Reply
Tue 18 Sep, 2007 08:35 am
'NYT' To End Pay Policy on Web Site -- Notes New 'Landscape'
By E&P Staff
Published: September 17, 2007 7:20 PM ET
It had been rumored for weeks, but became official tonight with the posting on an article on The New York Times online site: The paper is ending its practice of walling off part of its offerings in a pay channel, TimesSelect.
The shift to fully free will become effective at midnight Tuesday night. The Times online archives will also go free.
The article said this is "reflecting a growing view in the industry that subscription fees cannot outweigh the potential ad revenue from increased traffic on a free site."
Questioned recently about this, a Times spokeswoman told E&P's Joe Strupp only that the company was always looking for ways to improve its site and its traffic.
The article relates: "The move comes two years to the day after The Times began the subscription program, TimesSelect, which has charged $49.95 a year, or $7.95 a month, for online access to its columnists' work and to the newspaper's archives. TimesSelect has been free to print subscribers to The Times, and to some students and educators....
"The newspaper said the TimesSelect project had met expectations, drawing 227,000 paying subscribers ?- out of 787,000 over all ?- and generating about $10 million a year in revenue. 'But our projections for growth on that paid subscriber base were low, compared to the growth of online advertising,' said Vivian L. Schiller, senior vice president and general manager of the site, NYTimes.com.
"When the project was being designed, 'it was a time when it was all about people coming to our brand because they're typing in NYTimes.com,' she said. 'What wasn't anticipated was the explosion in how much of our traffic would be generated by Google, by Yahoo and some others.'"
Speculation has held that such a move might have been sparked by Rupert Murdoch musing that he might make the The Wall Street Journal site go free.
Late Monday, the Times carried a Letter to Readers on its site. It follows.
*
Effective Sept. 19, we are ending TimesSelect. All of our online readers will now be able to read Times columnists, access our archives back to 1987 and enjoy many other TimesSelect features that have been added over the last two years - free.
If you are a paying TimesSelect subscriber, you will receive a prorated refund. We will send you an e-mail on Wednesday, Sept. 19 with full details.
Why the change?
Since we launched TimesSelect in 2005, the online landscape has altered significantly. Readers increasingly find news through search, as well as through social networks, blogs and other online sources. In light of this shift, we believe offering unfettered access to New York Times reporting and analysis best serves the interest of our readers, our brand and the long-term vitality of our journalism. We encourage everyone to read our news and opinion - as well as share it, link to it and comment on it.
We welcome all online readers to enjoy the popular and powerful voices that have defined Times commentary - Maureen Dowd, Thomas L. Friedman, Frank Rich, Gail Collins, Paul Krugman, David Brooks, Bob Herbert and Nicholas D. Kristof. And we invite them to become acquainted with our exclusive online journalism - columns by Stanley Fish, Maira Kalman, Dick Cavett and Judith Warner; the Opinionator blog; and guest forums by scientists, musicians and soldiers on the frontlines in Iraq. All this will now reach a broader audience in the United States and around the world.
This month we mark the 156th anniversary of the first issue of The New York Times. Our long, distinguished history is rooted in a commitment to innovation, experimentation and constant change. All three themes were plainly evident in the skillful execution of TimesSelect; they will be on full display as NYTimes.com becomes entirely open.
Sincerely,
Vivian Schiller
Senior Vice President & General Manager
NYTimes.com
Good!
I'm a subscriber so I've gotten TimesSelect free (as in, this won't change anything for me), but I think this is the right thing to do.
I just hope they don't delete your "saved articles" directory. I've used mine extensively.
I'm glad. I always thought it was an iffy move for them, an odd move regarding spread of "illumination" and discussion, and, as a non-subscriber and a non-TS fee payer, I was routinely annoyed by not being able to read the selected pieces.
... on the other hand, from travelling to America and looking at the quality of other news outlets, especially the "fair and balanced" ones, I've come away with a very strong conviction that quality reporting is worth paying for. (We Germans, too, have our conservative/commercial junk media, but it's not quite as bad here -- yet.) The paper NYT is not an option for me, so I was glad for this opportunity to support them. Oh well, maybe I'll subscribe to an NPR member station instead ....
Part of the population that would appreciated reading the selected items cannot easily afford, or afford at all, the fee, even if they think the material "worth it".
Sure. I'm not blaming you for liking it that their content is free again.
Re: AT LAST! 'NYT' To End Pay Policy re Columnists on Web Si
BumbleBeeBoogie wrote:"The newspaper said the TimesSelect project had met expectations, drawing 227,000 paying subscribers ?- out of 787,000 over all ?- and generating about $10 million a year in revenue.
I find this statement confusing. Are they trying to say that only 787,000 people have read the NYTimes on-line over the last 2 years? I'd find that hard to believe.
Maybe they mean that there are 787,000 people that have created accounts on the NYTimes WWW site but I'd find even that hard to believe. All of us that were former Abuzz members had NYTimes accounts.
I'll have to go see if I can find any traffic count numbers but I'd be surprised if the NYTimes gets less than a million unique hits daily.
Re: AT LAST! 'NYT' To End Pay Policy re Columnists on Web Si
fishin wrote:BumbleBeeBoogie wrote:"The newspaper said the TimesSelect project had met expectations, drawing 227,000 paying subscribers ?- out of 787,000 over all ?- and generating about $10 million a year in revenue.
I find this statement confusing. Are they trying to say that only 787,000 people have read the NYTimes on-line over the last 2 years? I'd find that hard to believe.
The way I parse the statement, they had 560,000 paying subscribers before they introduced Times Select. Now, thanks to Times Select, they have 787,000 -- 227,000 more.
fishin wrote: I'll have to go see if I can find any traffic count numbers but I'd be surprised if the NYTimes gets less than a million unique hits daily.
Remember you don't want the hits to the free content. You want the hits to the area
behind the gate at which you have to pay for access. 787,000 unique visitors to the gated part of the site sounds reasonable to me.
Interesting!
Quote:EXCLUSIVE: Traffic Report on Top 30 Web Sites for July
By E&P Staff
Published: August 19, 2007 2:35 PM ET
NEW YORK The New York Times again tops newspaper Web sites in terms of traffic for July, according to the latest data from Nielsen//Net Ratings. Compared to June, NYT.com's unique audience rose to 14,149,000 from 12,535,000. All the papers that made the top five slots in July experienced growth in traffic when compared to June data.
http://www.editorandpublisher.com/eandp/news/article_display.jsp?vnu_content_id=1003627048
14 million unique visitors per day. That 787,000 number bugs me for some reason.
Re: AT LAST! 'NYT' To End Pay Policy re Columnists on Web Si
Thomas wrote:fishin wrote:BumbleBeeBoogie wrote:"The newspaper said the TimesSelect project had met expectations, drawing 227,000 paying subscribers ?- out of 787,000 over all ?- and generating about $10 million a year in revenue.
I find this statement confusing. Are they trying to say that only 787,000 people have read the NYTimes on-line over the last 2 years? I'd find that hard to believe.
The way I parse the statement, they had 560,000 paying subscribers before they introduced Times Select. Now, thanks to Times Select, they have 787,000 -- 227,000 more.
Ah! Ok, that makes more sense. :wink:
Those 14 million includes visitors to the free part of the site though. It doesn't surprise me if that's 20 times more than the number of visitors to the gated parted. If A2K charged $10/month from its members, I can easily see membership fall by a factor of 20. (Even a factor 100, if you think of all our members who barely post.)
Stumble It!
Tweet This
Bookmark on Delicious
Share on Facebook
Share on MySpace