backtop

Internet Free is Good: New York Times Online Drops Fees
Jason Mick (Blog) - September 18, 2007 10:07 AM
Print E-mail del.icio.us 98 comment(s) - last by Continuation.. on Oct 1 at 5:15 PM
America's third largest newspaper says free is good!

The New York Times has earned the reputation of being one of the world's premier newspapers since its founding in 1851.  For over 150 years people have relied on the paper to report their news daily.  Today, the Times is America's third largest newspaper, trailing only USA Today and The Wall Street Journal in distribution.

The Times hit the online newsstand in 1995 and has been a powerful internet news presence ever since.  The only downside is that it relegated much of its best content to "select" status.  Access to TimesSelect for this year was priced at $7.95 per month or $49.95 per year.

Now the Times has made a significant announcement in a press release -- there will be no more "select" content; everything on the site will be viewable free of charge.  The Times foresees significant increase in traffic as it opens up access to over 20 of its premier columns.

The Times' move already has its first major corporate sponsor, eager to increase its advertising presence:  American Express.

The TimesSelect launched in September 2005, and according to The New York Times had 787,400 active subscribers -- 471,200 whom received it as part of their paper subscription and 227,000 who paid solely for the online access.

Perhaps more significantly, the move also opens up a significant chunk of the Times online archives, which hold nearly all its content since the 1800s.  The 1851 to 1922 and 1987 to present archives will be offered free of charge. 

The only downside is that the 1923 to 1986 archives are only available via purchase in single or 10-article packages.

Additional tools for personalizing and customizing your Times account are also made available for free.

Free is the best price in most people's mind and the Times is setting a positive example by finally making most of its content available free of charge.  The Times’ faith in advertiser revenue is similar to the spirit embodied by SpiralFrog, a free online music download service which launched yesterday, paid for solely by ad support.  As more legal free content proliferates through various web firms, the internet is transforming the modern business model and businesses are learning -- sometimes free can actually make money.

Comments     Threshold


This article is over a month old, voting and posting comments is disabled
Its free !
By crystal clear on 9/18/2007 11:18:32 AM , Rating: 2
quote:
the internet is transforming the modern business model and businesses are learning -- sometimes free can actually make money.


How right you are on this-good analysis.

Talking about FREE then read this-(courtesy N.Y. Times)

"I.B.M. to Offer Office Software Free in Challenge to Microsoft’s Line"

The company is announcing the desktop software, called I.B.M. Lotus Symphony, at an event today in New York. The programs will be available as free downloads from the I.B.M. Web site.


http://www.nytimes.com/2007/09/18/technology/18blu...




RE: Its free !
By TomZ on 9/18/2007 11:32:10 AM , Rating: 2
I don't quite understand the strategy - IBM is investing money to give away a product to try to deprive Microsoft of revenue. On the one hand, I don't see how this helps IBM directly at all, i.e., where's the ROI?

On the other hand, even if they are able to decrease Microsoft's market share and revenue, how does this really benefit IBM strategically?

I guess I don't really "get" what I would perceive as destructive competition. I recognize the ability for these situations to change markets, but I fail to see how it benefits the shareholders of the involved companies.

Can anyone enlighten me?


RE: Its free !
By crystal clear on 9/18/2007 11:51:50 AM , Rating: 1
As mentioned in the article-

“Three major players — I.B.M., Google and Sun — are now solidly behind a potential competing standard to Office,” said Rob Koplowitz, an analyst at Forrester Research. “But it’s a tough road. Office is very entrenched.”



Will get back to you on this-The Trio behind it.


RE: Its free !
By smitty3268 on 9/18/2007 12:14:56 PM , Rating: 2
The better Linux and AIX do the better off IBM is. So they're directly helping those platforms and trying to make it easier to jump away from Windows. There's no direct ROI, so it's a bit of a long-term gamble. They obviously thought it was worth it, though.


Log-in nag pages?
By AmberClad on 9/18/2007 10:22:22 AM , Rating: 2
Great to hear that the articles will be free, but what about those annoying nag webpages on the NYT site that force you to log into an account (or use BugMeNot on it). The WP and LAT are just as bad in that regard.




RE: Log-in nag pages?
By darkpaw on 9/18/2007 10:29:17 AM , Rating: 2
My solution for those is just not to visit them. There is plenty of other news sources on the web and 90%+ of the content is from the services anyways.

I'd read more of the WP, but as long as they force logins and have too much active crap on the pages, I'll just read the news someplace else.


RE: Log-in nag pages?
By xsilver on 9/18/2007 10:41:46 AM , Rating: 2
I would suspect that this is the exact reason that the NYT is removing its fees; its market researchers have probably analysed that they'd be making more money buy having free articles subsidised by advertising rather than paid articles.

the login password thing might still be there but this is the perfect time to use the "remember password" feature on your browser.


typo
By flyboy84 on 9/18/2007 10:15:56 AM , Rating: 3
"The 1851 and 1922..."

should be

"The 1851 to 1922..."




RE: typo
By JasonMick (blog) on 9/18/2007 10:38:40 AM , Rating: 2
Thanks, it will be fixed.


When it becomes free:
By AmbroseAthan on 9/18/2007 10:23:00 AM , Rating: 2
quote:
content previously available through TimesSelect, including online access to 23 news and opinion columnists, personalization tools, access to the Times archives back to 1987 and more, will be available free of charge at www.nytimes.com beginning Wednesday, Sept. 19 .


