The Times unveiled its digital subscription plans, listing $15 a month as the least expensive package for readers interested in getting full online and mobile content, starting March 28. But is this metered pay system, where you get to read 20 articles a month free before being asked to fork over money, a smart path for the Times to take?
In an interview with a respected media columnist and consultant, it’s apparent U.S. newspapers are hunting for an additional revenue stream to stem the losses felt with the advertising decline. In 2010, ad sales at U.S. newspapers sank to a 25-year low.
“The New York Times has critical info certain people need,” says Alan D. Mutter, who writes on media trends for his blog Reflections of a Newsosaur and also pens a column for Editor & Publisher. “Academics, educators, government workers, intelligentsia, wealthy readers, they all turn to the Times.” That’s why, he says, charging for online content was inevitable for a storied franchise such as the Times.
“Publishers need to charge for online content, it’s that simple,” he notes. “But will it work? That remains to be seen.”
When news reached bloggers and Twitter users, many reacted with disappointment, wondering if this is newspapers’ final nail in the coffin, if the Times approached the online subscription plan with too heavy a hand. But Mutter points out casual readers won’t be affected by the payment plan; if you only read seven, eight articles a month on the Times site, you won’t be asked to pay. The heavy users will be getting the “please pay us now” message.
“All the studies I’ve seen conclude it doesn’t matter the price, heavy readers will pay for [their favourite site’s online content],” Mutter says. “The question becomes, does the customer see enough value in the content to shell out money for it.”
What may also be on the minds of media executives is worldwide is how Times’ ad inventory will look post-pay system. A pay fence, as some are calling the Times’ idea, may deter some readers and could result in decreased pageviews. Mutter points out that isn’t always the case; he recently wrote about a Georgia paper that built a metered pay system and actually saw traffic rise 5 percent in the three months since the $7/month subscription plans were initiated. He wrote about the Augusta Chronicle, “So long as the newspaper has enough page views to produce enough advertising inventory to satisfy demand, the subscription revenue would appear to be sufficient to support one to four additional bodies in the newsroom.”
Also making headlines is the Times’ announcement concerning social media: the Times “will allow access to people who visit through search engines like Google and social networking sites like Facebook and Twitter. There will, however, be a five-article limit a day for people who visit the site from Google.”
Mutter believes the Times will “flip some switches” to ditch that idea in the future. “They are doing this at first to monitor traffic granually,” he says, “because now people can come in through Google’s backdoor.” He says the Times may also want to profit off social media traffic.
An interesting sidebar to the Times’ news is its plan to let Canadians try out the 20-article limit first, starting today. Digital Journal tested that theory, registering and clicking on 20 articles. When we reached the limit, we received this message, saying we’ve accessed our last free article of the month:
But the system seems to be faulty. We were able to click on many articles after that message popped up in our browser. There didn’t seem to be any enforcement of the warning. We weren’t asked to pay after clicking on around 32 articles together within a five-minute span. Perhaps it was a wise move, as Mutter says, for the Times to test-drive its digital subscription plan on another country before rolling it out worldwide.
