sun, 26 Oct 2014 19:05:02 +0000 hourly 1 By: traducere romana daneza Mon, 29 Sep 2014 14:04:53 +0000 Fantastic beat ! I would like to apprentice while you amend your website, how could i subscribe for a blog web site? The account aided me a acceptable deal. I had been tiny bit acquainted of this your broadcast provided bright clear idea

By: doctorrobert Sat, 19 Mar 2011 03:30:05 +0000 To answers peoples questions- Yes disabling cookies and not signing in allows you to avoid the 20 article limit. I have tried it in Canada by going into Private Browsing mode (or Incognito mode on Chrome) and there are no restrictions on use. They aren’t using IP addresses to identify people. And you can create a mock NyTimes site with links to articles that would bypass the paywall as well, I tried this with a older tumblr account that I linked via proxy. You can also still use news fetchers and other bots to retrieve articles.
The whole paywall seems to suck, and it’s shocking that they spent $30 million on it. This type of thing shouldn’t cost more than a few thousand dollars to implement- its really not difficult coding to do, and there are more holes into it than swiss cheese.

Also I’m bitter that they haven’t announced anything for Kindle subscribers yet. I pay $20 a month for access and I won’t pay dime more. I’m not sure if Amazon has a feature that allows publishers to give codes or accreditation to their subscribers for their own websites (though I remember hearing something about it a while ago), and it would be trivially easy for Amazon to implement if they had to.

By: GregorySokoloff Sat, 19 Mar 2011 00:54:26 +0000 Here in Toronto I can give testimony as an early guinea pig for the paywall. Considering all of the convoluted pricing options, I chose to start a new subscription to the Sunday paper edition that would in turn give me full access to the digital edition. Delivery of the paper edition in Canada is handled by a Canadian newspaper (the Globe and Mail), and I had no problem signing up through them. They in turn handed my call off to the NY Times call center for the last step: granting me access to the digital edition. This is where chaos set in. Nobody at the NYT could find evidence of my new subscription. A supervisor was called in. He was flummoxed, and promised to investigate and call me back. A few hours later he did indeed call back, but was still confounded. Finally, he pinpointed the problem: the subscription is only active after the first physical delivery of a newspaper, a fact that seemed unknown to everybody I had talked to. The story is not over; I’ll see in a couple of days whether I can get digital access.

Judging by my experience, this new paywall does not seem to have been thoroughly thought out before launch. I would not be shocked to see the NY Times once again beat a retreat if this turns out to be the fiasco is looks like.

By: davesmall Fri, 18 Mar 2011 21:44:41 +0000 I’ll sign up right after they hire Ann Coulter to oversee and reorganize the Op Ed editorials department.

By: MikeZ Fri, 18 Mar 2011 20:50:41 +0000 Even those of us who don’t pay subscriptions still pay for the paper’s production through advertising. I for one am not foolish enough to pay for something twice.

This is doomed to failure as a money making exercise since news isn’t really worth anything and opinion is something everyone has and wants to share. Unread news and unshared opinion is worth even less. This business model is akin to paying full price for each pay-tv channel separately.

There are just too many other sources of the same information or alternative ways to spend ones time and money.

By: onthelake Fri, 18 Mar 2011 18:41:40 +0000 GOODBYE, FAREWELL AND AMEN TO THE NYT

ANd just yesterday morning I was thinking how the NYT’s coverage of the events in Japan was incredibly embarrassingly bad for the premier US news media when compared to the BBC at ast-12307698

And now they want me to pay $195 a year (4 weeks x 13 4 week periods x $15)…….

I happily paid the $49/50 fee back in ’05 and ’06. That was about $4 a month. And as home delivery here of even just the Sunday Times is more like $250 a year, I will gladly pay that $50 a year.

But now….. a fee that is 400% more? And when over the past 3 years, I have had necessities (electric, heat, water, car insurance, health insurance premiums & deductibles, groceries) go up nearly 34% in their cost and now take another 13% of the monthly household budget while income has stayed flat (and fixed as we are retired but Medicare prescription plans, Medigap plans and deductibles keep climbing even if the Part B premium has stayed the same for 3 years.) The Medicare prescription premium actually increased by 347% two years ago.

