New York Times’ digital plan to launch first in Canada - attempting a new model

[alexmst]

Debra Black, Staff Reporter

The New York Times’ digital subscription plan will begin in Canada and then fan out across the world.

“Our digital subscription plan is a large undertaking for NYTimes.com, and we want to ensure as smooth as a transition as possible for our millions of readers,” said the company in its introduction of the plan.

“We are launching in Canada first, with just one subscription option, in order to fine-tune the customer experience before the global launch.”

Canadians will be able to subscribe to unlimited access to NYTimes.com and a Smartphone apps package, beginning today. Then on March 28, the Times will launch the service for the rest of the world.

The rate for unlimited access to the NYTimes.com plus a Smartphone app is $15 every four weeks; for access to the website and the Tablet app it’s $20 every four weeks; and for all three it’s $35 every four weeks.

“Today marks a significant transition for The New York Times as we introduce digital subscriptions,” writes publisher Arthur Ochs Sulzberger Jr. “Today we are rolling out digital subscriptions to our readers in Canada, which will enable us to fine-tune the customer experience before our global launch.”

For those who don’t subscribe, however, the website will still available on a limited basis. Readers will be allowed to look at 20 articles each month at no charge, including slide shows, videos and other features, according to Sulzberger Jr. After that, readers will be asked to become a digital subscriber with full access to the site.

On the Smartphone and tablet apps, the Top News section will remain free of charge, he said in a letter to readers explaining the digital subscription package.

New York Times home-delivery subscribers will receive free access to NYTimes.com and the content of the newspaper’s apps, he added.

Readers who come to Times articles through links from search engines, blogs or social media will be able to also read those articles even if they’ve reached their monthly reading limit, he said.

 

[Aardvark154]

There goes The New York Times internet presence down the drain!

The Times and The Philadelphia Inquirer, have already done this and I don't know of anyone who used to read them who still does.

 

[alexmst]

Another attempt by a major newspaper to bring in revenue amid fewer people reading physical newspapers.

The London Times tried a plan a while back. They wanted far too much IMHO. I read their online paper when it was free, but once it was expensive I switched to The Guardian, which had a comparable news coverage and was and is still free. What one misses is the columnists from the Times - the news content one can find elsewhere.

I can see papers needing to survive by charging fees. I thought a nominal fee of say $25 a year would be acceptable, but the problem is they fear if they do that people will switch from the hard copy editions which cost much more. NYT is asking $15 a month ($180 a year). I don't read the NYT, so I won't be paying it. It is far too much to charge IMHO.

The NYT has done a few things right - allowing non-subscribers to access 20 articles a month for free, and unlimited articles if they follow a link from another website to read an article. This ensures non-subscribers can check out the site and decide if they want to perhaps get hooked and subscribe. That was a good move IMO. Also, those who actually subscribe to the hard copy get free access to the online paper as well, which is good so the married can leave the hard copy at home for their SO to read while reading the detailed online edition at the office during a break from work/at slow times.

The newspaper business continues to evolve to survive in the digital world.

 

[alexmst]

There goes The New York Times internet presence down the drain!

The Times and The Philadelphia Inquirer, have already done this and I don't know of anyone who used to read them who still does.

Yes, I agree - I also know of no one who subscribed to The Times after it went fee-based, whereas before I knew several people who read The Times, including myself.

At least the NYT will allow 20 articles per month free, The Times didn't even allow that.

 

[5hummer]

I still think the NYT is a great paper.
But, now that it is partially owned by Murdoch's News Corp and Carlos Slim (Mexican Cartel) interest. I question it's integrity like any news info source.

The NYT used to be an amazing paper -- especially on Sundays (which was as thick as a phone book).

 

[r_s426]

These old economy companies just don't get it. You can download a great newsreader app for your smartphone/tablet and get many different perspectives on the same news event for free. Why pay an expensive monthly subscription for just one perspective?

I tried the Globe and Mail on my iPad for a while. They want $20 per month just so you can basically scan through a pdf copy of the Globe. You also can't share a subscription... so even though my wife and I can share the same paper copy of the Globe at home, we'd each need our own subscriptions to get a digital copy on our iPads. Meanwhile, if I'm on my iPad already, why not just surf to google news and get my info (including Globe and Mail top stories) for free?

 

[ducttape]

These old economy companies just don't get it. You can download a great newsreader app for your smartphone/tablet and get many different perspectives on the same news event for free. Why pay an expensive monthly subscription for just one perspective?

I tried the Globe and Mail on my iPad for a while. They want $20 per month just so you can basically scan through a pdf copy of the Globe. You also can't share a subscription... so even though my wife and I can share the same paper copy of the Globe at home, we'd each need our own subscriptions to get a digital copy on our iPads. Meanwhile, if I'm on my iPad already, why not just surf to google news and get my info (including Globe and Mail top stories) for free?

The Times (and the Globe, which basically copy-cats whatever the NYT does) wants to get subscribers back into a "walled garden" where content is accessed (and charged for) through a stand-alone application, rather than through an open platform like the web. Think AOL's business model back in the mid-to-late 1990s. That's why you won't see anything but complimentary press about the iPad in the major newspapers -- they've been sold a vision of "content control" by Steve Jobs, and they're doing their best to make it happen.