March 28: NYT Subscription -- Ways Around It?

[no_hypocrisy]

http://www.nytimes.com/2011/03/18/business/media/18times.html?_r=1&hp

Couldn't you still read for free beyond the 20 articles if you read it on an online library site?

Or if you signed up under more than one account?

[itsrobert]

1. I plan on not losing time, money, or sleep over this

NYT will lose advertising dollars. Very few are going to fork over 20 bucks to get news they can get elsewhere at a click for free.

[AngryAmish]

2. fuck them

I'll miss the recipes.

[badtoworse]

7. You must work for free

Great that you're in a position to do that! Not everyone is in a position to provide goods and services and not charge for them.

[PBS Poll-435]

8. I thought that was the purpose of ads?

:shrug:

[AngryAmish]

9. I charge dearly for my work

People pay it. I don't see the value in their good or service so I won't read.

[eilen]

3. I've thought about it and

I think it might not be presumptuous, greedy or a bad thing for journalists to want to get paid and have jobs in this country. If I could get daily delivery of the NYT, I would but I live too far upstate. Many pay for subscriptions to cabletv way in excess of $15/month and don't blink an eye. I venture to guess that the content in the NYT is of higher caliber than most cable tv news. At least you will get news. Not everyone can work for free to line the pockets of Arianna.

[hobbit709]

4. Wait 6 months-they'll give up.

[MannyGoldstein]

5. Maybe share a subscription?

That would make it more affordable.

[mythology]

6. The multiple accounts might work

if you account for any cookies, unless it's an IP tracked system as well. But it's likely just tracked by account as there are so many more mobile devices than in the past.

I suspect relatively few will bother with signing up as you get 20 free articles a month. That's one of the great problems with the internet. People get accustomed to having things for free without realizing that somebody has to pay for it, especially as the internet becomes more and more the way people get media, whether it's music, news or tv/movies. The people who make media have an absolute right to be paid for the consumption of their product.

But like any electronic media people will erroneously claim that there's nothing stolen because it's not a tangible product and therefore the cost of an extra copy is non-existent. The problem with that argument is that the cost does exist and as a higher and higher percentage of media is consumed online for free, there exists a smaller and smaller customer base actually paying for the content and fewer advertisers willing to pay to cover the rest of the costs. Not to mention the ongoing costs of the infrastructure needed to host the media.

Another problem the Times is going to have is that they are the paper of record and so will be more widely distributed in regurgitated fashion on the internet. So their potential audience will be able to get more of their stories repeated elsewhere without having to pay for it.