New York Times charging to read new online
By speakeasy
@speakeasy (4171)
United States
March 21, 2011 2:53pm CST
Starting the end of March 2011, the NY Times is only going to let people read 20 articles per month online without paying for an on-line subscription or already having a subscription to the NY Times newspaper. An exception to the 20 article limit will exist if you click on a link on a "hub".
Depending on how you plan to access the online version (pc, laptap, mobile, ipad, etc) of the NY Times - they have 3 different subscription plans - the lowest cost is $15 per month ($180 per year)!
I am sorry; but, the online version does not have everything the paper itself includes (and living on the other side of the country it would take forever for the paper itself to reach me); and, I can get free news articles from my homepage and many other websites - including here on mylot.
I think the NY Times is going to lose a lot of their online readers with this new plan and I think that will affect their revenues from companies that advertise on the online version.
What do you think? Do you currently access the NY Times online service or not? Do you think you should have to pay to read news articles or should they be free?
2 people like this
4 responses
@topffer (42156)
• France
22 Mar 11
I am taking the Arts RSS feed from the NY Times daily, and I hope they will still offer the RSS for free. Anyways there are so much free sources of news that I can live without this feed : I lowered their number a few months ago, because I was unable to read them all. 20 free articles per month is not bad for an occasional reader like me. My local newspaper is free for the day and I have to pay on a pay per view basis to read old articles. Newspapers are not cheap and journalists need to eat. At least with the NY Times, you are paying for quality.
@Jennlady86 (17)
• Canada
22 Mar 11
Hmm...that's a tough one. I'm all for free media, and quality news articles seem to be harder and harder to find these days, so i agree that's it's a shame NYT is changing their policy on the matter. I also agree that they will lose a lot of readers this way.
On the other hand, I understand that they are essentially a company, and need to keep profits in mind. Newspapers are much less popular than they used to be, and I can only imagine the loss of business they've had over the last several years. Maybe this is a necessary risk in order to help them stay in business. I wouldn't pay for the online subscription, but I guess I can see why they're making that choice.
@GardenGerty (160665)
• United States
21 Mar 11
I will not pay for online newspapers. I can go read them free in a beautiful library not a mile from my house. Corporations need to realize that not everyone wants to read online and not everyone is willing to pay or able to.
@speakeasy (4171)
• United States
22 Mar 11
Well, you do not get the entire paper online anyway; and, the news is not something that they are the only provider of. It is not as if they get it to you any faster than the other papers, CNN or other news networks, or any other source.
So, when they start charging I will simply use other sources.
@puccagirl (7294)
• Israel
21 Mar 11
I think it is a shame, as a principle I think information should be free. But it is not unheard of, I know some other online newspapers that charge money for part of their information. I just hope more newspapers don't do the same!
