8 ms·
The New York Times to Begin Charging for Web Use on March 28
- MatthewPhillips 16y agoFirst to predict complete and total failure, followed by a quick about-face back to the ad-only model.
- JohnTitus 16y agoPretty sure people have been predicting that ever since they heard this was coming.
- MatthewPhillips 16y agoHow will this affect instapaper, read it later, readability, etc. Does this limit apply to curl access?
- starnix17 16y agoI think Instapaper's bookmarklet scrapes the page if it's behind a pay wall, very clever. Edit: To clarify, by scraping I mean if you are logged in and can see the article the bookmarkelet will grab the contents of the page.
- donohoe 16y agoI talked to Marco awhile back about how it works and if I remember correctly, this is not in fact the case. Instapaper honors access. If you have access to that Article it will save it, if not then you won't get it.
- bbatsell 16y agoWhat he meant is that the bookmarklet will actually scrape the content from within your browser and submit it to Instapaper if you have access and Instapaper's crawler doesn't. Marco has discussed that functionality on the Build and Analyze podcast.
- donohoe 16y agoYeah. Marco just tweeted via @instapaper: To the best of my knowledge, Instapaper will continue to work perfectly well after the NYTimes' paywall goes up, if you pay for it. and You will need to save NYTimes paywalled links from the bookmarklet or in-app browser. Links from Twitter/RSS apps probably won't work yet.
- mbesto 16y agoInterestingly I'd pay for the aggregated view thats provided on http://givemesomethingtoread.com/ http://givemesomethingtoread.com/ but somehow don't have enough interest to pay for just NYT. Maybe that's Marco's eventual business model?
- cianchette 16y agoDo you think they would use cookies to track usage? If so, I'm predicting that many more people will learn how to clear their NYT cookies.
- sibsibsib 16y agoWhy go through the effort? When I end up on an NY Times page, I just close it because I know they're going to make me log in. This just gives me more incentive to not click on NY Times links.
- danglehoff 16y agoi'm glad someone else posted this. i do the same thing. i don't know why, but it annoys to no end to be forced to log in when i've clicked through to an article from somewhere. i'm sure that i am in the minority, and so my opinion does not count, but it really has made me realize just how little i care about reading some of the articles that a simple login dissuades me from actually reading them. i have a feeling that once the paywall limit is hit, far fewer people will then the nyt imagines will be tempted to pay. they may just close the tab and move on with their lives. that's fine, of course, the nytimes doesn't have to cater to people who don't value their product, but it does pave the way towards a more specialized, targeted product. people happily subscribe to news sites about minor league baseball or the franchise restaurant business. we'll see what happens here.
- maguay 16y agoI expect they'll still require a basic free account to read your free 20 articles per month, and they they'll track it based on your account.
- MarkMc 16y agoBut people could just create a new free account once they reach the 20-article limit. Perhaps they are hoping that readers will not be clever/motivated enough to clear cookies and re-register...
- 16y ago
- pyre 16y agoThat's fitting. I need to log-in to read about their change to a pay-only model! [update] Though: wget -qO- 'url' | less gets me to the content just fine... [summary] Beginning March 28, visitors to NYTimes.com will be able to read 20 articles a month without paying, a limit that company executives said was intended to draw in subscription revenue from the most loyal readers while not driving away the casual visitors who make up the vast majority of the site’s traffic. Once readers click on their 21st article, they will have the option of buying one of three digital news packages — $15 for a month of access to the Web site and a mobile phone app; $20 for Web access and an iPad app; and $35 for an all-access plan.
- deleted 16y ago[deleted]
- donohoe 16y agoActually, from experience, your curl request will work fine but then you'll hit the login page after a few goes (8?)
- ugh 16y agoI don’t know whether they will succeed but I think it‘s great that they are trying.
- InclinedPlane 16y agoThey aren't trying, they are flailing around in desperation. When you start toggling all the levers to see if one of them works you've given up trying to understand and respond to the problem rationally and you're just hoping beyond hope that some darwinian mutation based process will save your bacon. Most of the time it doesn't work. There is no easy band-aid fix for the disruption of the traditional news media. A successful "newspaper" equivalent in 2020 will bear little resemblance to what we consider a newspaper to be today. That alone should be obvious. But instead of changing with the march of history the NYT has decided to change as little as possible and hope that things work out for the best. They may stave off immediate doom but their plan is too shallow to stave off long-term doom.
