6 ms·

New York Times paywall goes up January 2011

20 points by jrwoodruff 16y ago

barnaby 16y ago
I'd pay for information that helps me make money... I don't think I'd pay for information that's just a different presentation of the same news that everyone else is covering. I WOULD however pay a subscription for Glenn Beck to be TAKEN OFF the air, and the threat of having him come back on would be enough to keep me paying regularly.
- natrius 16y ago
  "I don't think I'd pay for information that's just a different presentation of the same news that everyone else is covering." The New York Times does plenty of original journalism.
- potatolicious 16y ago
  > "just a different presentation of the same news that everyone else is covering" I think this sentence betrays a severe misunderstanding of both the intent and the power of journalism.
dmn001 16y ago
It's only a partial paywall. A redirect, referer change or resetting cookie file would be able to fix their broken website when the time comes.
- natrius 16y ago
  If you read their articles enough to hit the paywall, why not just pay to support the product they're creating?
  - dmn001 16y ago
    Information wants to be free.
    - natrius 16y ago
      Journalists are the ones who free that information in the first place. The less remunerative that career is, the less information there will be. I think it helps to consider your subscription to be more of a donation than payment for a product. Then again, I work for a non-profit news organization. (Feel free to donate.)
    - dandelany 16y ago
      Libre, not gratis.
  - thunk 16y ago
    Partly because the news isn't the product, the audience is. And partly because it's too annoying. It'd be just another thing demanding attention. Unless their journalism magically becomes way more valuable to me, I'd just leave. There's already too much news to assimilate. The real irony is that the customers who're loyal enough to hit the paywall are the last ones the NYT should be charging. They're already paying attention in spades. Punish your real fans. That's the ticket.
    - natrius 16y ago
      "Partly because the news isn't the product, the audience is." This doesn't make sense in the context you're using it in. If a company makes all of its money from ads, then sure, the audience provided to advertisers is the product. In this case, the Times is asking for the readers to pay money to read news, which pretty clearly makes the news the product. Most of the investigative journalism that has a national impact seems to originate from the New York Times and the Washington Post. If that isn't valuable to you, you're not paying attention.
      - thunk 16y ago
        The NYT online does make all its money on advertising. The current reality is that we are the product. > Most of the investigative journalism that has a national impact seems to originate from the New York Times and the Washington Post. If that isn't valuable to you, you're not paying attention. This is an argument from authority, or something. "Big, respectable, nationally impactful investigative journalism." (like cheerleading the Iraq War?) Nowadays, we can get the facts from a hundred other sources, and the situation on the ground is more likely to show up on Twitter first, raw and undiluted.
        natrius 16y ago
        You can argue about the definition of "the product" all you want, but you're not explaining what your point is. You're making it seem like they're charging people to see ads. I'm fairly certain they'll make more money from the paywall fee than the ads for a given user. You don't have to take my word for their impact. http://www.pulitzer.org/ http://www.pulitzer.org/ RE: Iraq War — I never said they were perfect.
jrwoodruff 16y ago
I don't know. It sounds like a pretty reasonable system to me. Information wants to be free, but fair accurate reporting certainly is not.
- dmn001 16y ago
  Free as in speech, not as in beer.
jdietrich 16y ago
When Murdoch announced that the Times of London would become a subscriber-only site, my reaction was "there's no way I'm paying for the same news I can get anywhere". With the NYT, I'm not so sure. There's still the basic issue of the gulf between "free" and "not free" regardless of price, but the NYT does things that I just don't see anywhere else. If I were Bill Keller, I'd be thinking seriously about how much value traditional news actually adds to a paid product. I certainly place very little value in reading regurgitated wire feeds and press releases. Come to think of it, I'd be far more inclined to pay for the New Yorker, Salon or Slate than the NYT. Hmmm.

20 points by jrwoodruff 16y ago

I'd pay for information that helps me make money... I don't think I'd pay for information that's just a different presentation of the same news that everyone else is covering. I WOULD however pay a subscription for Glenn Beck to be TAKEN OFF the air, and the threat of having him come back on would be enough to keep me paying regularly.

natrius 16y ago
"I don't think I'd pay for information that's just a different presentation of the same news that everyone else is covering." The New York Times does plenty of original journalism.
potatolicious 16y ago
> "just a different presentation of the same news that everyone else is covering" I think this sentence betrays a severe misunderstanding of both the intent and the power of journalism.

dmn001 16y ago

It's only a partial paywall. A redirect, referer change or resetting cookie file would be able to fix their broken website when the time comes.

natrius 16y ago
If you read their articles enough to hit the paywall, why not just pay to support the product they're creating?
- dmn001 16y ago
  Information wants to be free.
  - natrius 16y ago
    Journalists are the ones who free that information in the first place. The less remunerative that career is, the less information there will be. I think it helps to consider your subscription to be more of a donation than payment for a product. Then again, I work for a non-profit news organization. (Feel free to donate.)
  - dandelany 16y ago
    Libre, not gratis.
- thunk 16y ago
  Partly because the news isn't the product, the audience is. And partly because it's too annoying. It'd be just another thing demanding attention. Unless their journalism magically becomes way more valuable to me, I'd just leave. There's already too much news to assimilate. The real irony is that the customers who're loyal enough to hit the paywall are the last ones the NYT should be charging. They're already paying attention in spades. Punish your real fans. That's the ticket.
  - natrius 16y ago
    "Partly because the news isn't the product, the audience is." This doesn't make sense in the context you're using it in. If a company makes all of its money from ads, then sure, the audience provided to advertisers is the product. In this case, the Times is asking for the readers to pay money to read news, which pretty clearly makes the news the product. Most of the investigative journalism that has a national impact seems to originate from the New York Times and the Washington Post. If that isn't valuable to you, you're not paying attention.
    - thunk 16y ago
      The NYT online does make all its money on advertising. The current reality is that we are the product. > Most of the investigative journalism that has a national impact seems to originate from the New York Times and the Washington Post. If that isn't valuable to you, you're not paying attention. This is an argument from authority, or something. "Big, respectable, nationally impactful investigative journalism." (like cheerleading the Iraq War?) Nowadays, we can get the facts from a hundred other sources, and the situation on the ground is more likely to show up on Twitter first, raw and undiluted.
      - natrius 16y ago
        You can argue about the definition of "the product" all you want, but you're not explaining what your point is. You're making it seem like they're charging people to see ads. I'm fairly certain they'll make more money from the paywall fee than the ads for a given user. You don't have to take my word for their impact. http://www.pulitzer.org/ http://www.pulitzer.org/ RE: Iraq War — I never said they were perfect.

jrwoodruff 16y ago

I don't know. It sounds like a pretty reasonable system to me. Information wants to be free, but fair accurate reporting certainly is not.

dmn001 16y ago
Free as in speech, not as in beer.

jdietrich 16y ago

When Murdoch announced that the Times of London would become a subscriber-only site, my reaction was "there's no way I'm paying for the same news I can get anywhere". With the NYT, I'm not so sure. There's still the basic issue of the gulf between "free" and "not free" regardless of price, but the NYT does things that I just don't see anywhere else. If I were Bill Keller, I'd be thinking seriously about how much value traditional news actually adds to a paid product. I certainly place very little value in reading regurgitated wire feeds and press releases. Come to think of it, I'd be far more inclined to pay for the New Yorker, Salon or Slate than the NYT. Hmmm.