New York Times to ask Web readers to pay up in '11

Jan 20, 2010 By ANDREW VANACORE , AP Business Writer
In this July 22, 2008 file photo, traffic passes in front of The New York Times building in New York. The New York Times says it will charge readers for full access to its Web site starting in 2011, a risky move aimed at drawing more revenue online without driving away advertisers that want the biggest possible audience.(AP Photo/Mark Lennihan, file)

(AP) -- The New York Times plans to charge readers for full access to its Web site next year, reviving an idea that fizzled twice for the newspaper. This time it's betting that it will be able to wring more revenue from readers without crimping its Internet ad sales.

Under the plan outlined Wednesday, the Times will adopt a "metered" system that will allow readers to click on a certain number of stories for free each month before fees kick in. A metered system is designed to draw casual readers with free articles while getting fees from people who want to dig deeper on the site.

The fees won't be imposed until next year, giving Times executives more time to build the system and figure out the details that are likely to dictate whether the gamble pays off. The pivotal issues include determining how much to charge and how many stories will be free each month.

The only certainty for now is that subscribers to the printed version of the Times will still get unlimited free access to the Web site. That could help the Times sell more subscriptions to the printed newspaper among a portion of Internet readers who figure they may as well get the newspaper delivered to their home or office, too, as long as they have to pay to read everything online.

The newspaper also indicated it will meter the material it makes available on other online channels, such as through mobile phones, electronic readers and tablet computers. No further details were provided.

The metered approach has worked well for The Financial Times, a more specialized newspaper that caters to an upscale audience interested primarily in news about the stock market, the economy and businesses.

Some newspaper analysts and executives have questioned whether Internet fees make as much sense for more mainstream newspapers such as the Times, whose stories span many of the political, business, sports and cultural topics that are covered by other news outlets that don't charge for Web access.

That raises the chances that hordes of fee-averse readers will flock to free news sites, a scenario that could also drive away Internet advertisers interested in reaching the biggest possible audience. Any downturn in Internet advertising - one of newspapers' few areas of growth in recent years - could more than offset any benefit from reader fees.

The Internet currently generates between 10 percent and 15 percent of newspaper ad sales now, and the figure is expected to rise as more marketing budgets shift from print to the Web.

The Times could face an especially painful backlash because it has one of the largest newspaper followings on the Web, with 12.4 million visitors last month, according to the research firm comScore Inc. By comparison, The Washington Post's Web site attracted 9.2 million and USA Today drew 8.6 million.

Reflecting the stakes riding on its decision, the Times spent more than six months assessing the logic of charging for its Web site.

More newspaper publishers are likely to take the leap too, now that one of the world's best known newspapers has taken the plunge, said Greg Harmon, chief executive of Belden Interactive, which consults with publishers about Internet fees.

"This is like the industry is being given the permission to charge, almost like in a papal sense," Harmon said.

About 150 U.S. newspapers already have imposed Internet subscriptions, with fees ranging from as little as $1 per month to as much as $35 per month, based on a recent study conducted by ITZ/Belden Interactive.

The most successful so far has been The Wall Street Journal, which had an average of 407,000 electronic subscribers during the six-month period that ended Sept. 30. The Journal's Web site on Wednesday was offering online-only subscriptions at about $8 per month and print-only subscriptions at about $9 per month.

With a long history of award-winning reporting and commentary, the Times should be able to lure a substantial number of Internet subscribers, said newspaper analyst Mike Simonton of Fitch Ratings.

"It's a very unique franchise and it has a very loyal readership," he said.

The Times has a paid weekday circulation of about 928,000. Newspapers charging Internet fees so far have been able to get the equivalent of 2.4 percent of their print circulation to subscribe on the Web, based on ITZ/Belden Interactive's study of the 25 general-interest publications that have gained the most traction with online fees. The average fee among those newspapers is $8.14 per month.

However, the Times attracted just 4,000 subscribers when it first tried to charge for Internet access during the Web's infancy in 1996. Another experiment called Times Select took a more moderate approach, requiring a $50 annual subscription to read Times columnists. That effort drew 221,000 subscribers, but dented ad sales enough to convince the Times to scrap the product in 2007.

The Times learned a lot from its experience with online fees and is confident it has come up with a concept better suited to today's reading habits, said Bill Keller, the newspaper's executive editor.

"A key to the plan is its flexibility," Keller wrote in an e-mail. "We can calibrate the amount of free content you get before you get a pay message in order to avoid sharp drops in traffic and advertising."

