January 21, 2010
NYT paywall
This won’t affect me since I read the hard print copy at my local café, but it’s still dumb:
Taking a step that has tempted and terrified much of the newspaper industry, The New York Times announced on Wednesday that it would charge some frequent readers for access to its Web site — news that drew ample reaction from media analysts and consumers, ranging from enthusiastic to withering.
I foresee a bleak, copy-and-paste future for the news organization with my email inbox filled with entire NYT articles from friends who actually shell out the cash for a subscription.
comments
Leave a Reply
I keep wondering if this has something to do with a subscription model for the as yet unannounced Apple tablet.
An interesting observation.
I would happily pay for the New York Times online. Just like I happily pay for music downloads and movie rentals. If you want quality, you pay. Why is this so hard to understand?
“News is a substitutable commodity, so’s opinion. Investigative reportage is valuable, but its facts can’t be owned.“
Okay. Who pays for those investigations? If you say the government, then you’re basically saying me. So, again, I’ll happily pay for it.
I am not sure that statement was true pre-web, but I do think it is now. How that changes the models for newspapers is a serious question I don’t have a clear answer for.
Not the government. Heaven knows, we don’t want their hand in that financially.
More importantly, however, I understand money is need to fund the operations and that quality generally means more money, but with the myriad of free alternatives makes it an unwise move for the NYT. See, also, this and this.
Again, I have no problem paying for good content, even when it is idiotically easy to pirate almost everything I consume.
Oh, so your concern is not with the idea of paying the New York Times for their investigative reporting, but that their readership (and thus, profits) will dissolve after the paywall is instituted? You’re against their method, not their motive?
Yes. I should have been clearer about that.
Although, philosophically, I think it should be free, but I am also a pragmatist.
I’m actually curious to see how this will affect their news production vs editorial content. Will people skip the fact-based, newsy type reportage stuff that’s available everywhere and reserve their free monthly quota for the content that’s available only at the NY Times? And will this eventually be reflected in their staffing and budgeting? Will their hardcore reporting staff be thinned out (even more so) and the Style section and say the magazine or blogs for example get beefed up with more unique content?
I see their building rising over 8th Ave every night on the way home from work. Unlike a lot of the other monumental buildings in the city, whose windows gradually die out as the night progresses, theirs is bright and twinkling even after 2am. It really is a beautiful and reassuring symbol; thousands of people dedicated to reporting on the truth of the world around us. I hope they find some way to keep it lit up.
From an econ perspective, this is a sad misalignment of incentives in that it rewards the casual browser and punishes the rabid newsy fan. The method seems ill-advised and prone to theft.