- Nrsolis 16y agoI can't see how you could come to this conclusion, but I'll play along... What do you envision the "newspaper" of 2020 will look like? HuffPo? Please. That rag is 75% unadulterated opinion pieces and biased claptrap. To me, you sound like someone who is complaining that you're now going to be expecte do pay for a high-quality product that up until now you've been receiving for free. I /pay/ for the WSJ, The Economist, and Forbes on Kindle. Before that option was available to me, I paid for those subscriptions to be mailed/delivered to my home. I'm /exactly/ the kind of customer that they want, because I have money to spend and I will hand it over if I find value. I think their advertisers appreciate the difference. Compare the quality of reporting between your average local "free" newspaper and the NYTimes (or almost any other major newspaper). Personally, I applaud the folks at NYTimes. They've been dealt a tough hand and they are doing their best to stay relevant.
- tomjen3 16y agoI too am willing to pay for relevance, but not for news as they are filled with the same stories, spin, stupid opinions and not nearly enough stories that actually matter (when was the last time the nytimes destroyed a politicians who had done something illegal?) are wetted by experts (witness the current comments about the neuclear stuff in Japan where very little is actually know but everybody is writing about it) and completely free of spin. Fix those issues and I pay.
- scott_s 16y agoI'll probably pay. The NY Times is my main news source, and I think it's worth $15 a month. I want newspapers to survive. If that means they need to have online subscribers, then so be it. Good things cost money. I'm worried that the alternative will be news sources that optimize for pageviews alone. Where I live, getting the NY Times paper delivered to me every day would cost me $5.85 a week (https://www.nytimesathome.com/checkout.php?step=1 https://www.nytimesathome.com/checkout.php?step=1). So this is actually cheaper than a physical subscription.
- pyre 16y agoMost media outlets optimize for page views. Though in print and on TV it's known by a different term than 'page views.'
- bioh42_2 16y agoThe NY Times is my main news source, and I think it's worth $15 a month. Honest question, why did you wait until now to get a subscription?
- jedc 16y agoI'm in the same boat as the parent... it's my main news source and I think it'll be worth my $15/month. I've waited until now because they've never forced me to pay before. But when a choice is required, it's a fairly straightforward decision.
- edw519 16y ago1896 to March 27, 2011: "All the News That's Fit to Print" After March 27, 2011: "All the News thats Fit to Find Somewhere Else for Free"
- ihodes 16y agoDo you have an alternative idea? It seems to me that the only way to maintain quality and at least a little bit of objectivity is to charge a flat fee. Charging for use (including advertising) drives individual writers and sections to via for the most eyeballs and clicks. Charging a flat fee requires the entire newspaper to improve. Also, it won't be long before all the news fit to read is behind some sort of paywall (or something similar), unless drastic change takes place.
- MatthewPhillips 16y agoThey need to get into other businesses. For example, why is NYT not the definitive place to get New York City real estate information?
- ericd 16y agoBecause they can't compete with Craigslist, which is free.
- Gaussian 16y agoDon't be so sure. The Times is one of the few outfits where this approach may actually work. Look at the WSJ, another such outlet -- 1 million people pay $100/year for online access (no paper). That's $100M/year, which makes a big difference at a newspaper. That's a lot of extra reporters.
- OstiaAntica 16y agoThere is a demonstrated market that will pay for financial news. Perhaps not so much for general news.
- rufo 16y agoI feel like I read more than 20 articles a month just from various links, but not enough to make it worth $15/mo. If they had some option to increase the number of views for the rest of the month for $5 or less, I'd at least consider it.
- donohoe 16y agoDepends on who's links are sending you to the site. From the e-mail I got: Readers who come to Times articles through links from search, blogs and social media like Facebook and Twitter will be able to read those articles, even if they have reached their monthly reading limit. For some search engines, users will have a daily limit of free links to Times articles.
- dpapathanasiou 16y agoSo someone spoofing a referrer link with curl would have free access? Or are you also checking those referrer links somehow, to make sure they're legitimate? I also take it from your other reply about curl (http://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=2336371 http://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=2336371) that you're using ip address, as opposed or maybe in addition to cookies to enforce the 20 articles per month limit.
- donohoe 16y agoFirst, this isn't a project I worked on directly so bear that in mind in that I cant address specific points (but will update if I learn the answers). I will say this much; its expected that many people will find away to get around the paywall via plugins, curl, whatever. There are no illusions about that. However this is not typical of your average user - that much I've seen. While I'm sure this will happen, and it might be easy for many, it will not be something I'd expect of most users and no something that will impact subscriptions IMHO.
- rufo 16y agoI don't think that'll work for me, as I use 3rd-party Twitter clients that won't be able to pass a Twitter.com referrer. (And unless Twitter whitelists all URL shorteners, the referrer likely wouldn't point back to Twitter anyway. But many of my friends use custom URL shorteners, and the Times wouldn't know to whitelist those… and the list of problems goes on.)
