Posts tagged with ‘paywall’

Thanks to Sandy, Bye-Bye Paywalls

…for now.

via Poynter:

New York Times spokesperson Eileen Murphy confirmed by email that the news organization is suspending its paywall starting this afternoon, so that readers can get information about Hurricane Sandy.

“The gateway has been removed from the entire site and all apps. The plan is to keep it that way until the weather emergency is over,” Murphy said.

With the paywall in place, only digital and/or print subscribers can read beyond 10 articles. The Times suspended its paywall last year when Hurricane Irene threatened New York.

According to its third quarter earnings report released this past week, the Times has about 566,000 digital subscribers to nytimes.com and the International Herald Tribune. But thousands more will be closely following the storm as severe weather typically brings traffic surges to news websites.

Wall Street Journal Digital Network Managing Editor Raju Narisetti tweeted Sunday afternoon that all of wsj.com would be freely available starting Monday. Other newspapers have made similar announcements: The Boston Globe tweets its storm coverage is available free on Boston.com; The Baltimore Sun is dropping its wall; Newsday is also making its content available for free

FJP: Stay safe all, and happy reading.

Mediapost: Paywalls Proliferate, But Digital Pros Won't Pay →

Dear Media Executives With Paywalls,

If your news organization did not pay freelancers and staff a fair rate for their work at any given time, you should at least give these people a lifetime, free subscription. No paywalls for alumni freelancers, contribs and staff. Everyday we’re hustlin’ hustlin’ hustlin’…

With love,

FJP

How to Get Around the New York Times Paywall, a 49 Second Tutorial

The one sentence summary: Go to the article you’d like to read and delete everything in the address bar from the question mark onward.

The NYT doesn’t have a paywall; it’s a line of sandbags

Will the paywall result in a single new reader coming to the New York Times? That seems unlikely at best. While it’s not impossible that someone might suddenly decide to pay for the paper despite not being a regular reader, it seems more likely that the people currently paying are die-hard NYT fans. And that’s great — although the comparison Salmon makes to a museum might cut a little close to home — but it’s hardly a forward-facing digital strategy, as I’ve argued in the past (and others have argued as well).

Read the whole article at GigaOm

Join the discussion, let us know what you think about the NYT paywall or just paywalls in general!  


The New York Times’ share of total page views to newspaper websites dropped by its largest margin in more than a year in April, the first full month that it had its paywall up. ComScore data shows that the NYT‘s share of newspaper website traffic was 10.6 percent last month, down from 13 percent in March and 13.5 percent in May 2010.

PaidContent had previously reported that Times execs saw the traffic drop-off as less severe than expected, bu it won’t be easy for The New York Times to put a positive spin on such a hasty decline. Lets consider the rapid succession of highly mediated events that have taken place since the wall went up: The Japan Earthquake, The Libyan Civil War, the near-shutdown of the federal government, the Royal Wedding, killer tornadoes in the South, and the death of Osama bin Laden, to name a few. 
Although the Japanese earthquake itself occurred on March 11, the nuclear crisis at the Fukushima-Daichi plant was still in a critical phase after one week. Irrespective of this single event, the number of natural disasters, international conflicts and other news making events have been boosting ratings of publishers such as CNN and Fox, as Mediaite reported.
As a non-subscriber to the Times, I constantly consider whether reading a new article on the site will put me over my month. For screaming headlines, and quick news bites, I instead go to The Huffington Post, one of many destinations I know will be carrying national and international news. 

The New York Times’ share of total page views to newspaper websites dropped by its largest margin in more than a year in April, the first full month that it had its paywall up. ComScore data shows that the NYT‘s share of newspaper website traffic was 10.6 percent last month, down from 13 percent in March and 13.5 percent in May 2010.

PaidContent had previously reported that Times execs saw the traffic drop-off as less severe than expected, bu it won’t be easy for The New York Times to put a positive spin on such a hasty decline. Lets consider the rapid succession of highly mediated events that have taken place since the wall went up: The Japan Earthquake, The Libyan Civil War, the near-shutdown of the federal government, the Royal Wedding, killer tornadoes in the South, and the death of Osama bin Laden, to name a few. 

Although the Japanese earthquake itself occurred on March 11, the nuclear crisis at the Fukushima-Daichi plant was still in a critical phase after one week. Irrespective of this single event, the number of natural disasters, international conflicts and other news making events have been boosting ratings of publishers such as CNN and Fox, as Mediaite reported.

As a non-subscriber to the Times, I constantly consider whether reading a new article on the site will put me over my month. For screaming headlines, and quick news bites, I instead go to The Huffington Post, one of many destinations I know will be carrying national and international news. 

What's Your Like Worth? →

The New Yorker has an idea. It wants to increase its Facebook fandom. Here’s their strategy: become a fan and they’ll give you access Jonathan Franzen‘s “Farther Away,” which currently sites behind a paywall.

“Our goal with this isn’t just to increase our fans,” says Alexa Cassanos, a spokeswoman for The New Yorker tells Mashable. “We want to engage with people who want to engage on a deeper level.”

We want a tote bag. Then again, we’re easy that way.

A Great Recap of the panel discussion titled “The Future of Media, Publishing, and Paid Content” at Columbia University’s Graduate School of Journalism →

On Tuesday night, New York Times publisher Arthur Sulzberger, Jr. and New York Times Company president and CEO Janet Robinson spoke at Columbia University’s Graduate School of Journalism in a panel discussion titled “The Future of Media, Publishing, and Paid Content.”