To the snarky posters who have derided those who say they can not afford $195 and equate it to going to McD’s and claim those who say they can not pay for the NYT are already paying for such things as cable TV, lattes, Netflix and Iphones, here is the reality.

We do NOT go to McD’s or even go out to dinner. (Thank goodness I find Grand Marnier soufflés easy to make.)

We do NOT have cable TV – just 8mg high speed broadband.

We do NOT have Iphones, Smartphones, Ipads, Kindles or other tech toys – just 2 little Go Phones kept in the cars at annual cost of $25 -73 (thanks to the rewards on one of my credit cards.).

We do have Netflix at $21.19 a month – but no cable TV, no Roku or other high tech toy to run Netflix on the TV and the TV is an older model with the large block of components on the backside and a built in DVD player and VHS – definitely not a flat screen of any kind.

And what on earth is a latte? One of those over-priced sugar laden drinks with traces of coffee?

The $200 the NYT wants represents the following to me as there is nothing – and I do mean NOTHING, not $1000, not $500 – left out of the annual budget after allowing for clothing (less than $1000 as thank god Brooks Bro lasts forever), car repairs, vet bills, uncovered medical expenses, eyeglasses, appliance repair/replacement, emergency savings etc:

(1) My gasoline budget for 5.66 weeks

(2) The water bill for 4 months

(3) The Medicare D premiums for 4 months

(5) The grocery budget for 1 month (yep, being a hellaciously good cook, having a huge walk-in pantry and a big freezer to buy raspberries from the farm in season saves a LOT of money)

(6) The special food for my kitty with renal insufficiency for 4 months

(7) The costs of one 500 mile trip to the pain specialist – a trip which is made 3-4 times a year

(8) 3 tires for the cars

(9) Replacing the water pump on the clothes processor combo machine

(10) 2 3/4 months of food for my Service Dog

(11) 43% of the cost of new eyeglasses

(12) Gas (heat and hot water) for 2 months

Now as between such things as these and the NYT, guess which get the money. (Hint: Answer does NOT start with “New”….)

Make it $50 a year and I’m in — even $72 ($6 a month)— but not at $195.

Some posters on the NYT article thread rudely replied to those who protested the cost as out of reach with a ‘so what? The NYT advertisers don’t want you anyhow if you can’t shop at Tiffany’s” Ah…..but I do make room in the budget for Brooks Brothers on the grounds of cost-effectiveness as the clothes last forever and (were) timeless. Our income is not limited because of a lack of education: it is limited because of age and illness (my medical expenses take 20%+ of household income.) We am far far better educated as we both hold doctorates and attended very prestigious schools – and smart enough to provide policy analysis to NYT business reporters.

The NYT wants $195 minimum. Next it will be the Washington Post, then the LA Times, then the Chicago Trib (largest regional around here although now a 3rd rate rehash of LAT stories) ….. I have already dropped the Financial Times when they broke $100. I stopped occasionally reading “The Times” (London) when they went to ‘no money, no looky’. I skip all links to WSJ articles – $99 is not too awful but still too much for a narrow interest paper with an extreme bias (as in anyone lacking a 6 figure income can drop dead.) So add it all up.

NYT $195, Financial Times $250, WSJ $99 and say WaPo $150, LAT $150, and Chic Trib at $99……..and oh yes, the seriously marginal local paper that doesn’t run national news until 3-5 days after everyone else but does have local matters of interest which actually wants $120 for online access……$1063 a year to read the news from a variety of 7 sources and get different perspectives. That is $88.58 a month. That is way way too much money when the media (already prepared for print) is then also delivered online at a cost of 1/100ths of a penny per reader. That is nearly DOUBLE the cost of the largest TV package available here with hundreds of channels – not 7.

That would be about 2 ½% of the median household’s after-tax income – for only 7 newspapers. That would be 7 ½% of the average Social Security Retirement (and for over 50% of the retirees, that is all they have.) That would be 9 ½% of the average Social Security Disability – around $950 a month.

