Some of the main reasons that many have switched from print to online versions of newspapers are convenience, accessibility, and of course, that it's (mostly) free. Almost all news organizations have online sites that you can peruse, clicking carelessly on any articles that interest you without having to pay. But now, the
New York Times, which previously allowed online users to do just that, is imposing restrictions. This excerpt from an
article in the Times gives a general overview:
Beginning March 28, visitors to NYTimes.com will be able to read 20 articles a month without paying, a limit that company executives said was intended to draw in subscription revenue from the most loyal readers while not driving away the casual visitors who make up the vast majority of the site’s traffic. Once readers click on their 21st article, they will have the option of buying one of three digital news packages.
While I wouldn't say I'm a "loyal reader" of the New York Times, the online newspaper is the homepage on my laptop. I use the site to catch up on the latest news and usually click on at least one article that interests me each day. In theory, this would amount to around 30 articles a month. But now that the New York Times would make me pay a subscription fee ranging from $195 to $455 per year to casually glance over a selection of articles, I would much rather find my news elsewhere. After I reach that 20 article a month limit, I'm definitely going to look at the
Washington Post or some news blogs. I would never even think to pay for news that I could easily find on some other online news site. But the fact that the New York Times, one of the most reputable news organizations in the country, is transitioning towards online subscriptions makes me worry. Will other news organizations impose the same restrictions on users, making them pay fees to get their daily news? What do you think of all of this?
McKenna,
ReplyDeleteYou beat me to it! I was going to post the same article when I received the NYTimes email last night. I can hardly believe that they are going to start making readers pay. However, after reading a variety of articles about this new pay model, I was shocked to see that so many people agreed to stay loyal to the Times and pay for the subscription. An article in the NYTimes (ironic) said:
"The Times announced its new subscription plan last week to widespread debate. Many readers and bloggers said they were happy to be able to finally pay for their frequent use of the Web sites, while many others — joined by some industry analysts and pundits — said that The Times was dangerously out of step with the digital age and that the approach was doomed to fail."
In their defense, they have spent years trying to come up with a pay model that would work for their customers. But in an era where "free news" can be read at the click of a mouse, I really do wonder whether this will be a huge success or a huge failure.
I'm also excited to hear my peers' opinions in class, as I'm sure it will be brought up one way or another!