The decision to try Internet fees again reflects the tough choices facing newspaper publishers as their sales of print ads plunge, depriving them of their main source of revenue.

Overall advertising revenue fell nearly 30 percent in the first nine months of 2009 for the Times Co.'s business unit that includes the Times, the International Herald Tribune and their Web sites. Internet advertising accounted for about 14 percent, or $123 million, or the division's revenue during that period.

To bring in more cash, the Times already has raised its print subscription rates. In an industry rarity, the Times took in slightly more money from its readers during last year's third quarter than from its advertisers. Traditionally 80 percent of newspaper revenue has come from advertising.

Now the Times is counting on its online readers to chip in. Times Co. CEO Janet Robinson said in a statement that the company wants "additional revenue diversity that will make us less susceptible to the inevitable economic cycles."

The Financial Times' metered system provides a glimpse at what the Times' online readers might see.

The London-based newspaper allows anyone to view one free article per month, and people who register on the site can get 10 free articles per month. Subscribers who pay $186 a year get access to most material on the site. A premium subscription for $299 comes with extra material. Or for $397 a year, FT subscribers can get the printed newspaper and read the Web site.

The newspaper has roughly 121,000 people who subscribe exclusively to its digital edition, up 22 percent from a year ago, according to Rob Grimshaw, managing director of FT.com. By comparison, the printed newspaper has about 400,000 subscribers.

He did not disclose specific figures on ad revenue, but he said the newspaper makes up for the loss of advertising volume by charging each advertiser more. It can get this premium, he said, because FT.com knows more than other online destinations about its users and their interests.

Explore further: US Congress decriminalizes cellphone unlocking

1.2 /5 (5 votes)
add to favorites email to friend print save as pdf

Related Stories

Newsday to charge online fees for non-subscribers

Oct 22, 2009

(AP) -- Newsday will start charging some readers $5 per week for access to its Web site beginning next Wednesday, a move many newspapers have been contemplating but few have yet to try for fear of driving readers away.

News Corp. plans fees for newspaper Web sites

Aug 06, 2009

(AP) -- Visitors to the Web sites of newspapers owned by News Corp. will have to start coughing up fees to read the news within the next year, Chairman Rupert Murdoch said.

Coming to mobile phones: Wall Street Journal fees

Sep 15, 2009

(AP) -- The Wall Street Journal plans to start charging as much as $2 a week to read its stories on BlackBerrys, iPhones and other mobile devices, expanding the newspaper's effort to become less dependent on its print edition.

Free articles get read but don't generate more citations

Jul 31, 2008

When academic articles are "open access" or free online, they get read more often, but they don't -- going against conventional wisdom -- get cited more often in academic literature, finds a new Cornell study.

Variety to begin charging for Web access Thursday

Dec 09, 2009

(AP) -- The Hollywood trade newspaper Variety is putting its Web site behind a "pay wall" starting Thursday. That means it will be reserving its online content for paid subscribers and hoping its advertisers stick around ...

Recommended for you

Scalping can raise ticket prices

1 hour ago

Scalping gets a bad rap. For years, artists and concert promoters have stigmatized ticket resale as a practice that unfairly hurts their own sales and forces fans to pay exorbitant prices for tickets to sold-out concerts. ...

Study shows role of media in sharing life events

Jul 24, 2014

To share is human. And the means to share personal news—good and bad—have exploded over the last decade, particularly social media and texting. But until now, all research about what is known as "social sharing," or the ...

User comments : 12

Adjust slider to filter visible comments by rank

Display comments: newest first

otto1923
5 / 5 (2) Jan 20, 2010
Good luck with that- i assume google news will still work and i can still pick another 20 news sources for each item- for free
SincerelyTwo
5 / 5 (2) Jan 20, 2010
NYTimes will fail.

Refuse to adapt to changing environment? Survival of the fittest is the only answer. You may have once been the best, but things do change over time. This move of yours will destroy you eventually. I'm sure you'll get plenty of subscriptions from hardcore followers, but they'll die out in time as well.

The critical failure in this move is the lack of realization that any information the NY Times could share will be known by social media groups in advance, or be available through the 'dark net' which has exponentially increasing exposure these days.
El_Nose
1 / 5 (1) Jan 20, 2010
well guys I agree -- even with otto -- but they still have a market for local news that is burough centric.