- hack_edu 16y ago1. Go to your local library. 2. Learn how to use their proxy for patrons working from home. 3. Browse NYT site like normal.
- msy 16y agoOr you could you know, pay for content you enjoy instead of abusing public services to shirk paying for content.
- hexis 16y agoWhich part was the abusive part?
- stellar678 16y agoHow, pray tell, is it abuse to use services funded by the taxes that you pay?
- msg 16y agoHow does your comment not also apply to checking out library materials? I will go a step further, reading paywalled content for free at the public or university library is exactly the same, especially for content providers, as checking out materials for free. If you don't love libraries with all your heart I don't think there is much more for me to say.
- hack_edu 16y agoIts not abuse when the Times offers the service for free to all library patrons, nor when the library (commonly) has paid license to the historical content as well. Edit: Also, off-campus access to electronic resources using a proxy is standard in the licenses for these sort of products.
- xbryanx 16y agoWorkarounds aside, I won't pay. It's totally a fair price, and so is the $5-20/month the 100 other services I use are asking me to pay. But in the aggregate I can't afford it. The web has allowed us to become readers of many perspectives, and this movement (regardless of whether it's right or wrong) will push us back to identity subscribers.
- scottkduncan 16y ago> "The web has allowed us to become readers of many perspectives, and this movement (regardless of whether it's right or wrong) will push us back to identity subscribers." Most people have not used the web to become readers of many perspectives; rather, they've used it to find media outlets that conform to their preconceived biases. The web has allowed niche voices, who previously couldn't find a large enough audience to be economically viable when media distribution was geographically limited, to thrive. While paywalls might exacerbate this a bit most people are already de facto "identity subscribers."
- donohoe 16y agoI work for the Times as a developer so I'm going to stay out of this conversation other than trying to correct or inform. I'm keeping my own opinions to myself (as best as I humanly can). So with that said, here are 3 links I received that shed more light on this: "A Letter to Our Readers About Digital Subscriptions" http://www.nytimes.com/2011/03/18/opinion/l18times.html http://www.nytimes.com/2011/03/18/opinion/l18times.html "Digital Subscriptions and Premium Products" http://www.nytimes.com/content/help/account/purchases/subscriptions-and-purchases.html http://www.nytimes.com/content/help/account/purchases/subscr... More Info http://www.nytimes.com/subscriptions/Multiproduct/lp0145.html http://www.nytimes.com/subscriptions/Multiproduct/lp0145.htm... I hope they prove useful and informative.
- Gaussian 16y agoLong time coming. Great product and great service. They're fighting for the survival of the paradigm.
- bioh42_2 16y agoLong time coming. Great product and great service. They're fighting for the survival of the paradigm. What is that paradigm? I think some news outlets, mostly business, have proven people are willing to pay for valuable news, the WSJ comes to mind. The NY Times has a mix of hard news and soft opinions, their main problem is that almost the same news is available from many free sources around the Internet. So I am genuinely perplexed as to what the paradigm is?
- Gaussian 16y agoThe paradigm is one news outlet having reporters all over the country and the world covering things that may or may not make ripples in financial markets, but may be just as or more important. It's one outlet having the breadth to well cover a breaking event with disparate news aspects (the Japan earthquake being a good example) that touch all manners of people and businesses across the globe. Every decent-sized metro daily used to have bureaus in Beirut, Israel, Egypt, etc. There are plenty of reasons, some of them good, that this is no longer the case. The New York Times is one of the last vestiges of that age and I don't think that nostalgia is the only reason we should root for its success. The only thing that guarantees that success, as Rupert Murdoch has pointed out, is sustainable profitability. I think the Times' move to charge people for their coverage will ultimately be successful, just as the efforts of the FT and WSJ have been and, to a degree, as NPR's has been.
- tylerrooney 16y ago"The 20-article limit begins immediately for readers accessing NYTimes.com from Canada, which allows the company time to work out any software issues before the system goes live in the United States." We usually have delayed launch dates in Canada (like iPhones and iPads). Really caught the fuzzy end of that lollipop. That said, I'm almost certain I'll start paying.
- halostatue 16y agoYeah, my reaction was "gee, thanks". It's started counting for us and I've just burned two reading about the damned paywall. I paid for TimeSelect before, but I'm not sure I'd pay again: I just don't read enough from the Times to justify the cost. If I find that I need more, then I'll happily pay it (and it looks like it'll be pay-as-you-go).
