NY Times Online Tries To Lose Relevance: Will Charge For Opinion Pieces

from the well,-there-goes-that-idea dept

Back in January, the New York Times admitted it was thinking about charging for its online content. While plenty of people explained why this would be a very bad idea, putting it in the company of the Wall Street Journal, who is losing its relevance with many influencers, it appears the folks at the Times didn't get the message. While they're not locking up everything, they admitted today that op-ed pieces and columnists will all go behind a paid wall starting this fall. It will cost you $50/year after that if you want to know what the NY Times thinks you should think. While some people will pay it, this seems like a bad idea all around. It will make the NY Times' thought leaders much less relevant, much less discussed... and much less valuable.


Reader Comments (rss)

(Flattened / Threaded)

  1.  
    identicon
    dorpus, May 16th, 2005 @ 11:40am

    Oh Good

    I didn't like their opinionated leftist trash anyway.

     

    reply to this | link to this | view in thread ]

  2.  
    identicon
    Rajesh, May 16th, 2005 @ 11:48am

    Re: Oh Good

    That settles it - I hate their opinionated right wing crap anyway.

     

    reply to this | link to this | view in thread ]

  3.  
    identicon
    Kurt, May 16th, 2005 @ 12:03pm

    Opinion

    Seems odd to me that they would be locking up the one thing the WSJ still leaves free through their opinionjournal.com site.

     

    reply to this | link to this | view in thread ]

  4.  
    identicon
    Anonymous Coward, May 16th, 2005 @ 12:45pm

    No Subject Given

    you have elevated penenberg's assertion (not proof) that WSJ is "in danger of becoming irrelevant" to fact in your blurb, Mike.

    That is a dangerous journalistic tendency. rethink this.

     

    reply to this | link to this | view in thread ]

  5.  
    identicon
    Precision Blogger, May 16th, 2005 @ 2:18pm

    WHat is the NY Times' REAL problem?

    It's obvious that the NYT is taking a gamble here that has a good chance of failing. If the NYT is taking a gamble with one of their best aspects, they may be trying to solve a serious problem. Could there be something really bad about their current online $$ model?

    - The Precision Blogger
    http://precision-blogging.blogspot.com

     

    reply to this | link to this | view in thread ]

  6.  
    icon
    Mike (profile), May 16th, 2005 @ 3:24pm

    Re: No Subject Given

    you have elevated penenberg's assertion (not proof) that WSJ is "in danger of becoming irrelevant" to fact in your blurb, Mike.

    No, we're pretty clear that it's an opinion. However, we believe it's an accurate one, and supported by lots of data, including new measurements of discussion online.

    From everything we've seen, we believe that the WSJ is taking the wrong path, now being followed by the NY Times. It risks taking them *out* of the conversation at the very moment when being a part of the conversation is going to be the most important element of a media play.

     

    reply to this | link to this | view in thread ]

  7.  
    identicon
    Anonymous Coward, May 16th, 2005 @ 7:40pm

    Re: No Subject Given

    "....the Wall Street Journal, who is losing its relevance with many influencers."

    where did I miss the "opinion" part?

     

    reply to this | link to this | view in thread ]

  8.  
    identicon
    Anonymous Coward, May 16th, 2005 @ 7:49pm

    No Subject Given

    for those who don't want to read the journal, you can podcast it -- in fact, you could podcast it before podcasting was termed. their print is #2 newspaper in the country, they pioneered paid content among big newspapers and made it stick, they pioneered audio, and they are expanding to a weekend edition for better leverage of barrons. Of course people are attacking them: they're great.

     

    reply to this | link to this | view in thread ]

  9.  
    icon
    Mike (profile), May 16th, 2005 @ 8:04pm

    Re: No Subject Given

    If you read through the links, it points to many influencers who are no longer reading or discussing the Journal. That's what we said. Which part isn't accurate? If you haven't figured it out yet, just about everything we write here is our opinion and our analysis... But, that one seems to be supported pretty clearly. Multiple people, who are clearly considered "influencers" have said they no longer read the Journal because it can't be discussed. Stats that look at how people online talk about news sites show that few link to the Journal.

    We've made it clear that it is our belief that the future of news is in the ability to share the news, and the fact that the Journal has made this more difficult is a problem for them.

    Which part is confusing to you?

     

    reply to this | link to this | view in thread ]

  10.  
    identicon
    jojo, May 17th, 2005 @ 1:09am

    WSJ / NYT

    The only reason the WSJ subscriptions are so big is because it is de rigueur for companies, particularly those involved in the financial or tech world to subscribe to this rag. Go into most companies main offices and you'll find a copy sitting on the welcome desk. But you won't see many copies anywhere else. People mostly subscribe to it for looks (and it's a tax deductible item anyways).

    If the NYT starts charging for content, then I agree, they will join the WSJ in the ranks of the irrelevant and online readers will move onto other sources. There's still the Washington Post, the LA Times, probably a whole host of other quality papers in the USA that I am not familiar with. And don't forget the rest of the world out there either.

     

    reply to this | link to this | view in thread ]

  11.  
    identicon
    Fazookus, May 17th, 2005 @ 5:03am

    Subscription announcement

    The Times doesn't seem real proud of their new subscription service... it was announced in the Technology section of NY Times Online, pretty well hidden from people reading it for the Op/Ed section.
    They are doomed... doomed. Until the rest of the papers do the same thing, then WE are doomed.

     

    reply to this | link to this | view in thread ]

  12.  
    identicon
    Bobdog, May 17th, 2005 @ 8:52am

    NYT Pay-perview

    I'd pay $50.00 a year to NOT hear from the likes of Maureen Dowd, Frank Rich, and the rest of the arrogant elitists at the Times.

     

    reply to this | link to this | view in thread ]

  13.  
    identicon
    Anonymous Coward, May 17th, 2005 @ 12:23pm

    Re: NYT Pay-perview

    I can arrange that. Send you check to

    Me
    555 Greedy Lane
    NY, NY 55555

    For $100/yr, I can stop you from hearing from me, too.

     

    reply to this | link to this | view in thread ]

  14.  

    http://www.bonus-internet-casinos.info

    George stared at Biff who stared back angrily online casinos (hesitantly) What year is this .

     

    reply to this | link to this | view in thread ]


Add Your Comment

Have a Techdirt Account? Sign in now. Want one? Register here
Get Techdirt’s Daily Email
Save me a cookie
  • Note: A CRLF will be replaced by a break tag (<br>), all other allowable HTML will remain intact
  • Allowed HTML Tags: <b> <i> <a> <em> <br> <strong> <blockquote> <hr> <tt>
Follow Techdirt
A word from our sponsors...
Essential Reading
Techdirt Reading List
Techdirt Insider Chat
A word from our sponsors...
Recent Stories
A word from our sponsors...

Close

Email This