New York Times Ends Its Paid Subscription Service

Mike writes "The New York Times has announced that it will end its paid Internet service in favor of making most of its Web site available for free. The hope is that this move will attract more readers and higher advertising revenue. 'The longer-term problem for publishers like the Times is that they must find ways to present content online rather than just transferring stories and pictures from the newspaper. Most U.S. news Web sites offer their contents for free, supporting themselves by selling advertising. One exception is The Wall Street Journal which runs a subscription-based Web site. TimesSelect generated about $10 million in revenue a year. Schiller declined to project how much higher the online growth rate would be without charging visitors.'"

Great!

Now we can actually read all those articles that are lined from Slashdot!

Re:Great!

***Now we can actually read all those articles that are lined from Slashdot!***

You could have anyway. Registgration is free, and if you get your back up about that, it'll take you about five minutes with Google to find a publically posted login and password that will work.

What's more important maybe is it sounds like they have opened up the archives. Maybe now if you want to find out about how good a job Donald Rumsfeld did in his first term as Defense Secretary in the Ford administration or want to track down details on CDCs suite against IBM, you can do so without spending a fortune.

Of yeah, and now I think we can read the columnists. that's a mixed blessing for sure, but Krugman's economic views are widely respected and it's annoying to have to wait for someone to break copyright and post them elsewhere.

Re:Great!

According to TFA the archives from 1987-Present and 1851-1922 (public domain) are going to be free.

Registration-free article

You can get the article here [nytimes.com].

Hope they open the archives

If they opened up the archives, their website would instantly become *A LOT* more useful.

Re:Hope they open the archives

If they opened up the archives, their website would instantly become...

...slashdotted!

Re:Hope they open the archives

If they opened up the archives, their website would instantly become *A LOT* more useful.

There are such things as libraries, though. The San Francisco Public Library, for one, offers access to a complete online newspaper archive that includes the New York Times in addition to many other papers. The deal is, you have to punch in your library card number to access it. After that, though, you can read, save, and print all those articles that the Times purportedly keeps under lock and key.

The fact that most people don't even know this makes me fearful for the future of libraries.

Re:Hope they open the archives

The fact that most people don't even know this makes me fearful for the future of libraries.

Of course, the fact that most internet users don't live in the US and so can't walk into a a US Public Library to access the New York Times archives may also help make the online archive useful ;-)

Re:Hope they open the archives

I love libraries with all my heart and soul. I live near the wonderful Harold Washington Library and I still get happy inside by just walking through their doors. Libraries are living laboratories of socialism in the belly of the profit-driven beast.

You and I must be polar opposites. I actively refuse to step foot in a library anymore and haven't been in one in over 15 years. My wife still goes to them to check out books on various things, but the few times she's tried to get me to go I've stopped at the front door and turned away and sat in the car. There's just something that feels illegal about letting people borrow books, CDs, and DVDs for free. If I do that I'd get arrested, but a library can do it under the protection of the police like some kind of organized crime racket? Fuck that. I'm probably one of the only people in the country that went through college refusing to buy used books too since I felt they were screwing the publishers by reselling the books. When I did a research paper on anything I'd just buy my reference material from Amazon.com or the book store instead.

Just what any good American would do:

Just out of interest, what did you do with them when you'd finished with them?

Burn them, of course. Purely as a precautionary measure -- it makes sure that nobody can steal those poor publisher's IP when you're not around to defend it.

Re:

Just out of interest, what did you do with them when you'd finished with them?

If he was smart, he'd have burned them in the library parking lot.

That would show them!!!!!

Re:Hope they open the archives

He says that libraries are proof that government can work and you label him a socialist. Well done, Mr. Carlson!

Re:

(though one wonders if you were so well read, how would you become a socialist...)

Orwell was pretty well read too, and he was a socialist to his dying day.

Re:

And even without socialism, there would be nothing to stop individuals from banding together and starting non profit book loan programs.

I disagree. I think individuals who tried to start a non-profit book loan program would find themselves buried in law

Re:

There are such things as libraries, though. The San Francisco Public Library, for one, offers access to a complete online newspaper archive that includes the New York Times in addition to many other papers. The deal is, you have to punch in your library card number to access it. After that, though, you can read, save, and print all those articles that the Times purportedly keeps under lock and key.

The fact that most people don't even know this makes me fearful for the future of libraries.

There are also such things as underfunded back-woods county libraries that don't offer this level of access. Yeah, I know. My fault for living where I do, but the rent's cheap. The point is: by opening up their archives to the internet their content ca

Re:Hope they open the archives

"If they opened up the archives, their website would instantly become *A LOT* more useful."

