The NYT paywall goes live

By Felix Salmon
March 28, 2011
Staci Kramer is absolutely right that the NYT has a tough battle ahead with the public perception of its paywall, which is going live today.

" data-share-img="" data-share="twitter,facebook,linkedin,reddit,google" data-share-count="true">

Staci Kramer is absolutely right that the NYT has a tough battle ahead with the public perception of its paywall, which is going live today.

The public simply is not going to understand how the paywall works; I’m sure about this because over the past week I’ve come across a number of different NYT staffers — all of whom are involved in the NYT’s blogs, and therefore would you think be pretty attuned to such things — who don’t understand the paywall and believe untrue things about it. If the NYT can’t explain the paywall to its own staff, there’s no way it’s going to be able to explain it to its readers.

Part of the problem is that this paywall is not exactly the same as the paywall which was announced in January 2010. Back then, for instance, we were told this, in a Q&A with CEO Janet Robinson and digital chief Martin Nisenholtz:

If you are coming to from another Web site and it brings you to our site to view an article, you will have access to that article and it will not count toward your allotment of free ones.

That’s no longer true, as the official FAQ explains:

We encourage links from Facebook, Twitter, search engines, blogs and social media. When you visit through a link from one of these channels, that article (or video, slide show, etc.) will count toward your monthly limit of 20 free articles, but you will still be able to view it even if you’ve already read your 20 free articles.

If you spend over a year developing a paywall, then some of your original ideas are likely to evolve and change. But the new system, which I liken to the foul-ball rule in baseball, is certainly harder to understand than the original vision. “Twitter links don’t count” is easy; “Twitter links do count, but you’ll be able to follow them anyway” is much harder. (Twitter links, and links from blogs and Facebook and even the NYT email, all work like foul balls in baseball: if you’re below the strike-out limit, then they count towards your strikes. But you can’t strike out on one and end up hitting the wall.)

There’s confusion about the blogs, too: they are basically behind the paywall, although they do show a bit of leg outside it: the “blog fronts”, like this one, are free and do not count towards your monthly quota. But the minute you click on a “read more” link or otherwise find yourself at a blog entry, like this one, your quota gets increased by one.

This is all pretty confusing, especially to people who have better things to do than spend a lot of time worrying about the mechanics of the NYT paywall. Can you read that blog post? If you’re following my link, then yes, you can always read it. If you’re trying to get there by clicking on the “read more” link at, on the other hand, then at that point you may or may not be able to read it, depending on whether you’re a subscriber, and how many other paywalled items you’ve read that month.

There’s no doubt that this will change blogging at the NYT. Freakonomics has already left the building and is enjoying its new-found freedom by publishing short posts like this one. There’s all manner of reasons why that post wouldn’t ever make it onto, but one of the more invidious is that there’s now a good reason for blog posts to be long. Here’s the end of that post by Nate Silver:

I will work to ensure that any clicks you make to a FiveThirtyEight article will be “worth it.” I’ve always had a pretty high word count, but in recent months, I’ve been gravitating toward even longer and more substantive posts, as opposed to shorter but more frequent ones.

It goes against Blogging 101 principles, but I’ve had a lot of success in life in betting against the conventional wisdom.

This is not a welcome move, from the point of view of the vibrancy of the NYT’s blogs as a whole. My posts tend to the verbose too (although the NYT probably has the world champion in that department), but the fact is that mixing things up and having short posts along with the longer ones is always good form in blogging. The unit of quality for a blog is the blog itself, a living thing, rather than any individual blog entry or even series of entries. But when the NYT’s blogs get put behind a paywall, that changes: suddenly there’s pressure to make each individual post “worth it”. As a result, the blog becomes less bloggy and more like an irregularly-updated online column. This is unlikely to be an improvement.

It’s entirely possible that individuals like Nate — or even myself — can be successful with a combination of long-form blogging and short-form tweeting. But even long-form blogs are likely to be updated more than 20 times a month, which means that any regular reader of Nate’s posts, if they’re not a NYT subscriber, is essentially denying themselves the ability to navigate any of the NYT site at all. (Remember that even if you get to Nate’s posts via his Twitter feed, you’re still eating up your monthly quota of NYT articles every time you read one.) And more generally, it’s not a good idea for the NYT to put in place incentives to blog long rather than short. In fact, it rather undermines the purpose of having blogs in the first place.

Meanwhile, the NYT’s publisher, Arthur Sulzberger, is going out of his way to insult the people who want to read his website so much that they’re willing to put in place elaborate workarounds to do so.

“Can people go around the system?” Sulzberger, the Times’s publisher, asked at a roundtable discussion hosted by the Paley Center for Media this morning. “The answer is yes, just as if you run down Sixth Avenue right now and you pass a newsstand and you grab a newspaper and keep running, you can read the Times for free.”

“Is it going to be done by the kind of people who value the quality of the New York Times reporting and opinion and analysis? No,” he continued. “I don’t think so. It’ll be mostly high-school kids and people who are out of work.”

Sulzberger should be flattered by these people; instead, he’s likening them to common criminals who steal newspapers on Sixth Avenue. In doing so, he’s taking a leaf out of the music industry’s attitude to people who look for free content online: criminalize them, and set yourself up in an adversarial relationship to them. It didn’t work for the music industry, and it’s an equally bad idea for the NYT.

As the first US readers start hitting the NYT paywall this week, it will be met by varying degrees of confusion and anger. The NYT should be trying its hardest to minimize the ill will it’s likely to generate as people get blocked from reading stories they’re used to getting for free. The @NYTdigitalsubs Twitter account is a start, but it’s clearly not enough.

