New York Times to charge for online subscriptions
Sunday, January 17, 2010
Recently, the newspaper industry has been struggling to generate revenue, and it has been forced to come up with new ways to promote readership. Consumers have started getting news from websites offering the information for free, leaving less newspapers delivered. Newspaper companies are now publishing online editions of its traditional print counterparts. However, newspapers are still failing to turn profits. Many papers are discussing charging for online subscriptions, including the New York Times. Chairman Arthur Sulzberger Jr. is getting close to announcing plans for setting a subscription fee, according to New York Magazine. After a year of debate, the Times has settled on adopting a metered system similar to the one the Financial Times has put in place. This system will allow subscribers to view a certain number of articles for free before being prompted to subscribe for a fee. They have not announced the cost to subscribe.
The Times is concerned about losing readers , but they feel this is the only viable option to make money.
Several people will end up subscribing to the online edition of the paper. Obtaining the paper online is no different than receiving a hard copy, it just comes in a different format. People will subscribe to the online edition because of its accessibility and availability, given the increased use of smartphones and wireless internet connection. However, the question remains, will this help the Times make money?
5 comments:
I've written a lot about the pay-wall issue and just don't see it as being a winner for the Times or for most any newspaper. People will pay for content when they feel a dire need for the content. But, as a new Harris Poll shows, a large majority of people don't feel that need for news content. In the Harris Poll, 77 percent say they're not willing to pay anything for news content. We'll see if the Times can prove us all wrong.
Having written about the new Harris Poll, I would agree that this system has its faults. I would think that the popularity of blogging would also prevent challenges, as even if a majority of newspapers begin to charge for online content, an audience can always turn to free online blogs to get their news.
I agree that charging subcription fees for news online looks good on paper, but that does not mean people will be on board with it. If the only way to get news was online, then people may go ahead subscribe. However, people like my parents, who are computer illiterate, will be without news. Helpfull tip I noticed your title wasn't in the upstyle format like we talked about in class. I don't know if he'll take off for it, but better safe than sorry.
I really don't think there would be any reason to apply fees to online newspapers. I mean the people will find what they want to hear about from multiple sources,i feel that readers would be more likely to access a free online version of a newspaper compared to that of one that charges money for it. It is too easy to just be able to search for the information you are looking for on any search engine, and now most have a news section that makes it really convenient.
I agree with Grant that people will turn to online sites with free content. There are so many websites that display news and current events just as well as the NYTimes that don't cost money, that I just can't see most Americans paying for their content. However, avid NYTimes readers might remain loyal and pay for their online subscription as long as the cost is low.
Post a Comment