Sigh. But not to this crowd, who can't be bothered with reading beyond the headlines. From the FA:

Starting on Wednesday, access to the archives will be available for free back to 1987, and as well as stories before 1923, which are in the public domain, Schiller said.

Link to the NYTimes article.

In addition to opening the entire site to all readers, The Times will also make available its archives from 1987 to the present without charge, as well as those from 1851 to 1922, which are in the public domain. There will be charges for some material from the period 1923 to 1986, and some will be free.

http://www.nytimes.com/2007/09/18/business/media/18times.html?_r=1&hp&oref=slogin [nytimes.com]

Thank God

I used to read the Times Editorial page once, twice, sometimes three times a week. Until Times Select. Then it was, "Krugman? Friedman? Who?" Putting the content behind that wall made the Times' columnists practically irrelevant. For better or worse, the Times has some of the most talked-about columnists in the country, and their importance evaporated almost instantly when the unwashed masses (me) could no longer read them. I, for one, am more than happy to look at a picture of a car or a book or whatever a few times a week if it means (in some small way) invigorating the national conversation.

Re:Thank God

Then it was, "Krugman? Friedman? Who?"

Thankfully Friedman has been available on Youtube. [youtube.com]

Re:

[The Times' columnists'] importance evaporated almost instantly when the unwashed masses (me) could no longer read them.

So, now that the unwashed masses again will have access, will their importance, erm, un-evaporate?

I think there's a good chance of that,

And...

I'm happy to filter a picture of a car or book with Adblock for the same.

Ugh, the "national conversation"

I guess the phrase "national conversation" is enjoying a bit of life. I'll have no part of it. I think of national teenagers wielding national cellphones and sending national text messages to each other with their national thumbs.

From NY to London, how I missed the Op-Ed Page!

I left America several years ago to live in London and one of the few things I miss was the straight to the point of dull news from the New York Times and their thought-provoking columnists. Putting a third of the paper - and the most unique elements of the paper - behind a paid wall seemed to be a one-way ticket to irrelevance. I can read wire stories for free anywhere, but the editorial and op-ed pages really do influence the American national discourse - keep them open-access for all to read, discuss (or completely dismiss and ignore).

Re:

For better or worse, the Times has some of the most talked-about columnists in the country, and their importance evaporated almost instantly when the unwashed masses (me) could no longer read them.

I think you might be onto something.

The WSJ seems to be doi

Re:

I subscribed so I could read Dowd. There is no one as catty who pulls if off as well. To me, Jeb Bush had little to do with the election of 2000. Dowd and the brown suit stuff she wrote were the most important factor. Friedman's warmongering has been v

First, Open the archives...

It costs you nothing. You'll increase your ad generated revenue on people wanting to revisit this today's date one year ago.

Second thing is allow commenting on stories, but then you'll be flamed by the readers.

Heaven forbid the old gray lady figure out why people don't read her pages any more. We've been trying to clue her in for years now.

Re:

It costs you nothing.

Because bandwidth and server maintenance are free.

Too late the damage has already been done

Putting your most influential op-ed writers behind a pay wall is a sure way to make their voices irrelevant in the Internet age.

Re:

Putting your most influential op-ed writers behind a pay wall is a sure way to make their voices irrelevant in the Internet age.

Yeah, really... people sure ignored the hell out of The World is Flat. It was so irrelevant that Friedman's put out, what ..

Re:

Yeah, really... people sure ignored the hell out of The World is Flat. It was so irrelevant that Friedman's put out, what ... three different editions so far?

Well, to be fair, the OP's point could be restated that the "pay wall" did nothing to increase the

Re:

Yeah, but if I really wanted to read Thomas Friedman's writing, I could skip the middle man and go straight to the press releases of companies like Tata and Wipro. That is pretty much what he regurgitates. The man has the critical thinking skills of a fi

Good news everyone!

Where do I sign up to read the announcement?

Crossword?

The question is whether they're going to free the crosswords. Not to shortz the rest of the paper... but that's what everyone really cares about.

Times Reader

Unfortunately their innovative Times Reader [nytimes.com] appears to be pay-only as of yet.

One would think that there are two sure-proof things NY Times could do to secure large audience for their advertisers.

1. Their image as a respect newspaper, not just NY, not just US, but world-wide. Their journalists are respected, and their content verified, their analysis intelligent.

2. Better presentation than the average site.

Well, Times Reader is that point 2. If they gave me the reader for free, I'll most likely to there for my shot of news and editorials, since it's simply better than browsing a web site.

And hence, the NY Times won't have to compete with the other blogs and sites as much as if they remained free only in-browser.

cya bugmenot

... In other news, the use of bugmenot has drop by ninety-eight percent, and the owners of that website can now be found at West 23rd and Broadway bumming for change.