- justinph 16y agoIt is more expensive than Netflix or an Amazon prime account. They're different things, of course, but it seems too expensive to me. I'd probably subscribe at about half the price, but at $180/year, I'll just clear my cookies and/or read the Washington Post. I work in the news media (public broadcasting), and right now the public still sees reporting as an inexpensive commodity, especially online. Ironically, I think public broadcasting is set up much better to garner supporting revenue from the public than for-profit media, since we have a history of doing so, and people inherently understand and relate to our support model. We still give away our content for free, too, even if you don't pay. The NYTimes is never going to be able to guilt me into paying the way NPR or PBS will.
- kj12345 16y agoAnd it's $180/year for an experience that is going to be diluted by their continuing need to please advertisers. It would be a stronger strategy if they said that serving the needs of their $180/year customers is going to be the sole driver of the design and direction of their site. EDIT: It actually appears to be $15 "every four weeks" so $195/year http://nytimes.com/access http://nytimes.com/access
- jayzee 16y agoYou cannot compare it to Amazon/Netflix. They are not creating any of the content. NY Times is. The price includes the cost of content creation and delivery.
- bioh42_2 16y agoWhat content does the NY Times create? They cover the news, with some help form the AP and Bloomberg, does that count? Would anyone pay $195 for a year's worth of editorials?
- justinph 16y agoI agree they're have different relationships to content creation. But I don't think most people see much of a distinction between news and entertainment (which is problematic in it's own right). Nor do many people care who is an actual creator vs. who is merely a distributor. At the end of the day, we write the check to Netflix, not to MGM studios. What people do care about is the value that the content provides them, and is that content worth the price. I think the NYTimes does a great job, but I don't know they provide so much more value than their competitor who gives their stuff away for free.
- kellysutton 16y agoAfter visiting the Newseum last summer in D.C., I fully support things like this. We need entities still doing journalism and not just creating content.
- stellar678 16y ago5 article per day limit for people visiting from Google. Won't this get them dropped from the search results for presenting different content to users versus Googlebot?
- patio11 16y agoGoogle is not going to pick that fight. They only have one competitive risk: government regulation. The only way that happens is if their PR as cuddly bunny hugging geeks in bathrobes made of organic llama hair get destroyed. People hoping for good PR cannot afford to be an existential threat to the NYT. Now if you or I did it, on the other hand... well, maybe their First Click Free policy covers us, but I wouldn't bet my business on it.
- robryan 16y agoI feel that if they are going to charge, charge for the big investigative and in depth pieces that you can't just get elsewhere. Some of the shorter stuff, which is rehashed over many different news sites is a lot harder sell for payment.
- dr_ 16y agoThe NYtimes is a great publication but it can't simply be "now we are going to charge for this". There has to be some tradeoff. For example, lately they have been running a huge expandable ad at the top of their homepage and, quite frankly that looks unprofessional and is annoying. So if as a subscriber they can get rid of some of that and several other undesirable ad locations ( I realize advertising will still be a part of their business model) then it may be an ok proposition. The tradeoff though is that their articles will be reaching a smaller group of readers, even with the 20 free a month.
- J3L2404 16y agoIf I were to pay I would expect to receive only content, not ads, but I really doubt that would be the case, so other sources await. Edit: Although there is a pretty big loophole.. From the article: Not all visits to NYTimes.com will count toward the 20-article limit. In an effort to ensure that as many as possible of the Web site’s more than 30 million monthly readers are not deterred from visiting, The Times will allow access to people who visit through search engines like Google and social networking sites like Facebook and Twitter. There will, however, be a five-article limit a day for people who visit the site from Google.
- w1ntermute 16y agoI hope Google News adds support for hiding sites that put their articles behind paywalls (perhaps manually on a per-user basis, like they've added support for in search results). I see lots of WSJ articles on Google News, and oftentimes I click on them before looking at the source, only to end up facing a paywall. This problem's only going to keep getting worse as more sites start erecting paywalls, and there are plenty of people like me who have no interest in paying for an online news subscription and would appreciate the ability to completely hide those sites.
- jayzee 16y agoAll you need to do to read those articles is to paste the title of the article into Google and click on the first result from wsj. it will take you straight to the full article.
- w1ntermute 16y agoI didn't realize that would yield a different result from clicking on the article from a Google News page (isn't the HTTP referrer Google either way?). In any case, that seems like too much trouble (unless there is an extension to automate it), so an option to hide certain domains from Google News would be very helpful. Not to mention there are certain news sites (Fox News, for example) which I have no desire to visit regardless of whether they are employing a paywall.
- donohoe 16y agoMaybe you are - or not aware - But if you hit a NYTimes article via Google News you will not hit the paywall (unless you go over a certain number).