Meanwhile, here’s a question I’m not sure I want to see answered: if you get a Sunday-only subscription and then suspend delivery of the physical newspaper while you “go on vacation” for a month or two at a time, how long can you drag out your free access to the website before the NYT gets wise to what you’re doing?


We welcome comments that advance the story through relevant opinion, anecdotes, links and data. If you see a comment that you believe is irrelevant or inappropriate, you can flag it to our editors by using the report abuse links. Views expressed in the comments do not represent those of Reuters. For more information on our comment policy, see

Just following Paul Krugman will take me over the limit in less than a week, I suspect. We’ll see how this goes, but the future seems rather gloomy.

Posted by GRRR | Report as abusive

I don’t know how it’ll work now, but back in the day (i.e., 4 or 5 years ago), I had a weekend-only subscription to the Times, largely for the magazine, which gave me free access to the premium content (online crosswords, etc.). I had to move to italy for six months for work, and suspended my delivery for the full six months (which I believe was the maximum suspension period) – still ended up with access to the premium stuff for the full time I was away.

Don’t know if this is going to change with the new system, but if they built the full-site paywall on top of the existing premium content paywall, it’s possible it’ll work the same way.

Posted by very-simple | Report as abusive

Now how many frames of Ziggy or Garfield am I allowed prior to the paywall kicking in?

Posted by ReformedBroker | Report as abusive

This is a big mess and will surely be tossed in the chipper before long. This morning, while procrastinating, I went over to Most Popular Articles — New York Times in my browser, as I sometimes do, and fooled around for a while, having forgotten all about the paywall, despite numerous reminders, sort of like a library book — eventually exiting through Epicurean Dealmaker (also in my browser) and ending up here going “Oh $%^&, the paywall!”

Posted by SelenesMom | Report as abusive

News Corp isn’t going to be happy til they extract a £ of flesh from everybody who reads even one article of theirs. Unfortunately here in the States there aren’t suitable sustitutes for the NYT and WSJ like there are over in Wapping. Notice too that Vanneck-Smith’s ingenous marketing has decimated the flow of traffic to their online sites. No doubt the same Ruperturd will be layed in the States as Murdock continues his war on all journalism not-Fox.

Posted by Woltmann | Report as abusive

Have now cleared NYT links out of browser — if anything important is at NYT, it will be linked to elsewhere (I am still unclear on whether I can go to these articles from other sites for free or not?) or republished a day late in local paper.

Posted by SelenesMom | Report as abusive

Most public libraries offer complete, current access to NYTimes articles through their newspaper databases. People may consider checking in at their library before they decide to pay for content they can already access for free.

Posted by ahniwa | Report as abusive

I’m retired and post a lot of comments on NYT columns. It costs $195 for a digital subscription. Why not use the occasion to reduce internet time? Shortly after posting that reaction I got an email offering the rest of 2011 free, courtesy of Lincoln. Say what? How funny if the maker of the Lincoln Town Car funded anti-corporatist comments by the owner of a cheap old car. But accepting a favor from Lincoln seemed creepy, so I let it go. Now here I am finding many different news sources. I probably won’t miss the NY Times that much. I’m shocked.

Posted by Saint999 | Report as abusive

Goodbye NYT.
Nobody is going to pay for something that they can get free elsewhere.
What I think is hilarious is this: Are they going to track your count with cookies, or with a giant database. If it’s the latter, then they will be chewing through server power like no tomorrow, access a database every time someone views a new article (or at least every time they start a new web session).
Also, the limited advertising revenue you once had will now plummet. Your page views are easily monitored by 3rd party stat sites, and no companies will pay a premium for sub-par hit sites.

Posted by Mizzle | Report as abusive

“Analog” newspapers and traditional news-gathering organizations are undergoinging debilitating change. In one way or another, responsible, objective journalism has to have financial support. Right now, however, I object to the cost of access to the NY Times on-line–I’ll try to see what life is like without it. Mr. Sulzberger has set his price too high.

All kinds of commercial interests are trying to make a cash cow of the internet–metering broadband use, nickel-and-diming the public for both access and content. The finagling Comcast is doing with Netflix is a great example. I believe in net neutrality, with low-cost, democratized access. The internet is, after all, a public amenity–something so-called free enterprise did not create. The public should not allow it to go the way healthcare and other essential services have gone–there ought to be a universality of access with content providers drawing from a huge pool of subscribers, with subscriptions that are fairly priced. Same thing can be said, of course, with health care reform. But the American corporate mentality, coupled with its devious manipulation of Congress, will not permit this, if ever, without a good deal of political drama.

Posted by bullspin | Report as abusive

I don’t have cable anymore so internet /netflix/’utube is my main entertainment reuters and NYT for news I’d be willing to pay because NYT is quality but $3.75 a week is to much maybe 99cents or $1.50 it would have to be cheap, its not like your buying a whole paper.

Posted by Dave1968 | Report as abusive

I agree with Dave1968: I don’t mind paying, but $15/month is too much. They are offering a half-off-for-six-months deal now, at least to some people, and at $7.50/month it seems priced just right. I don’t know that they’d get twice as many paying customers if they cut the price in half, but they’d have a lot more happy customers.

That said, I have no problem paying for some journalism. Aside from contributing to NPR, I don’t pay for any other journalism right now.

Posted by jimstoic | Report as abusive