FairProspects Posted April 7, 2011 Share Posted April 7, 2011 Does anyone know anything about this? I have been reading the NY Times online for free for years and today I get this message: "We hope you’ve enjoyed your 20 free articles this month. As you may already know, we are now charging for unlimited access to our content. You can come back next month for another 20 free articles or choose unlimited access with a Digital Subscription..." What the?!? I am so mad about this! Anyone else? Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Hathersage Posted April 7, 2011 Share Posted April 7, 2011 Not that you'll be able to see if if you've hit your limit, but yes they are.. http://www.nytimes.com/2011/03/18/business/media/18times.html Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Caitilin Posted April 7, 2011 Share Posted April 7, 2011 Yes! I am mad because I got the app for the NYT and now find that in order to see all the articles, I will have to pay, despite the fact that when I downloaded the app, the draw was that it was to be free. :glare: I wouldn't mind except that it was deceptive on NYT's part. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Hathersage Posted April 7, 2011 Share Posted April 7, 2011 And to lessen the impact, they are offering us, a bone... Not all visits to NYTimes.com will count toward the 20-article limit. In an effort to reduce losses among the Web site’s more than 30 million monthly readers, The Times will allow access to people who arrive at its Web site through search engines like Google and social networking sites like Facebook and Twitter. There will, however, be a five-article limit a day for people who visit the site from Google. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
FairProspects Posted April 7, 2011 Author Share Posted April 7, 2011 Actually, I can see it because it is through a link from another website. The article said they would allow this. I do read it daily, but I've been hitting them a lot because of this Government Shutdown business that affects our livelihood. I just don't think they can change the rules of this game. Its a recession. We make less than we used to, and everyone wants us to pay for more. NOT going to happen. I'll just have to use CNN or BBC instead. Bad choice, NY Times!! Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
snickelfritz Posted April 7, 2011 Share Posted April 7, 2011 Our city paper just started this. I guess people weren't buying subscriptions, because they could get it for free. Makes sense. It's a business. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
gingersmom Posted April 7, 2011 Share Posted April 7, 2011 I have a subscription to the NY Times on my kindle so I get to use the website for free. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Julie in CA Posted April 7, 2011 Share Posted April 7, 2011 Does anyone know anything about this? I have been reading the NY Times online for free for years and today I get this message: "We hope you’ve enjoyed your 20 free articles this month. As you may already know, we are now charging for unlimited access to our content. You can come back next month for another 20 free articles or choose unlimited access with a Digital Subscription..." What the?!? I am so mad about this! Anyone else? It's a business--how would they sustain their business and continue on, if most people read the content free online without buying a subscription of any kind? Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Tammyla Posted April 7, 2011 Share Posted April 7, 2011 If you link in through another site, you can read each article you like past the twenty a month limit. It's a drag, but I'm not willing to pay for access. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
FairProspects Posted April 7, 2011 Author Share Posted April 7, 2011 It's a business--how would they sustain their business and continue on, if most people read the content free online without buying a subscription of any kind? Well, they've survived for 15 years of free content so far, with advertising revenue and print subscription sales. I don't think they should expect people to pay for something they have given us for free for all these years (and used this fact as a marketing technique as well). I also happen to think it is a bad business decision when their competitors are still offering similar content for free. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
redsquirrel Posted April 7, 2011 Share Posted April 7, 2011 They have been hemorrhaging money for a decade. They aren't going to exist much longer if this keeps up. don't forget that businesses have also cut back on advertising and with the economy being what it is, subscriptions have also been shrinking. My brother works for the WaPo and doubts that there will be newspapers around in 15 years. It is all going to be web only paid access and TV. It costs a lot of money to pay people in Japan and Egypt and Washington and Libya. A lot of money. They have fired a lot of people. Many news agencies are watching to see what happens with the NYT. If this is successful, and it might be, then expect to see many other news agencies charging for content. NYT is the test run for the business. My guess is that in a couple years, they won't allow the linking of stories either. It's the websites that aggregate and don't generate their own content (like HuffPo) that are making money these days. Were you a registered user? I had an account and I got an offer by some car maker to pay for my subscription for the year. I took them up on it. So far, there hasn't been a single change in my service. I was expecting that all the advertisements would be from that car company or something. But, that doesn't seem to be the case. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Tap Posted April 7, 2011 Share Posted April 7, 2011 They have been hemorrhaging money for a decade. They aren't going to exist much longer if this keeps up. I have been surprised that it has taken this long. It was rumored many, many years ago that this was going to happen. I think the economy has finally hit a low, that forced their hand. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
yellowperch Posted April 7, 2011 Share Posted April 7, 2011 (edited) How do you suppose they are to pay to gather the news you so enjoy and rely on? They aren't a search engine, they are an organization made up of people who go and collect the news, sometimes at great risk to themselves. These people, and the staff that support them, need salaries and medical benefits. The Times has struggled to come up with a viable business plan for years, including some that include providing free content. But those plans aren't viable in the long-term. They just aren't. Gathering news of the qaulity the Times prints is an expensive proposition and someone has to pay for it. The app thing sounds like a serious bungle, but the overall concept of having people pay for material they enjoy and seem to value makes sense. Editing to add: In the interest of full disclosure, DH works for the Times; its survival is very important to our family. Edited April 7, 2011 by yellowperch Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
redsquirrel Posted April 7, 2011 Share Posted April 7, 2011 What a coincidence, I go to the NYT site and see that yet another regular column is shutting down. Goodbye to the NYC column. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Hannah C. Posted April 8, 2011 Share Posted April 8, 2011 It doesn't really surprise me at all. I believe the Dallas Morning News is going to be doing something similar. People can read for free online, so they don't subscribe to the print edition, and then the newspaper ends up losing money. It kind of stinks, but it makes perfect sense that the newspapers would feel the need to charge for online subscriptions. My favorite magazine, WORLD Magazine, does a similar thing, but the online-only subscription is much cheaper than the print one. I think most newspapers will end up doing this in the future. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
QueenCat Posted April 8, 2011 Share Posted April 8, 2011 It's a business--how would they sustain their business and continue on, if most people read the content free online without buying a subscription of any kind? Which is why more and more newspapers and magazines, along with other sites providing information are finding to remain viable, they must charge a fee. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Join the conversation
You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.