CJR article by Lauren Kirchner

People raised great questions about the NYT paywall.

The title was perhaps a bit too grand, as the discussion, not surprisingly, mainly focused on the Times’s new subscription strategy. (“Don’t call it a ‘paywall!’” moderator Bill Grueskin, Dean of Academic Affairs, kept reminding himself aloud throughout the conversation.)

The first questions were about how the Times staff went about structuring the digital subscription plan, and what kinds of factors went into its pricing. For instance, Bill Grueskin noted, some have wondered whether the relatively high price of online access is meant to encourage more readers to subscribe to home delivery, which would in turn bring the Times more print ad revenue from the increased circulation numbers.

Click here to read more.

It’s 2pm. Do You Know Where Your Paywall Is?
If you’re the New York Times, it should kicking in exactly right now.
For those who blast past the monthly limit of free articles and are feeling a little light in the wallet, might we recommend following @FreeNYT’s Firehose list?
The list aggregates the Twitter streams of various NYT writers and departments. Since the company’s current policy is that social media links to their content will not count against the monthly meter, you can read away for free.
Want to see to see the list laid out more like a newspaper? Try viewing it on Paper.li.
Image Source: ClikServ.

It’s 2pm. Do You Know Where Your Paywall Is?

If you’re the New York Times, it should kicking in exactly right now.

For those who blast past the monthly limit of free articles and are feeling a little light in the wallet, might we recommend following @FreeNYT’s Firehose list?

The list aggregates the Twitter streams of various NYT writers and departments. Since the company’s current policy is that social media links to their content will not count against the monthly meter, you can read away for free.

Want to see to see the list laid out more like a newspaper? Try viewing it on Paper.li.

Image Source: ClikServ.

Digital subscriptions visualized 

Digital subscriptions visualized 

A wholly unscientific view of the New York Time’s paywall that will launch later this month.
Information comes from Felix Salmons' commentary in Wired, and an earlier news article from Bloomberg.  
First things first: we’re a bit gobsmacked that it cost $40-50 million to implement this solution. Yes, there are a lot of moving parts, and yes, they’ve spent over a year planning this move… but $40-50 million?
Second, total digital advertising revenue runs north of $300 million. This relies on the New York Times’ 33 million unique monthly visitors. The meter the Times has established is to prevent those uniques from dropping. Like all implementations before it, it’s a nice thought but uniques will fall.
So the goal here is to increase subscription revenue faster than advertising revenue decreases. 
Third, Here’s where Salmons’ number crunching gets interesting (emphasis ours):

[H]ow much revenue will the paywall bring in? A very large number of the paper’s most loyal readers are already print subscribers, and get access to the website at no extra cost. So the new revenues from the paywall will only come from people who read the website a lot but who don’t subscribe in print.
How many of those people are there? Emily Bell reckons that the number of people who’ll even hit the paywall in the first place is only about 5% of the NYT’s 33 million or so unique visitors. That’s 1.6 million people — compare the 1.3 million people who already subscribe to the paper on Sundays. The former is not a perfect superset of the latter, of course, but there’s a big overlap; let’s say that realistically the NYT is going after a universe of no more than 800,000 people that it’s going to ask to subscribe. And let’s be generous and say that 15% of them do so, paying an average of $200 per year apiece. That’s extra revenues of $24 million per year.
$24 million is a minuscule amount for the New York Times company as a whole; it’s dwarfed not only by total revenues but even by those total digital advertising revenues of more than $300 million a year.

The race begins March 28.

A wholly unscientific view of the New York Time’s paywall that will launch later this month.

Information comes from Felix Salmons' commentary in Wired, and an earlier news article from Bloomberg.  

First things first: we’re a bit gobsmacked that it cost $40-50 million to implement this solution. Yes, there are a lot of moving parts, and yes, they’ve spent over a year planning this move… but $40-50 million?

Second, total digital advertising revenue runs north of $300 million. This relies on the New York Times’ 33 million unique monthly visitors. The meter the Times has established is to prevent those uniques from dropping. Like all implementations before it, it’s a nice thought but uniques will fall.

So the goal here is to increase subscription revenue faster than advertising revenue decreases. 

Third, Here’s where Salmons’ number crunching gets interesting (emphasis ours):

[H]ow much revenue will the paywall bring in? A very large number of the paper’s most loyal readers are already print subscribers, and get access to the website at no extra cost. So the new revenues from the paywall will only come from people who read the website a lot but who don’t subscribe in print.

How many of those people are there? Emily Bell reckons that the number of people who’ll even hit the paywall in the first place is only about 5% of the NYT’s 33 million or so unique visitors. That’s 1.6 million people — compare the 1.3 million people who already subscribe to the paper on Sundays. The former is not a perfect superset of the latter, of course, but there’s a big overlap; let’s say that realistically the NYT is going after a universe of no more than 800,000 people that it’s going to ask to subscribe. And let’s be generous and say that 15% of them do so, paying an average of $200 per year apiece. That’s extra revenues of $24 million per year.

$24 million is a minuscule amount for the New York Times company as a whole; it’s dwarfed not only by total revenues but even by those total digital advertising revenues of more than $300 million a year.

The race begins March 28.