New York Times goes metered online: Will you pay up?

New York Times goes metered online: Will you pay up?

Summary: The New York Times has made it official: It's going to charge for access under certain conditions starting in 2011.

SHARE:

The New York Times has made it official: It's going to charge for access under certain conditions starting in 2011.

The model, detailed in a statement, goes like this: Users will have free access to a certain number of articles a month and then have to pay once they exceed a cap. Think of it as an article cap similar to a salary cap in sports.

The Times says the model will give the company a second revenue stream to support its ad model and also fund its journalism. Print subscribers will have free access without an article cap.

For now, the Times has to rollout a new online infrastructure to support this revenue stream. It'll have to track the number of articles people read and then make sure print subscribers won't face a gate. And the paper will have to charge you.

The model is interesting, but it's too early to judge how it will do. The Times will offer more details about the model in the months ahead. Looming questions include:

  • What's the optimal article cap?
  • How will users be tracked?
  • Will users actually pay when they exceed the cap?
  • How much revenue can this model generate?

Topics: Banking, Enterprise Software

Kick off your day with ZDNet's daily email newsletter. It's the freshest tech news and opinion, served hot. Get it.

Talkback

16 comments
Log in or register to join the discussion
  • Will I pay? BAH-HAHAHAHAHAHA!!! No.

    I never bothered to read that liberal rag's online content when it was free though.
    Hallowed are the Ori
    • If the fee guaranteed less of a bias... I might.

      If not... I already have 2 dogs. I pick up enough crap each day without the NYTIMES to add to my scatalogical endeavors.
      Fark
  • nope!

    you might pay for Fox News but not for NY Times.
    Linux Geek
    • Actually

      Yes, I would.. at least I would know that the quality would be higher.
      Hucko
      • How do you determine the quality will be higher ???

        I have yet 2 see a paper that I would buy, because the quality of the articles is horrid(and this was before the internet).
        mrlinux
  • Nope

    Never gonna pay for online news content. I'm sure
    whatever they're "selling" can be found elsewhere for
    free. Good luck NYT, you're probably gonna need it.
    SystemVoid
  • Sign me up!

    Real Reporting requires lots of money, and I don't expect something for nothing.

    Bloggers just discuss stories that were created by the mainstream media, mostly newspapers. Claims that bloggers can somehow replace the mainstream media are just nuts.
    Tom12Tom
  • RE: New York Times goes metered online: Will you pay up?

    Why not?
    Be interesting to see price structure.
    Can't be too low or will siphon off print buyers; too high and no revenue.
    clifforde
  • BIG FAT NO!

    Not only NO, but HELL NO!

    This is like Sarah Pelosi asking Nancy Palin, "Will you support me?"

    ;-)
    kd5auq
  • Save money: make up your own news. nt

    nt
    Bill4
  • RE: New York Times goes metered online: Will you pay up?

    I am a frequent web user of NYT and so long as the price
    is fair, I will pay
    bobinbc
  • I'll peruse the opinion columns via Technorati search

    just like last time. Until they throw in the towel and
    make it all free again, just like last time. This will be
    the most expensive industrial accident over there since
    giving Bill Kristol a column. Sulzberger's ancestors
    rolling over in their graves.
    HollywoodDog
  • Forget about it!

    I don't bother even following links that I recognize as being from the New York Times.

    Their time as passed, same as it did for Pravda.
    wkulecz
  • Nope. Nada. Nein.

    It was once a great paper. Now it's just another biased news source.
    Dorkyman
  • EPIC FAIL!!!

    What is it about newspapers??? They still don't
    get it... It's like they have mental
    retardation caused by greed... The business
    model for the internet has been explained to
    them time and time again... In the old world,
    they got to charge both the advertisers AND the
    readers... For them it was great and it made a
    lot of people filthy rich... But we are no
    longer in the dark ages of information... Now
    we reside in the information age of
    technology... Where twitter is several hours
    faster than the fastest television news
    media... Where circulation is measured by hits
    on a web page... Where the revenue stream comes
    solely from advertising... This is going to
    drive people away... And on the web, you drive
    them away, they tend to stay away... Less
    hits... less advertising clout... less money...
    no more NYT... Talk abut shooting yourself in
    the foot... Pure stupidity... Epic Fail...
    i8thecat
  • Deja vu

    The New York Times tried a similar model a few years ago and backed off because sufficient readers weren't paying to view. Thus, the advertisers weren't being seen, which wasn't good for NYT revenue. Whatever variation it's planning now will be as successful as the last one. I love the Times. It's my favorite paper online. But I missed it and learned to live without it then. I will do that again in 2011.
    prj0123@...