New York Times Feels the Effect of the Economic Crisis
Among the top online news dailies I really like New York Times for one simple reason – it’s free. While others offer the online editions of their newspapers on a subscription basis which is tied up to print subscriptions, the New York Times managed to provide free source of relevant news. But this might start to change, as Bloomberg reports that NYT is seriously revisiting the charging fees of some its content.
According to the report, NYT is seriously considering to apply incremental charges for the web access of some its online content while still maintaining most of the contents in free access.
And NYT’s reason for this planned changes? – to compensate for the declining print advertising. Of course we don’t have to tell what’s causing this. NYT is certainly feeling the economic crunch. In fact, it has already cut some jobs and even stops paying dividends to share holders.
Although I fully understand the dilemma which NYT is in right now, I couldn’t help but wonder whether charging users who have been patronizing the New York Times for providing free news content would in any way solve NYT’s dilemma? What I could really see right now is the possibility of declining readership base.
So, would you be willing to pay a premium to New York Times online content? Or would you rather get your dose of daily news from other newspaper sources?
Arnold Zafra on March 13, 2009
Subscribe to our RSS Feed
Related Articles
No related posts.
Bookmark
3 Responses to “New York Times Feels the Effect of the Economic Crisis”
Got something to say?
Categories
- Browsers
- Funny Stuff
- Games
- General
- Internet
- Media
- Mobile
- Online Video
- Search Engines
- Security
- Social Networks
- Software
- Web 2.0
- Web Tools
Textbook rentals for cheap are picking up really fast
Although I read quite a few NYT articles online I would not pay for them. I also see (and read) the ads applicable to me. Great news content is not only available, but overabundant, in many different formats.
I think charging for a single article will simply reduce readership. Charging for a full subscription is reasonable, especially with newer devices like Amazon’s Kindle.
There is a basic business/economic model issue at the heart of your commentary that you completely overlook. For a newspaper, just like a T.V. news show or other such media presentation, readership without revenue is nothing but fandom – it don’t pay the bills. The question might better be do you want to keep reading the quality product of the NYT and pay for it, or let the NYT die, and read the drivel of other less worthy rags? Thanks.
All forms of media, whether it is newspapers, television or radios, have struggled this year in regards to maintaining steady streams of revenue. As a result of lower print advertising revenue coming in, most media outlets have no choice but to look for alternative ways to bring in money to pay the bills. This is one of the reasons why most media outlets have had to resort to Dining Deals and other Half Off programs as a way to bring in non-traditional revenue.
If the content that the users would have to pay for is intriguing and interesting, the reader will pay for it. If they have information that is unique and cannot get from another trusted source, charging for that is reasonable and will continue to drive traffic to the web-site. If it’s information that can be accessed by other news sources, it will not be unique enough for someone to consistently pay for that information.