Bugmenot is dead... long live Adblock Plus

I found funny that one tag is bugmenotwins... unfortunately (or fortunately, depending on your POV), I am sure the NYT will be a bit disappointing by the differences in the stream revenue after doing this. I believe that the people that would pay for readi

OK, but its nice to have the option

Personally I like to have the option to pay for no ads. As I do on slashdot (mind you the slashdot cost is very low).

Although these days there is less point paying for a single publication/site. NYTimes seems good, but as a non-citizen it was never enough to pay for...

Re:

Personally I like to have the option to pay for no ads.

Doing that may or may not be a good idea for an ad-driven business like the NY Times.

On the one hand, they might make more money.
On the other... they would have less eyeballs to offer their advertisers, which means less money.

If there isn't a big differen

Worthy of Turning Off My Adblocker

I do not believe all information on the internet is supposed to be free (in terms of price). Wayyy back in the 90's before the internet was mainstream I had a paid subscription to NY Times, even though they were 2-3 times more expensive than my local paper, because I felt the quality was so much greater and was willing to pay for that quality. The newspaper still had ads from revenue back then, but I still had to pay for it and was willing to do so.

Fast forward to today and I still believe that - the news quality of a NY Times piece is still premium quality, but the difference now is that the news is 100% paid for by advertisers. My conscience is making me turn off my browser's adblocker plugin when I go to NY Times's website now.

Re:

Why not go all the way and just arrange for a lobotomy operation?

Newspapers had an advertising model for umpteen ye

Then along comes the internet and they say "subscription model!"

scratches head

From article:
The Times will also make available its archives from 1987 to the present without charge

Times Reader, Archives, Ad Free

Just wanted to reply to some people:

1). "The archives should be free"
The archives for the last 20 years are now free. Those over 60 years (public archive) are also free. The ones between 20 to 60 years ago are the only ones you get charged for.

2). "I'd pay extra for ads free/The TimesReader should be free"
The TimesReader is still a charge for service, but it contains no ads. This is probably why it isn't free. The big problem is that it is "Windows Only", so Linux and Mac users can't use it. (Yes, I know you can run a Windows emulator, but that's not the point!).

About a decade ago, the idea of paying for your webpage with ads and actually make money seemed silly. "That would never happen." "IIt was a dot.com pipedream". Now, as the New York Times discovered, subscription services are simply not as profitable as ad supported websites. TimesSelect made money, but not as much as if the content was free. Plus, now that it is free, Google searches are more likely to include New York Times articles.

Any bets when the Wall Street Journal will drop its subscription service?

Soon!

http://today.msnbc.msn.com/id/20214963 [msn.com]

Um...why?

"The longer-term problem for publishers like the Times is that they must find ways to present content online rather than just transferring stories and pictures from the newspaper."

Why?

For chrissakes, no matter what you think of the paper as a journalistic entity, nor what you think of its editorial decisions, nor what you think of its columnists, it really is the newspaper of record for the United States.

They have an extraordinary breadth of content. Why can't they just "copy stories and pictures from the newspaper"? If anyone in the media business would be able to generate bulk traffic (read: advertising $$) from sheer content without any particular bells and whistles, it would be the website that simply mirrors the staggering amount of content from the NYT.

Add to that a searchable archive of the NYT going back to the beginning, and I frankly can't think of a single media outlet in the world that could match it for comprehensive historical information on daily events pertinent to the United States.

Huge content, daily updates, impeccable credentials - yeah, who'd imagine THAT could draw significant pageviews?

Re:

Huge content, daily updates, impeccable credentials - yeah, who'd imagine THAT could draw significant pageviews?

I can't wait to ready all that high quality work from Jayson Blair.

Re:

Funny that the Fox types constantly trot out the NYT as an example of left-wing bias in the media...

Re:

It means that more people will read their insidious shit. They ridiculed all of us who challenged the 2004 election results. They've been championing the war on Iraq since before its inception. They're cheerleading right now for war on Iran.

And don't eve

Re:

I'd agree that The New York Times tries to appear to be left wing, and on inconsequential matters it may succeed, but mongering for war the last time I checked was definitely not a liberal persuasion.

It isn't just the constant news coverage citing "unnamed

Re:If you're against the war this is very bad news

Only in the USA, where centrism and moderate liberalism are routinely labelled "left-wing", could the New York Times be considered "left-wing". It suits the interests of the corporate media and the political goals of right-wing commentators to re-define terms of political alignment in this way.

The New York Times is indeed right-wing, and Fox News even more so. There are no mainstream left-wing newspapers in the USA anymore.

Re:

If the NYT is left, what exactly are their left-wing policies? They support wars in the middle east, they support Israeli violence, they're huge Bush supporters, what exactly do they say that could be considered left wing by anyone other than Mussolini?