Quoted from the press release linked above.




The Times has lost credibility
By Nfarce on 9/18/2007 5:06:40 PM , Rating: 2
A lot of people see the times as a political mouthpiece for the left. Take the former Times columnist Jason Blair for example. The man plagiarized many, many columns to get his point across against the right. One doesn't have to read past page A1 to see where the political agenda is.

But just look at the recent Moveon.org ad to give an insight into how the Times cares about accuracy in the media. An excerpt from the ad that ran last week:

“According to the NY Times, the Pentagon has adopted a bizarre formula for keeping tabs on violence. For example, death by car bombs don’t count.”

That's a flat out lie that the NYT failed to correct. Here is what the Times themselves wrote in a column just days before about just that:

“Casualties that result from fighting between groups, like the Mahdi Army and the Badr Corps, however, are not classified as sectarian, as they are the result of clashes between two Shiite organizations. But victims of all car bomb attacks and Shiite and Sunni infighting are included in the overall civilian casualty count .”

Here's the link:

http://www.nytimes.com/glogin?URI=http://gk.nytime...

Anyway, this just goes to show you, as many others have stated, that the Times needs all the readership it can get, especially when dishing out false information that benefits the left for next year's election.




By TheGreek on 9/19/2007 2:03:10 PM , Rating: 2
That would be much more productive that a free website from the Times.




Who cares
By rninneman on 9/18/07, Rating: -1
RE: Who cares
By Continuation on 9/18/2007 11:06:12 AM , Rating: 4
Speak like a loyal viewer of Faux News.

"Far left"? I guess in your little world everyone left of Bill O'Reilly is called "far left." LOL.


RE: Who cares
By Misty Dingos on 9/18/2007 11:28:53 AM , Rating: 2
Well anyone right of Bill O'Reilly is either a libertarian or Sean Hannity.

But what I think he is trying to say is that it has become obvious that many of our news sources have abandoned the principle of setting aside their own view points when publishing news. Whether that publication is news papers or TV. The record of obviously slanted writing on both sides of this argument tell of a sad time in these organizations.

I seriously doubt that anyone can make the argument that the CBS evening news is anymore ‘Fair and Balanced’ than Fox News. Having journalists that will not set aside their own bias and just report the stories is not good for anyone.


RE: Who cares
By TomZ on 9/18/2007 11:37:33 AM , Rating: 5
I think most Americans actually want slightly biased news reporting. Why else would it be so prevalent and so unquestioned? Also, why else are "news commentators" like O'Reily so popular?

Think about it - if you are right-leaning, then watching Fox news, O'Reily, etc. probably gives you some satisfaction. If you are left leaning, probably CNN generally liberal reporting and commentary appeals. People like to see others take their side - it's basic human psychology.


RE: Who cares
By EndPCNoise on 9/18/2007 12:41:13 PM , Rating: 2
So, by your own logic...

The NY Times, being very biased --> is therefore very large (popular).


RE: Who cares
By TomZ on 9/18/2007 12:47:23 PM , Rating: 2
Maybe, but I wouldn't get too carried away with that. I think it is reasonable the NYT is in part popular because it is in sync with the political sensibilities of a lot of New Yorkers. Consider the alternative - if they were out of step with their readers, surely readership would decline, right?

That said, I don't think it's correct to say that political bias is the only factor that makes a paper popular.


RE: Who cares
By Misty Dingos on 9/18/2007 1:51:47 PM , Rating: 2
The issue of bias in reporting becomes apparent when the pursuit of news becomes a witch hunt in search of a victim. What the press should do is pursue news worthy stories with vigor and detachment. Truth should be the goal and not pandering to the client. Pandering to your market should be limited to the editorial and comic pages.

Following your precept that the people want to be pandered to so it isn't wrong is the same justification a drug dealer uses.

If I can't trust the NYT or Fox News to be unbiased in their reporting of the news then what purpose do they serve? Would it not be honest then to have a disclaimer then at the top of every page that said "All news reported here is biased by the reporters and the editorial staff. Read at your own risk."

The confusion of editorial content and news seems like a blurry gray line to many but it should be a strong brick wall in the mind of editors.

And if the NYT had not run the ad by moveon.org that would not have been censorship. They have every right to run what ever ad they wish to and to refuse to run any ad they feel would bring discredit, disdain, lower sales, or if they just don't like the colors in the ad. If the government told the NYT not to run the ad that is censorship.


RE: Who cares
By TomZ on 9/18/2007 2:07:23 PM , Rating: 3
Well, I agree with you, and I'm certainly not meaning to justify the bias in news reporting. I find it as troubling as you do, and I try to seek out straight-shooting news reports.

But on the other hand, almost all major news organizations do express some bias in my experience, and the "news commentary" type shows are as popular as ever, so there certainly is quite a bit of demand for this. Maybe the thought is that a little pandering is okay? (I mean who who amongst us hasn't tried a controlled substance at least once? Again, not saying it's right, I'm just making an observation.)

What I find really ironic is networks like Fox News who claim they are "fair and balanced," when any reasonable person realizes they are not. They are making a mockery of journalistic integrity with that motto.


RE: Who cares
By SandmanWN on 9/18/2007 2:24:43 PM , Rating: 2
quote:
They are making a mockery of journalistic integrity with that motto.

Huh, Every time I see a broadcast I