Liberal Newspaper starts charging for content, no discount for "neediest" readers.

[nageov3t]

this is the second time the NYT is attempting to put up a pay wall.

we'll see if it works. their last attempt resulted in lower overall revenues because paid readers didn't outweigh losses from ads (as a result of lower page views) but this is a bit different than their earlier attempt.

 

[wuliheron]

this is the second time the NYT is attempting to put up a pay wall.

we'll see if it works. their last attempt resulted in lower overall revenues because paid readers didn't outweigh losses from ads (as a result of lower page views) but this is a bit different than their earlier attempt.

They know they don't have a choice in the matter and have to make the transition sooner or later. The Amazon Kindle store alone has begun to exceed their sales of hardcover and softcover books and the Border's bookstore chain has declared bankruptcy. Why buy a print newspaper when you can carry thousands of newspapers and books around in you pocket for cheaper?

 

[Doppel]

They are doing it backwards though... idea is to first produce a product that people will pay for, the next step is to charge for it.

haha I got a good laugh out of this.

I feel bad for these papers trying to get money for online readership. We know that their readership numbers plummet into a deep Sparta-like chasm when they force people to pay. If all papers did it at once, CNN, Fox, MSNBC all started charging then maybe we'd have to pay but with a dozen big news outlets (or dozens) just a click away most people will just go to another. I visit enough news orgs in a day that if one evaporated I'd hardly care and would never pay more than a buck or two/month even for my favorite one.

I also never sign up for free accounts for any paper just to read it.