• Welcome to BookAndReader!

    We LOVE books and hope you'll join us in sharing your favorites and experiences along with your love of reading with our community. Registering for our site is free and easy, just CLICK HERE!

    Already a member and forgot your password? Click here.

NYT ready to charge online readers

SFG75

SFG75

Well-Known Member
They are going to do it I guess.
Link

I for one, would not pay, though I enjoy a few columnists that they have. If they charged a certain rate for the coverage you wanted; such as paying to read Bob Herbert, Paul Krugman, or the sports section, then perhaps I would consider it.
 
I care not a whit. Finally.

I used to read the print edition from one end to the other every day, but got away from that long before I ever got online.

Reading it free online was wonderful for a while, but then I just got into skimming headlines -- which I now get on my home page when I log on. And that was more than enough news coverage for a while.

Now, I don't even look at the Times anymore. All of the news coverage that I now see has finally come to seem like "old news." I have seen similar stories many times before. "There is nothing new under the sun" said an old NYT reader.

Impartially considered, that probably just reflects my changing "demographic" as I grow older, and maybe younger people still follow the NYT as assiduously as I once did.

But in my case, my interest in their news has been evaporating faster than they can change formats or make up their minds.

Where does it end? I haven't the faintest idea, but it is no more NYT for me. At any price, now that I think about it.
 
Rupert Murdoch has been on the "make-em-pay" on the internet bandwagon for a while, I think the NYT is only trying this after hearing Murdoch scream about it. Maybe they think if Murdoch's going to do it, it must be a viable business model.

When I first got on the internet in 1996, you had to register a username and password to read the NYT. So I never did. If I'm not even going to register to read it for free, why the heck would I pay?

These marketing professionals that are deciding to charge the end user to read online content are much smarter than I. They are even coming up with ways to make it easy to pay. But I think it won't work. They are competing with websites that offer good, quality up to the minute news for free.
 
Hugh said:
Rupert Murdoch has been on the "make-em-pay" on the internet bandwagon for a while, I think the NYT is only trying this after hearing Murdoch scream about it. Maybe they think if Murdoch's going to do it, it must be a viable business model.

When I first got on the internet in 1996, you had to register a username and password to read the NYT. So I never did. If I'm not even going to register to read it for free, why the heck would I pay?

These marketing professionals that are deciding to charge the end user to read online content are much smarter than I. They are even coming up with ways to make it easy to pay. But I think it won't work. They are competing with websites that offer good, quality up to the minute news for free.
Click to expand...

I agree entirely. I will guess that this whole experiment is going to FAIL miserably. They will not get much of a profit, and they will lose their online advertising rates due to the fact that their "hits" will go down precipitously. Now if it is a smashing success, feel free to remind me often of that fact.:whistling:
 
Sorry SFG. Thanks for the reply. This was just sort of a joke. Actually what I am saying is New York Times is not strictly non-fiction, in a manner of speaking.
 
chiangmaifalcon said:
Sorry SFG. Thanks for the reply. This was just sort of a joke. Actually what I am saying is New York Times is not strictly non-fiction, in a manner of speaking.
Click to expand...

There have been times when the top thread was made in this "sub-forum" and I clicked on the forum section, and couldn't find it. I would think: "What in the $%&#(%&! is going on here!!!?" I then realized......hehe.....sub-forum.:lol:

I would argue that fiction is anything that Rupert Murdoch publishes.
 
Link

So, three months later, how many people have signed up to pay $5 a week, or $260 a year, to get unfettered access to newsday.com?

The answer: 35 people. As in fewer than three dozen. As in a decent-sized elementary-school class.
Click to expand...



:lol::lol::lol::lol:
 
I for one, would not pay,
Click to expand...

Allow me to plea mea culpa here. After getting my kindle, I figure that paying .99 for a copy of the NYT on sunday is cheaper than if I buy two local sunday dailies. I have been doing it the last few weekends and totally enjoy it. So, for what it was worth, I have now become a money paying slave for content.:whistling:
 
I'm relying on you Scott, ol' fren, ol' buddy, to tell me when they start charging for online; I won't be reading it in the paper. I don't look at it online anymore, not even for 99 cents for ten pounds of paper equivalent. :lol:

:flowers:
 
Thought I would post this information just to show how lucrative charging has been for some papers. One of the better publications out there is the U.S. version of the Financial Times. I've been buying single issues of that more often recently. I'm not a big USA TODAY fan, I think their heyday is gone, I just can't bring myself to buy a copy for splashy graphics and the like. I will say that I really enjoy the International Herald Tribune as well, its amazing how the financial papers have the more interesting content, though their editorials drive me crazy.

Top 10 newspaper kindle purchases

1.)New York Times
2.)The Wall Street Journal
3.)USA TODAY
4.)The Washington post
5.)The Onion
6.)Financial Times(U.S. Edition)
7.)International Herald Tribune
8.)Los Angeles Times
9.)The Boston Globe
10.)San Francisco Chronicle
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top