Those in the bottom 60-75% would be squeezed out of the information marketplace. The NYT – which claims to be a progressive and liberal – does not want the very people it writes about: the unemployed, the underemployed, the elderly, the disabled, and the median household in the US to be able to access it. And the NYT has the hypocrisy to throw fits about the price of e-books for libraries and the lack of broadband in rural areas and how the true middle class (those $35k – 65K incomes) are being shut out of national life because of costs…….sheesh….

The voices of the underemployed, the unemployed, the disabled, the elderly, and the bottom 60% will no longer appear in the NYT comments sections. That means David Leonhardt and several other of the business reporters as well as Krugman and Herbert will have to find new subjects. The upper income subscribers won’t want to hear about the unemployed or poverty levels or the troubles of over-50s finding jobs or the uninsured – nothing to do with them, anyone they know or anyone who comments in the NYT. Such people will not be those who can afford the NYT and the affluent readers won’t want to hear about it while they peruse the ads for their vacation in Fiji or their $100,000 sports car.

Looks like it is the BBC and PBS news (online) for me. I will have to rely on the blog Calculated Risk for economic info.

Glad to know the NYT and Murdoch have reached an agreement on how to divide up the world. The affluent get in-depth news and information tailored to their political leanings. The rest of the country get Fox and its screaming lunatics.

By: KenG_CA Fri, 18 Mar 2011 17:54:17 +0000 McKenzie, the abuse is the confusing rules and the pricing scheme which penalizes customers who use multiple devices. I will probably sign up for daily (M-F) delivery of the paper, so I can get unlimited access to all digital content, as this will cost $14.80 for 4 weeks (in So. CA). This is cheaper than any only-digital plan, and exists only to charge higher rates to advertisers, even though the incremental revenue they get form ads for my subscription will be more than offset by the cost of printing and delivering my paper 5 days a week.

I don’t have a problem paying for their news service, but their system is not designed to maximize my satisfaction, but rather to maximize their revenue (although it won’t). No non-monopoly company ever succeeds with this strategy, as it always results in losing customers.

By: netvet Fri, 18 Mar 2011 13:20:20 +0000 Personally, I find the NYT and its struggling subsidiary the Boston Globe two of the worst sources of relevant news in the world, so they will get none of my readership. News sources that make up news and are heavily slanted are not worth reading, much less paying to read. The only writer I will miss is Thomas Friedman. Oh, well. There are plenty of other higher quality news sources that will gain the majority of whatever eyeball time the NYT had.

By: AllanSchoenberg Fri, 18 Mar 2011 12:36:12 +0000 What makes this even more confusing is there is no program in place for e-readers like the Amazon Kindle (of which I own one). Apparently it’s neither digital nor is it a delivered newspaper.

By: johnranta Fri, 18 Mar 2011 11:07:10 +0000 The NYT provides tremendous value, and I will gladly pay the paywall price. Do any of you “readers” who so resentf being asked to pay for your news realize how spoiled and selfish you sound? The NYT pays for its reporters and editors and foreign news bureaus and offices and systems and on and on… And you think they should just give you all of this for free because of your good looks? Really? How about you try this “give it to me for free” ploy at, say, Whole Foods “Hi cashier, if you insist on charging me for this granola and wheat germ you will lose me as a customer.” To which Whole Foods (and the NYT) ought to say “Don’t let the door hit ya…”

And for those of you who argue that “there’s plenty of free news out there” I have two comments. One, if you don’t understand the difference in quality between the NYT, and say HuffPo or Yahoo News, then you are not a very discerning reader. Two, you may notice that many of the good articles on HuffPo (and other aggregators) come from the NYT. The NYT is probably the best newspaper in the country. Put up, or shut up…

I have one point to make in response to the author’s confusion about the extra $5 for the iPad. I have an iPad – but not the 3G version. I download the NYT with the app every morning, and then when I stop for coffee or a beer on the way home from work, I read the newspaper without needing to find a wireless network. It’s either pay $30 extra a month for 3G, or $5 extra for the iPad NYT app. That’s the value for me, not sure how many folks there are like me without 3G on their iPad. I agree that the iPad NYT app should support all the comments and other cool media that you find on JR