Archive for January 21st, 2010

The New York Times’ announcement yesterday that it will start charging for content in 2011 draws strong reactions from many folks.  Some say they’ll never pay for online content.  Others support the decision.  I have to admit that I fall into the latter category mostly because of how the New York Times has set up its payment structure.

The newspaper plans to allow general users access to a certain amount of articles each month and then charge a flat fee for unlimited access thereafter.  Subscribers will have completely free online content.  The New York Times continues to by mum about how many articles will be free.  As long as it’s a reasonable amount, then I agree with their choice.  The new format is designed to still be free for casual users and only charge those who really do read the entire newspaper for free.

Honestly, that makes sense to me.  Newspapers are a business.  Real-life journalists don’t work for free.  I certainly don’t.

Other newspaper, however, are struggling with what to do to make up for revenue lost to their online versions.  My local newspaper, for example, has started running one “enticing” article a day that it only teases on its Web site.  For the entire article, readers must purchase a hard copy of the paper.  Mostly, I find this annoying.  I like the New York Times idea in that it doesn’t make me get up and go somewhere to get the article.  I’d rather see my local newspaper charge a small fee online and have all content available there.

Media outlets continue to navigate the Internet waters and figure out how to use the Internet to boost sales and interest while not running themselves out of business by providing all free content.  As one of the largest newspapers in the country, this decision by the New York Times will most likely have repercussions throughout the country.  Smaller newspapers may mimic the model.  And, I have to say, I think it is one that will work.

Hats off to the New York Times!