Times Select
Among other items I would have blogged about this week, if my stream of patter hadn't been interrupted with technical problems, was the introduction of the New York Times "Times Select." Otherwise known as yet another attempt by newspapers to start charging for what they have been giving us for free for nearly ten years.
I was slightly annoyed on Wednesday to discover that I could not read Maureen Dowd's weekly column; nor was Frank Rich's Sunday column available. I stewed about it for the better part of the day.
No doubt these newspapers have regretted ever making their news available for free on-line, and editors have been looking for ways to renege on the unspoken agreement between consumer and publisher that whatever is available in print will be available for free on-line. I can understand that it costs money, lots of money in fact, to maintain a "free" on-line newspaper. However, as a consumer I always find it irksome to find I have to pay for something I am used to having for free. It's almost like a bait and switch: the Times hooks you with their great opinion columns, then says, "Not so fast. You gotta pay us fifty bucks a year if you want to continue reading."
But my point is, I see both sides.
I signed up for the fourteen day trial after much inner wrangling. I haven't decided whether to let myself be billed for the year subscription. I can cancel anytime within the fourteen day period.
What do you folks think? Is it worth paying? Is there somewhere else I can find these columnists? Is anyone else signing up for this service?
Another worry is that all of the free, on-line news sources are anxiously watching the Times with little lines of drool dribbling down their chin. If the Times discovers that people will pay for this service, will the Washington Post and other newspapers follow suit? I don't want to indirectly contribute to the consumerization of news and information on the Internet.
I was slightly annoyed on Wednesday to discover that I could not read Maureen Dowd's weekly column; nor was Frank Rich's Sunday column available. I stewed about it for the better part of the day.
No doubt these newspapers have regretted ever making their news available for free on-line, and editors have been looking for ways to renege on the unspoken agreement between consumer and publisher that whatever is available in print will be available for free on-line. I can understand that it costs money, lots of money in fact, to maintain a "free" on-line newspaper. However, as a consumer I always find it irksome to find I have to pay for something I am used to having for free. It's almost like a bait and switch: the Times hooks you with their great opinion columns, then says, "Not so fast. You gotta pay us fifty bucks a year if you want to continue reading."
But my point is, I see both sides.
I signed up for the fourteen day trial after much inner wrangling. I haven't decided whether to let myself be billed for the year subscription. I can cancel anytime within the fourteen day period.
What do you folks think? Is it worth paying? Is there somewhere else I can find these columnists? Is anyone else signing up for this service?
Another worry is that all of the free, on-line news sources are anxiously watching the Times with little lines of drool dribbling down their chin. If the Times discovers that people will pay for this service, will the Washington Post and other newspapers follow suit? I don't want to indirectly contribute to the consumerization of news and information on the Internet.
posted by Matthew @ 9/23/2005 08:50:00 AM
6 Comments:
At 9/23/2005 09:23:00 AM,
proservative said…
I would vote for a non payment. You are simply encouraging the times to deny information as you already imply. I'm not worried, really, about this though. If the NY Times falls behind, someone else will step in as the free news source--hopefully a more radical news source.
At 9/23/2005 02:32:00 PM,
Scrivener said…
I don't know what's the best response. My guess is that the NYTimes' charging for access to the editorials will drive down their traffic considerably, and as aresult cut into the ad revenue they generate on their site. But I guess someone over there must have considered that and decided it was worth it.
I'm at least waiting to see if people don't regularly reprint the editorials somewhere else. I will sorely miss reading Krugman and some of the others.
At 9/23/2005 08:13:00 PM,
Mel B. said…
It's an interesting, complicated debate, one that gets newspapers either all greedy or high and mighty. I could get all windy here....
I prefer the approach of being a tightwad and not paying. I doubt there's anything that I wanted to read so badly that I would pay for it. At this time.
It's hard to say where sites with a paper equivalent will eventually go.
There's the argument that more people are choosing to get their stuff online, sounding the eventual deathknell of the print publication.
If that's the case, journalists need to get paid somehow.
I've read about one scheme (no idea where) that suggests that people would pay tiny amounts for a single article.
There's the thought of integrating, so if you have an online wallet, you would probably have access to everything. It'd be no more different than deciding whether you wanted to pay for coffee today, I suppose.
I think the more interesting thing to think about is that eventually, paper publications will die. We'll all have the equivalents of electronic newspapers or something. And you'll still have to pay somehow. If you don't pay, you'll pay through being subjected to advertising. When it comes to that, I'd rather pay.
But for now, embrace being a cheapskate. You have plenty of free options, even if they're not the options you want.
At 9/24/2005 08:00:00 PM,
Matthew said…
I can't make up my mind. On the one hand, I see the perspective that I should not encourage more news sources to charge for information. On the other hand, I buy print newspapers occasionally and I think nothing of paying for my news in that format. I pay for cable TV, which includes news. Why should on-line news be free? And fifty dollars a year isn't very much, and it does include access to the Times archives. That could be a plus.
On the other hand, is it worth it to pay fifty dollars a year to read a few opinion columns and occasionally access an old article from the Times archives? I don't know.
At 9/25/2005 10:27:00 AM,
Zesmerelda said…
You only have to look at the Wall Street Journal to see how walled gardens are hurting that paper. People don't link to the paper because of the paid archive, so traffic to the paper's online site drops. The Times is in for a world of hurt if they stay with this strategy.
A better idea I've heard floated about is to make the archives completely open and have something like a Google keyword ad campaign be a companion piece. They could make money from click-throughs. It's a much more progressive idea and keeps the traffic to the site high.
At 9/26/2005 07:33:00 AM,
Matthew said…
I hadn't thought of the Wall STreet Journal, but you're right. As an on-line news source, it is less than useless. No one bothers even going to the website, except maybe subscribers. I've already decided I'm going to cancel the subscription to Times Select before my fourteen days are up on October 4th. It just isn't worth it, and the potential negative effects of encouraging such behavior are far worse than the payoff of being able to read Maureen Dowd every Wednesday. Maybe if no one signs up for the service, the Times will be forced to do a CNN and abandon the pay-for-play features of their site.
Post a Comment
<< Home