New York Times to begin charging Web readers in 2011

[Kadie]

New York Times to begin charging Web readers in 2011

by Chris Lefkow Chris Lefkow – 7 mins ago

WASHINGTON (AFP) – The New York Times, in a move that will be closely watched by other newspapers suffering from plunging print advertising revenue, announced it will begin charging online readers next year.

"The new approach, referred to as the metered model, will offer users free access to a set number of articles per month and then charge users once they exceed that number," The New York Times Co. said on Wednesday.

The Times Co. did not announce pricing for full access to the newspaper's website, which currently draws more than 15 million unique visitors a month, or how many articles would be available for free.

The paid model will be introduced "at the beginning of 2011," a Times Co. statement said, while the newspaper reported it would begin in January.

Print subscribers to the Times will continue to have free online access to NYTimes.com once the metered model is in place.


more...
http://news.yahoo.com/s/afp/20100121/bs_afp/usitcompanymedianewspapersinternetnytimes_20100121020209

[L0oniX]

1. Fools!

[JuniperLea]

2. Newspaper suicide...

What are they thinking?

[clear eye]

7. Been reading The Guardian for a couple of years now.

They're publicly funded to a large extent by social democratic UK. I get more complete info from them than I've ever had from the NYT, including stories on our federal gov't. They're not perfect, but they're the best I've found so far. Going by the NYT's warped coverage on the health care reform debate and Latin America in general, fewer NYT readers would be a blessing.

I also get a fair amount of issue info by getting on the email list of some NGOs whose work I like.

[JuniperLea]

9. I read The Guardian too!

There are also British and German news "programmes" on PBS that I try to catch. It's so refreshing to hear things like... this side says this, the other side says that, and here's what we know to be true. Brilliant... actual reporting of the news. Again, not perfect, but they have moments very near!

[muriel_volestrangler]

13. "They're publicly funded to a large extent" isn't really true

The Guardian is part of the Guardian Media Group, which is owned by a private trust - see http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Guardian_Media_Group

The only way you can say it's 'publicly funded' is that the print edition (and maybe somewhere on the website too) has a job advert section, which is the best place to find senior/professional public sector jobs.

As the Telegraph (a right wing competitor of The Guardian) says, this may mean The Guardian will suffer a decreasein income if the Tories get in in this year's election, since they've said they think such ads should be online:

There are signs that 2010 could be even worse than 2009. A change in Government after next year's general election is likely to be disastrous for the Guardian's revenue from public sector job adverts, on which it has long depended, as the Conservatives have strongly hinted they will save money by moving much of the advertising online.

http://www.telegraph.co.uk/finance/newsbysector/mediatechnologyandtelecoms/6762972/Guardian-News-and-Media-staff-to-find-out-where-the-axe-will-fall.html

[invictus]

15. +1

[Lex]

3. It will certainly be interesting to see what happens.

I, for one, will not be paying.

[Zywiec]

4. Good luck with that

I'll just pull up their articles through news.google.com for free.

[LeftyMom]

5. Again? They already tried charging once.

:eyes:

[timeforpeace]

6. Right wing media machine strikes again.

[Sherman A1]

8. Good for Them

it will be one less thing with which I have to concern myself.

[JuniperLea]

10. Love this quote... worth repeating...

Were it left to me to decide whether we should have a government without newspapers, or newspapers without a government, I should not hesitate a moment to prefer the latter. ~ Thomas Jefferson

[spanone]

11. they will become the jay leno show of the internet

[bigtree]

12. the articles will leak out

whatever they're worth

[Spike89]

14. They'll need allies, lots of them

It simply won't work for them unless a large number of their peers take this opportunity. I'm really rooting for some measure of success. We may not need this newspaper, but we need newspapers and they are in deep trouble. Without a vigorous press (and no, bloggers can't/won't ever replace a staffed newsroom) we're truly at the mercy of the corporate machine.

Really solid news should be cheap, but when it is "free" it quickly becomes worthless.

[SidDithers]

16. Didn't they try that about 2 years ago?...

Worked out quite well, if I recall.

Sid

[DeSwiss]

17. Molly Ivins was right.

- Newspapers aren’t dying; they’re committing suicide.

[ddeclue]

18. In other news; Readers to stop visiting www.nytimes.com in 2011

:rofl: