5 ms·

New Yorker and NYT are two of the only old school media companies whose content I would still pay for. They have some of the best journalism around (NYT for str

New Yorker and NYT are two of the only old school media companies whose content I would still pay for. They have some of the best journalism around (NYT for straight news, New Yorker for editorial, long-form, & culture pieces). I think New Yorker's pay wall will probably be a success. I was already prepared to pay for a subscription when the time came.

dublinben 12y ago
On the other side, I rarely read the New Yorker. I enjoy the occasional article that pops up here, but I wouldn't pay to read any of them. They'll lose me as a reader by going behind a paywall.
- thathonkey 12y ago
  The pay wall isn't meant to attract people who "rarely read" the New Yorker. Those are the consumers they are OK with losing because they didn't make up an appreciable demographic for their business model anyway.
  - dublinben 12y ago
    Readers are readers. They now have zero chance of converting me into a paying subscriber, since I can't read their articles. With a more flexible paywall, I can be encouraged to subscribe every time I'm linked to an article.
    - cshenoy 12y ago
      It's a metered paywall [1]. You'll still be able to read a few articles a month. IMHO, that's fairly flexible. [1]: http://www.newyorker.com/magazine/2014/07/28/note-readers http://www.newyorker.com/magazine/2014/07/28/note-readers
    - GrinningFool 12y ago
      But they had a zero chance of converting you to a subscriber to begin with. You represented only an expense to them.
    - discardorama 12y ago
      But you yourself said (in GP) that you wouldn't pay to read them. So the chance of converting you into a paying subscriber is 0 to start with. What's the loss? :D
- adrusi 12y ago
  The slate article calls it a "metered paywall" which means that unsubscribed users will be able to read a limited number or articles per week. You'll probably be below your limit every time "the occaisional article" pops up.
  - ch4s3 12y ago
    Not to mention that if you're the free rider type, you can just read the articles in incognito and avoid the metering issue.
    - georgiapeach 12y ago
      You don't even need to go incognito. There are extensions available for every major browser that will let you set detailed cookie policies, such as wiping per-domain cookies once every x hours or x days. This can be set up once, and then be completely transparent to the user afterwards.
- driverdan 12y ago
  > I wouldn't pay to read any of them Then why should they care about you? If you're not willing to give them money you shouldn't expect them to give you content for free.
contingencies 12y ago
I thought the same about Far Eastern Economic Review, but after they installed a paywall I stopped reading. Everyone else did too, and it has since died. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Far_Eastern_Economic_Review https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Far_Eastern_Economic_Review
rsync 12y ago
"New Yorker and NYT are two of the only old school media companies whose content I would still pay for." Agreed. We subscribe to both (NYT physically, and New Yorker via Kindle) and even if I expect not to read them in a particular week/month/year I still keep the subscription up because I want to support and "dollar vote" for these publications. I would like to also add that the third (of three) that I support in this way is the "London Review of Books" which is simply fantastic. It's not just book reviews ... there is editorial content, foreign correspondence[1], etc. I cannot recommend it enough. [1] Perhaps you have noted that one of the more discussed and read pieces about the google bus controversy, by Rebecca Solnit, was originally published in LRB...
lobster_johnson 12y ago
Have you tried The New York Review of Books (nybooks.com)? As venerable a cultural and literary institution as TNY, but the signal-to-noise ratio is much higher; less fetishization of the NY cultural scene (NYRB, despite its name, doesn't cover NY, and is ironically seldom about book reviews), less glitz. The paper edition is wonderfully old school, basically a tabloid newspaper format with zero thought to design or typography. From what I can tell, all of their content ends up on the site. Their Kindle edition has both the digital version and the paper layout in the same file so you can switch between the two modes.
- spenuke 12y ago
  YES - The NYRB is fantastic. But, no, not everything is online for free. A number of articles are behind a paywall; some are free. I believe others are website-only, but they are not the usual chum to just attract viewers; they're actually good stuff that simply doesn't fit in the print issue.
grayclhn 12y ago
I'd add the Economist and the NY Review of Books to that.

dublinben 12y ago

On the other side, I rarely read the New Yorker. I enjoy the occasional article that pops up here, but I wouldn't pay to read any of them. They'll lose me as a reader by going behind a paywall.

thathonkey 12y ago
The pay wall isn't meant to attract people who "rarely read" the New Yorker. Those are the consumers they are OK with losing because they didn't make up an appreciable demographic for their business model anyway.
- dublinben 12y ago
  Readers are readers. They now have zero chance of converting me into a paying subscriber, since I can't read their articles. With a more flexible paywall, I can be encouraged to subscribe every time I'm linked to an article.
  - cshenoy 12y ago
    It's a metered paywall [1]. You'll still be able to read a few articles a month. IMHO, that's fairly flexible. [1]: http://www.newyorker.com/magazine/2014/07/28/note-readers http://www.newyorker.com/magazine/2014/07/28/note-readers
  - GrinningFool 12y ago
    But they had a zero chance of converting you to a subscriber to begin with. You represented only an expense to them.
  - discardorama 12y ago
    But you yourself said (in GP) that you wouldn't pay to read them. So the chance of converting you into a paying subscriber is 0 to start with. What's the loss? :D
adrusi 12y ago
The slate article calls it a "metered paywall" which means that unsubscribed users will be able to read a limited number or articles per week. You'll probably be below your limit every time "the occaisional article" pops up.
- ch4s3 12y ago
  Not to mention that if you're the free rider type, you can just read the articles in incognito and avoid the metering issue.
  - georgiapeach 12y ago
    You don't even need to go incognito. There are extensions available for every major browser that will let you set detailed cookie policies, such as wiping per-domain cookies once every x hours or x days. This can be set up once, and then be completely transparent to the user afterwards.
driverdan 12y ago
> I wouldn't pay to read any of them Then why should they care about you? If you're not willing to give them money you shouldn't expect them to give you content for free.

contingencies 12y ago

I thought the same about Far Eastern Economic Review, but after they installed a paywall I stopped reading. Everyone else did too, and it has since died. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Far_Eastern_Economic_Review https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Far_Eastern_Economic_Review

rsync 12y ago

"New Yorker and NYT are two of the only old school media companies whose content I would still pay for." Agreed. We subscribe to both (NYT physically, and New Yorker via Kindle) and even if I expect not to read them in a particular week/month/year I still keep the subscription up because I want to support and "dollar vote" for these publications. I would like to also add that the third (of three) that I support in this way is the "London Review of Books" which is simply fantastic. It's not just book reviews ... there is editorial content, foreign correspondence[1], etc. I cannot recommend it enough. [1] Perhaps you have noted that one of the more discussed and read pieces about the google bus controversy, by Rebecca Solnit, was originally published in LRB...

lobster_johnson 12y ago

Have you tried The New York Review of Books (nybooks.com)? As venerable a cultural and literary institution as TNY, but the signal-to-noise ratio is much higher; less fetishization of the NY cultural scene (NYRB, despite its name, doesn't cover NY, and is ironically seldom about book reviews), less glitz. The paper edition is wonderfully old school, basically a tabloid newspaper format with zero thought to design or typography. From what I can tell, all of their content ends up on the site. Their Kindle edition has both the digital version and the paper layout in the same file so you can switch between the two modes.

spenuke 12y ago
YES - The NYRB is fantastic. But, no, not everything is online for free. A number of articles are behind a paywall; some are free. I believe others are website-only, but they are not the usual chum to just attract viewers; they're actually good stuff that simply doesn't fit in the print issue.

grayclhn 12y ago

I'd add the Economist and the NY Review of Books to that.