- bretthopper 16y agoAs someone who doesn't use the NYT as a primary source of news, but frequently ends up there through links, I'm curious to see if/how soon I'll reach the 20 article limit.
- J3L2404 16y agoFrom the article: Not all visits to NYTimes.com will count toward the 20-article limit. In an effort to ensure that as many as possible of the Web site’s more than 30 million monthly readers are not deterred from visiting, The Times will allow access to people who visit through search engines like Google and social networking sites like Facebook and Twitter. There will, however, be a five-article limit a day for people who visit the site from Google.
- bretthopper 16y agoRegardless, I'm just interested in seeing how often/if I'll run into any ANY new limit NYTimes.com has. If I don't, then this change won't matter at all.
- monochromatic 16y agoAdios, NYT. You won't be missed.
- gyardley 16y agoThis would be the price of emerging 'do not track' policies and a hostile climate towards advertising targeting. The money's got to come from somewhere.
- ericd 16y agoI don't think it's fair to pin this on disruptions in attitudes towards advertising. The much bigger factor is that they're an industry that once had and was structured around having a near-monopoly on mass information distribution (diluted by radio and TV). Now they suddenly find that they don't even have a majority hold on that anymore, and have lost almost all of their leverage with people that want to advertise things, and it's a problem that's been getting worse.
- 5teev 16y agoI wonder if Times Select users who paid their annual renewal fee about a month before nytimes.com reverted to free again will receive any credit toward this new pay scheme. Hypothetically speaking, of course.
- bryanh 16y agoI think 20 articles a month is actually quite fair, this covers most of the uses cases of reading an article because X linked to it. It is a happy middle ground. I wish them the best of luck, although I don't think it will work out.
- rmason 16y agoFirst I thought terrific. I would definitely pay a monthly fee to read the NYT without ads. But then I learned I have to pay and there is still advertising. I definitely will miss reading the paper but I am betting in less than six months the wall will disappear. Any takers?
- cschmidt 16y agoYou can get free digital access if you have any form of home delivery. I can get weekday delivery for $14.80 for 4 weeks, or Sunday delivery for $15 for 4 weeks. That gets you the full $35 digital product. I'll probably get the Sunday times delivered.
- anigbrowl 16y agoI've seen a few other publishers do this too, and it seems hopelessly perverse. If the digital edition has zero advertisements, then I can understand that it reflects the true cost of production (qua newsgathering, writing and editing). But it's still going to create a perception among the public that the online readers are subsidizing the print readers to a certain extent, and indirectly the printing and paper companies as well. And for those who care about such things, the ongoing consumption of about 100,000 (farmed) trees annually. If online readers get a better deal by subscribing to the paper version and putting it straight into the recycling bin every day, then the NYT is encouraging them to consume in the most wasteful way possible. This also reduces the value to advertisers, who are going to start discounting the subscription figures proportionally to 1/(web_traffic_growth/online_subs_growth). This isn't helped the options of NYT + smartphone edition, NYT + tablet edition, and NYT + everything edition (crossword puzzles and other NYT products excluded). Where is the NYT + no frills edition? I do read news on my phone, but I prefer a bare minimum summary of important events in that context. But apparently I must purchase a mobile app I don't want and would never use in order to have subscriber access via the browser.
- dsplittgerber 16y agoWhy is it $15 for a smartphone subscription, but $27.99 for a Kindle subscription that some days even doesn't include all the articles from print?
- theYipster 16y agoGiven that I read the Times on my iPhone, iPad, and computer, I can subscribe for $35 a month, or apparently I can subscribe to 7 day delivery, which includes all of the above, for $22 a month and throw the paper away when it arrives each day. Clearly their pricing policy is off by an order of magnitude. Paying $35 a year for everything makes sense. Paying $35 a month, given economics and the market for online subscriptions, is nuts.
- trustfundbaby 16y agoI unloaded on the New York Times in a comment about 2 days ago, but I have to say that I'm pleasantly surprised by this approach. It allows them continue to make ad revenue as well as get subscription money from people who really like their service (unless I'm not understanding it clearly). The only thing I'd suggest is prominently displaying a counter for the user saying 'you have x pages left before you must subscribe to access this site' or something like that .. that way they're not taken by surprise when they can't access a story any more.
- roadnottaken 16y agoWill they prevent multiple people from sharing the same account?
- roadnottaken 16y agoThis better include full access to their crossword puzzle app.
- whyenot 16y agoI like the content, but $196 a year is more than I'm willing to pay -- it's twice the yearly cost of an "all you can eat" streaming Netflix subscription.
- Raphael 16y agoWill this affect the Google Chrome app?