The iron curtain of content is coming. Sort of.
Ok, so maybe it’s more like a chain-link fence.
Regardless of its structural integrity, one thing is certain: the New York Times will finally erect its long-awaited paywall. Here’s how it works:
- Home delivery subscribers of the paper will have full access to the entire site from any device.
- Non-subscribers can view 20 articles per month at no charge.
- The Top News section on the smartphone and tablet apps will remain free, but the rest of the app requires a subscription.
- There are three digital subscription options (from $15-$35/every four weeks) dependent on which device you’d like to use.
- Readers who go to articles through search engines, blogs, and social media will be able to read articles with no effect on their 20 article limit.
- The homepage of NYTimes.com and all section front pages will be free to everyone at all times.
Confused? So are a lot of people.
But aside from how it actually works, people in all regions of the media landscape are torn on what it means – not just for the future of NYTimes, but for the future of the media industry at large.
The media brain trust is split down the middle on this issue. While some think the NYT is on to something, others question whether executives are placing too high a price on news readers might just as easily find elsewhere—for free.
We polled content professionals from TMG on what they think about the paywall:
Some viewed it as a welcomed sea change.
“It’s a simple value proposition.”
I think it’s a simple value proposition.
And I compare it to fruit and vegetables (good for you) vs. junk food (crappy for you). Study after study reveals that produce (remember, good for us) typically cost more, and it’s often more challenging to prepare, so many people opt to consume things that are easy, not challenging and ultimately a contributor to lousy health.
Same thing applies to content. If it’s the New York Times (quality journalism + paid) vs. a free photo montage of movie stars behaving badly from, say, Gawker (sensational pabulum + free), where will many folks wander? Yep, the images of Lindsay Lohan stumbling out of a nightclub wearing a dress she stole from the bartender.
But that’s the way it is everywhere—even with food. We sometimes eat the good stuff and sometimes binge on Fruit Loops at midnight. In the end, though, I think consumers of information—good information and analysis—will recognize and pay for quality content the same way they pay for on-demand movies, TV programming or anything else they deem worthy of their attention.
Will many journalism sites remain free? That’s a tough call—and, again, a value proposition tied to the brand. Would someone in Omaha pay $15 for the NY Times? Sure. Again, it’s a brand thing. But would that same person pay for a subscription to the LA Times? Probably not. (But, in turn, Los Angelinos would most likely pay for it.)
It’s be interesting to see how it shakes out, and it’ll be tied to the quality of content, method of payment (ease of use) and, yes, good old branding. Content is king…as long as there’s a nice, spiffy brand tied to it.
– Michael McCarthy, Editor in Chief & Content Director
“If news organizations can deliver high-quality content consistently then people will pay for it.”
Of course getting people to pay for online content makes sense, but so few have actually been successful. Will be interesting to see if some of the other major newspapers follow suit.
If the Times and I suppose the Washington Post can do this successfully, it will certainly be a major improvement. News organizations can’t continue losing advertising and circulation as well as subscription money. Someone or something has to pay for the content and the salaries of reporters, editors and salespeople. What this does in the end is put more pressure on writers and editors to produce meaningful content.
Just reporting the news is not enough anymore, people can get that on CNN.com, Google’s news site or certainly on TV. The papers need to be more investigative and strive to write more detailed and analytical features that take people beyond the news. They also need to deliver better arts and culture coverage. The Sunday Post is turning heads with its improved Sunday edition, for example.
If news organizations can deliver high-quality content consistently then people will pay for it, maybe not gladly at first, but real news junkies know the real article when they see it.
– Steve Zurier, Managing Editor
“NYT has indirectly subsidized a lot of sites. Hope it can start to make money on of its own.”
I think so many amalgamators in the world – the Googles, Yahoos etc., make money off of New York Times content, which remains at the top of the journalistically trustworthy content. NYT has indirectly subsidized a lot of sites. Hope it can start to make money on its own.
-Richard Creighton, Principal
“If people want information that is vetted and well written there is a cost.”
People will read a few articles from a cast-aside newspaper in a coffee shop or a park bench which is similar to reading a story online. But regular readers will pay. If media companies don’t charge who will pay for the content? Reporters and columnist are not going to work for free. If people want information that is vetted and well written there is a cost. Rants will always be free but real reporting that matters is not free. My opinion for what it is worth.
– Jeff Kibler, Senior Art Director
Some just viewed it as a sea change.
“Props to NYT for putting it out there and starting this difficult conversation.”
I guess they had to start somewhere. Props to NYT for putting it out there and starting this difficult conversation.
Twenty free articles a month/5 per day via search engines seems reasonable, but charging for something formerly free is always gonna be problematic. People will definitely game the system.
I’m a print subscriber already, so ultimately it doesn’t make much difference to me.
