I don’t know about you, but I am someone who likes to stay on top of things, especially the news. Whether it be what’s going on in Libya, the nuclear crisis in Japan, or how exactly Glenn Beck will now tell his outrageous, or at least controversial “truth” with his glasses on, off of Fox (yes, I got that from the Daily Show), it is almost a required responsibility for world class citizens such as ourselves to stay on top of the news and be informed.
I’m not going to lie though. Even though I want to know as much as possible about the who-what-where-when-why and how of today, I still don’t know as much as I should. My professor for the Peopling of NYC CHC seminar warned us last year that The New York Times would start making people pay to read their content online. Better get on that band wagon now and stay informed before you have to pay for it, he said. A lover of getting the biggest bang for my buck, I instantly began to peruse the website more than before, hoping and keeping an eye out that it would always be free.
I guess my luck, and every other New York Times reader’s luck ran out about a month ago.
On March 17, The New York Times announced that it would charge frequent users subscriptions for the news they were “accustomed to getting free”. (Accustomed, no. Entitled, yes. Especially for collegians who are to be the citizens of tomorrow. Shouldn’t we be able to learn without additional costs being tacked on? Another battle to be fought for another day, I suppose).
True, almost all, including myself, knew these charges would come sooner or later, and surprisingly, they came much later than rumored (I had originally heard that the prices would kick in at the start of 2011). Don’t get me wrong — I’m not saying at all that The New York Times must keep their online content free, and that it is morally wrong for it to be charging readers to use their services. It only seems logical that the paper would make daily, invested readers pay for the news that they read, and allow simple passersby to read articles here and there for free. It surely comes as no surprise that the paper was trying to find new revenue streams to keep business running. Compared to other papers, such as the The Times of London and the Sunday Times of London , which did not allow readers to read anything for free at first, the pay wall formula instituted by the New York Times is much more logical and sensible. Of course, having to pay for something you’ve always gotten for free is simply pain old annoying. End of story.
On a more thought provoking note, is The New York Times price wall scheme happening too soon? Or is the price scheme by America’s most popular online newspaper website just the first time that its been adopted by such a huge online presence, and hence a more noticeable change in generating revenue? According to National Public Radio The New York Times execs think the timing is perfect, “as people have been conditioned by tablets and smart phones to pay for access to content.” I am definitely not a member of this group, as I don’t have a smart phone or an iPad, but I must say, having to endure 30 additional seconds of ads on YouTube, and sometimes a whole extra minute on Hulu makes me want to whip my card out and order Hulu plus for ad free (and pain free) viewing pleasure. With that in mind, I don’t see why The New York Times can’t just bombard us with more ads.
Yes, it’s true, the paper did say that they were not happy with the revenue the ads were pulling in online; however, I truly do not think the paper is making prime use of its online real estate for ad revenues. I’m looking at the home page right now, and I see a lot of white space. What a waste. If Hulu can add an extra minute of commercials, YouTube commercials in places I didn’t even think possible, imdb.com advertisements slathered and screaming at you from all over the background, why can’t The New York Timesadopt the same measures, or come up with inventively timed pop-out videos and ads? If they feel tacking on advertisements upon advertisements would sully their good name, not to worry. You can make readers who are really annoyed with the format pay for unadulterated newspaper viewing and pleasure. If a person is on The New York Times website already, they most probably aren’t really too worried with ads flying all over, because they came to the website out of their own desire to truly read “all the news that fit to print” online in this one spot.
Realistically speaking, however, with such a huge newspaper like The New York Times introducing a revolutionary pricing scheme, what is the future of the Internet going to be like? What is the future of the news going to be like? Whatever the case may be, I think I’m just going to kick it for a little while, and read my twenty articles’ worth before I need to study for finals.
Great Article! Although, the New York Times has implemented this (incredibly annoying) pay wall, there are still many ways to circumvent your quota of 20 monthly articles. First of all, ANY links to New York Times articles from Facebook or Twitter do NOT count towards your 20 per month. In a world where many people get their news from Facebook walls and Twitter feeds, this is a wonderful thing the NY Times has kept. Links from Google or other search engines also do NOT count towards your monthly quota. Simply a Google search on “how to circumvent the NY Times pay wall” will give you many (working!) ways to do so. So while the New York Times has implemented this pay wall, for the well-informed, it is not that difficult to circumvent it. This pay wall, regardless of it is easy or not to break through, still poses many questions to the newspaper industry, as well as to journalism as a profession.
Thanks for the article. And thanks for the tip, Michael. I realized that you can also read the NYT through Google News. So, with that in mind, let’s all hope that the future is bright enough that the masses are not dissuaded from keeping informed because of this pay wall.