Comments on: New York Times Considers Monthly $5 Web-Access Fee http://www.poligazette.com/2009/07/10/new-york-times-considers-monthly-5-web-access-fee/ Because Common Sense Transcends Distance Fri, 19 Mar 2010 11:29:23 +0000 http://wordpress.org/?v=2.9.1 hourly 1 By: marc http://www.poligazette.com/2009/07/10/new-york-times-considers-monthly-5-web-access-fee/comment-page-1/#comment-97878 marc Sat, 11 Jul 2009 04:16:36 +0000 http://www.poligazette.com/?p=15077#comment-97878 Will readers pay? I doubt it. There are too many free sources of news, without the helping of big-city liberal bias. The NYT increased their web readership in a big way when they went free. Now they'll see their influence fall again. Will readers pay? I doubt it. There are too many free sources of news, without the helping of big-city liberal bias. The NYT increased their web readership in a big way when they went free. Now they’ll see their influence fall again.

]]> By: Richard Helfrich http://www.poligazette.com/2009/07/10/new-york-times-considers-monthly-5-web-access-fee/comment-page-1/#comment-97855 Richard Helfrich Fri, 10 Jul 2009 15:18:08 +0000 http://www.poligazette.com/?p=15077#comment-97855 I read voraciously, utilizing many different websites, the NYT included. On balance, the NYT is less than objective in its version of the news, and too leftist in its editorials. For those reasons, the NYT website is increasingly less suitable to my tastes in news and opinion. Charging $60.00 a year for occasional access to its site would be a non-starter for me. On the other hand, if the NYT and other producers of news and opinion formed a consortium of providers of fee for access content at an aggregate cost of $60.00 per year, I would readily consider a subscription. $60.00 a year for internet access doesn't really sound like much, but since there are millions and millions of internet readers (and potential subscribers), the income from such a consortium would be far greater than the aggregate cost of producing and distributing a print version of newspapers to a shrinking number of subscribers. I read voraciously, utilizing many different websites, the NYT included. On balance, the NYT is less than objective in its version of the news, and too leftist in its editorials. For those reasons, the NYT website is increasingly less suitable to my tastes in news and opinion. Charging $60.00 a year for occasional access to its site would be a non-starter for me.

On the other hand, if the NYT and other producers of news and opinion formed a consortium of providers of fee for access content at an aggregate cost of $60.00 per year, I would readily consider a subscription.

$60.00 a year for internet access doesn’t really sound like much, but since there are millions and millions of internet readers (and potential subscribers), the income from such a consortium would be far greater than the aggregate cost of producing and distributing a print version of newspapers to a shrinking number of subscribers.

]]> By: William Beutler http://www.poligazette.com/2009/07/10/new-york-times-considers-monthly-5-web-access-fee/comment-page-1/#comment-97851 William Beutler Fri, 10 Jul 2009 14:56:20 +0000 http://www.poligazette.com/?p=15077#comment-97851 Agreed. Whereas TimesSelect insulted our intelligence -- to say nothing of overestimating our interest in reading MoDo or Brooks -- a $5 monthly fee for the whole thing sounds reasonable. (I still think some kind of premium price for news less than 6 hours old is worth exploring, but it's tricky to price the market correctly, and could cause its own backlash.) Can't say for sure I would actually do it myself, but I think of this: I already do read the Times online, if mostly for its tech coverage. If I had to pay for it, I'd have to think about whether those articles have value to me. At $5 I think they do. It's a little bit like the iPhone app store -- most apps are in the $5/under range, and with good apps, I feel like I'm getting more than my money's worth. The Times should take the example. Agreed. Whereas TimesSelect insulted our intelligence — to say nothing of overestimating our interest in reading MoDo or Brooks — a $5 monthly fee for the whole thing sounds reasonable. (I still think some kind of premium price for news less than 6 hours old is worth exploring, but it’s tricky to price the market correctly, and could cause its own backlash.)

Can’t say for sure I would actually do it myself, but I think of this: I already do read the Times online, if mostly for its tech coverage. If I had to pay for it, I’d have to think about whether those articles have value to me. At $5 I think they do. It’s a little bit like the iPhone app store — most apps are in the $5/under range, and with good apps, I feel like I’m getting more than my money’s worth. The Times should take the example.

]]>