I would be LIVID, however, if the $15/$20/$35 was in addition to the very substantial amount I pay for home delivery every month.
–Scott Bolgiano, Prepress Manager
And some had doubts.
“I’m afraid that people will always view the Internet as a place for free information, including newspapers, and many will refuse to pay and just find their news elsewhere”
Of the paywall systems I’ve seen, this seems to be the most creative and to have had the most thought put into it, but that makes it the most confusing, as well. I thought it was clever to not limit articles that were coming from social media, so as not to deter new readers. It seems like they are really focused on not giving away their newspaper for free to those readers who tend to go to the homepage and click through the stories on a routine basis; regular, nonpaying readers. But they want to keep it open to the casual user, the researcher, the sharer of info through social media. I like that approach, but am curious how all this will work and what their drop in readership will be. It almost certainly has to go down. How much money do they have to make for the decline in readership to be worth it?
Maybe the NYT can get away with it because they have such a vast following, but I’m afraid that people will always view the Internet as a place for free information, including newspapers, and many will refuse to pay and just find their news elsewhere.
My Times-lovin’ friend on Facebook said, somewhat seriously, that she’ll have to consider her 20-article limit every month when choosing whether to click on and read an article enough. Is it click-worthy? She said it reminds her of early cell phone days when we would think, “Can I call Sally or will I go over my allotted phone minutes? Is this phone call important enough to go over my minutes?”
– Melanie Powers, Managing Editor
“In today’s technological age, it’ll be tough to enforce a paid subscription.”
Paying for content seems natural, given that there are so many print and online entities that subscribers already (grudgingly) pay for. What I find most interesting about the NYT paywall is that there are already Tweets, articles and various blog posts on how people can get away with NOT paying for it. In today’s technological age, it’ll be tough to enforce a paid subscription.
As part of the research in my job, I’ve even skirted the line of subscriptions by simply Googling headlines and keywords to find it posted somewhere else. However, the bottom line is that if any media outlet would be expected to charge for content, it’d be the NYT. They’re well-respected enough that they might just pull this off.
– Chloe Thompson, Editorial Assistant
“If I can’t access the NYT, I’ll probably live and easily get my news from the multitude of sources available.”
In short, personally, I have no incentive to fork over the $15 a month to the NYT. It’s not that I don’t value their quality reporting, but I mainly read the NYT through articles shared on Facebook and Twitter. It’s rare that I’d ever just go to the NYT site and dig in, so to speak. So I’m unlikely to be fazed by this paywall, since they’re not blocking readers visiting from social media.
I feel like in order for this paywall to work, there needs to be a stronger incentive to subscribe. NYT does great work, but so does the AP, the WaPo, Reuters, BBC, etc. If I can’t access the NYT, I’ll probably live and easily get my news from the multitude of sources available. So why should I subscribe to just the NYT?
I think they should partner with somebody and offer an exclusive incentive. For example, subscribe to the NYT for 1 year and get $50 off the Amazon Kindle. That would incentivize people to buy a more reader friendly device and increase loyalty. Or maybe bundle a bunch of sites together. Like $15 for NYT, USAToday and WaPo. Of course since they’re all different companies that’d probably never happen, but bundling them up like that sounds more appealing.
It’ll be interesting to see how this plays out. If the NYT is successful, then it might move other content creators toward the same model, and THEN I would have to choose which sources to subscribe to and I’d likely consider the NYT among them.
– Ricky Ribeiro, Online Content Manager
“I’m much more likely to pay for a niche or local publication, particularly in the age of so much national aggregation.”
I’m not going to pay for content unless it becomes absolutely necessary. While the writing of the New York Times is superior to other content I read, I will still most likely get my daily headlines from another national publication (like The Washington Post), and save my NYT “allowance” for some of their local New York stuff or editorials. I’m much more likely to pay for a niche or local publication, particularly in the age of so much national aggregation. I also think a lot of people will post a lot of the stories through Facebook and Twitter, though, to help others bypass the pay wall.
– Laurie Cordova, Digital Project Manager
Whatever side of the paywall you stand on, we’ll soon find out if it pays off for publishers.
What do you think of the NYT paywall?
[image: pixellou]
Related articles
- The New York Times paywall: what do people think? (blogs.journalism.co.uk)
- The NYT And The Blogosphere (andrewsullivan.theatlantic.com)
- NY Times Announces Paywall (Which Google Will Help You Dig Underneath) (mediaite.com)
- New York Times announces paywall digital subscription plan (geek.com)
- The Biggest Flaw in NYT Pay Plan: It’s Backward-Looking (gigaom.com)
- How the 6 Biggest U.S. Newspaper Paywalls Compare (paidcontent.org)
Pingback: Avectra Blog