“Sign Up Here! “ “Pay Us Now”
No, I haven’t “signed up” to get unlimited, online access to The New York Times, to the tune of $200 a year.
My reasons, in no particular order:
â€¢Double-dipping. I’m not privy to The Times’ business model, but as a long-time reader, it certainly appears two-pronged: 1) sell more — and more intrusive — online ads; 2) get formerly non-paying readers (such as myself) to pony up.
I’d be more inclined to go along with #2 if they toned down #1 (and no, I don’t feel the same obligation towards the for-profit Times that I do towards, say . . . PBS).
â€¢Disingenuous, heavy-handed spiel. “Sign up here!” sounds more like choir tryouts (ala “Glee”) than what it really is: ‘take out your credit card and give us $200 or stare at this blacked-out computer screen.’
â€¢“20 x 2” (or 3 or 4): Before you reach the aforementioned screen, the Times allows you 20 free articles per month. Multiply that by 2 if you can access the Internet at work (I can), or 3 if you have a smart phone with a big, reading-friendly screen.
That’s 60 free articles a month before the meter gets turned on.
And that’s not even taking account of third-party sites (like RealClearMarkets.com) which reproduce various NYT articles and Op-ed pieces.
â€¢No time. Busy Realtors with clients waiting for them probably shouldn’t be reading more than 60 NYT articles a month, anyways.
â€¢I’m cheap. There! I said it.
Will The Times’ new “subscribers only” policy stick?
It depends on whether the loss in eyeballs — and concomitant drop in online ad revenues — more than offsets the additional revenue generated by subscriptions.