In a recently distributed survey, the New York Times is proposing a $5 monthly fee for non-print subscribers, and a $2.50 fee for subscribers. For those unaware, nytimes.com did have certain content behind a pay-wall a few years ago. However, the newspaper site removed that fee and currently, a majority of the content is available at no cost.
This proposed fee will not work for a couple of reasons:
- Competition: People go to nytimes.com to read news. If they have to pay for viewing news articles, there is enough high-quality competition that offers the same content at no cost. Sites likes CNN.com and the Associated Press make it easy to ignore a pay-only site.
- Traffic: nytimes.com already receives less traffic than it’s competitor, CNN.com. Introducing a pay-wall will nearly drive away 50% of it’s traffic (and that’s being generous.)
- Paying twice: People hate paying twice for the same content. The proposed fee of $2.50, although minimal, is still an insult to current subscribers.
Making money:
Advertising is limited. More and more sites are depending on advertising to generate revenue. However, at some point, the amount of available advertising is going to decrease, along with rate cards. One option is to sell market reports. As a news organization, the New York Times has a lot of information. Why not use this information in a formal manner? These reports sell for thousands of dollars and have managed to sustain quite a few companies.