@Sincerely dark nets or the dark web -- is any source online that is not indexed because it is either propietary, or blocked by normal means of exposure. an example of this would be periodical sources that are indexed that universities allow acces to because they pay a subscription but would never be returned on a google search. -- There are a few engines that specialize in trying to keep these dark webs/nets indexed for the public but very few people know of htem or use them.
Shootist
Jan 20, 2010
This comment has been removed by a moderator.
jonnyboy
3 / 5 (2) Jan 20, 2010
This couldn't happen to a better (and by better I mean horrendous) newspaper (and by newspaper I mean rag). The bell strikes for thee, Times.
SincerelyTwo
not rated yet Jan 20, 2010
el_nose, thanks for the little introduction but sorry to inform you that you're a little bit mistaken. Each year (in last three years) the number of engines designed to expose dark net are coming online. Right now efforts even at Google are being made to design and discover ways of exposing most of the unindexed internet. You might only be able to think in terms of 'right now', but anyone even remotely aware and paying attention to the matter, and is capable of observing and recognizing trends, knows these things are eventually going to succeed. A large amount of these networks are being indexed now, which are already open to those who go out of their way to find them.

The definition of 'dark net' only applies to parts of the internet which *REMAIN hidden from engines, but proactive work is being done to expose it. There are plenty of dark net indexes which rely on explicit indexing methods opening dark net up.

The sun is rising, it'll be a beautiful afternoon soon. >:]
Shootist
1 / 5 (1) Jan 21, 2010
Main Stream Media Deathwatch® continues.
WithOneT
5 / 5 (1) Jan 21, 2010
NY Times will fail just as the pay-per-porn industry has died with all of the free porn on the web. You can't expect readers to pay for something that is easily found else where for free. It really paints quite a picture of just how out of touch the Times is. Why anyone would still get a newspaper at all frankly boggles my mind. I am 37 years old and i have never paid for a newspaper in my lifetime, and likely never will.
El_Nose
not rated yet Jan 21, 2010
@sincerely

You gave my comment a 1 in rank and then restated everything i said... if you are going to rank me a 1 and then give a retort at least make sure you are saying something different.

You're only glimmer of new information was that the larger search engines are trying to index these sources as well. This statement is to back up your statement that information available through 'dark net' has exponentially increasing exposure. Which by definition is not true, maybe sometime in the future when it become profitable to give indexed info for free... which is possible if you can bring in advertising dollars, the free tv paradigm. But seems unlikely as these sources are focused on content and pride themselves on the quality of their index, its exclusitivity, and accuracy which makes it a terrific refence.

Not flaming -- just if you give a 1 at least write something that doesn't agree with what you viewed as a one.
El_Nose
not rated yet Jan 21, 2010
Why pay for a newspaper...

Beacuse newpapers still have quality journalism. What I mean by that is some stories are not news... they are not an event that happened and you just want the details and they are not readily known. They come from journalists digging for monthes or even years on a topic or issue and bringing it to light. That does not happen with internet journalism.

The big stories come from a select few that work for monthes putting it together. The paper that publishes it first gets credit and then every other news organization out there jumps on board and give you the details the next day.

Investigative reporting is truely in its death throws because the medium that pays for it transitioned to late to the internet. But people who want good reporting and well thought out articles will always buy papers-- and the good papers will survive -- the Post, the Journal, the Tribune, and the Times -- because they still have excellent writers and journalists.
SincerelyTwo
not rated yet Jan 21, 2010
El_Nose,

I say exponential in the context of rate of progress and increase of efforts to design software and algorithms to crawl information previously unindexed. There's quite a lot of universities and new search companies popping up to address the fact that such a significant amount of the internet is unindexed. Considering current rates of progress, increased interest will have an accumulated affect on results, imo. I'm a bit of an infofreak, constantly seeking new sources of information to learn from, so I think my intuition on the matter isn't far off (based on at least my increased ease and ability to find the information I want).

The recent wolframalpha is pretty epic, maybe a little off topic...
ArtflDgr
1 / 5 (1) Jan 25, 2010
ha ha ho ho...
that was funny..

pay for proppaganda and useless informational advice that tends to blow up my life into a mess that favors the state? no way... duh

good bye and good riddance, they painted themselves into a corner of irrelevency, and delusion keeps them thinking that somehow we want irrelevenvy and pompous lies.

same goes for scientific american...
CWonPhysOrg
not rated yet Jan 25, 2010
Good luck with that NYT. News is just news, you don't have a corner on it. See ya, don't let the door hit ya in the butt.