For some time my opinion of the New York Times has been slipping. It has not slipped as far as my opinion of CNN, of course, but it has. The NYT is still my homepage, and I usually start my day reading the front page and columnists. And now the NYT is getting on the subscription bandwagon, charging fifty bucks a year to have access to the Op-Eds and other columnists, multimedia items, and archive access. I read about this yesterday, but explored a little further today.
With the Times new policy, regular subscribers get automatic access. Casual readers of the home page can still catch the headlines. And I have no strong objection to charging a subscription to access the archives, which are less often used and thus have a higher maintenance expense to utility ratio. Why are the Op-Eds somehow different? What's the calculation here? That Op-Eds are a luxury good? That they are more expensive to produce? Or that the readers of the Op-Eds constitute a market that will bear the cost?
The cost out here in the heartland, where the New York Times does not provide home delivery and thus the automatic subscription, is fifty bucks to read Friedman, Krugman, Dowd, Herbert and Brooks. The NYT must have done some analysis that convinced them that they won't lose enough readers to matter. I'm not sure. The cost to the NYT will be removing their writers from the daily reading of people, both directly and via the vast chatterfest that is the blogosphere. The Op-Eds are among the most popular articles (check out the "most frequently read, resent box on the lower right of the homepage). I'm sure that has convinced someone to exploit that popularity with a subscription charge. Of course, the subscription will remove the very thing that makes those article rank so high: the ability to pass them on (unless everyone signs up).
Newspapers must have revenue to continue. They also must maintain their relevance to people's lives as they seek information on national debates. The NYT's new subscription seem a strange way to achieve either goal. And I do believe I will change my homepage to the Washington Post.
UPDATE: Looks like I'm not the only one. Edward at ObWi took the time to writ the NYT.
Posted by binky at September 13, 2005 11:15 AM | TrackBack | Posted to MediaThey announced this policy several months ago, which is why I stopped writing blog posts about Friedman, Brooks and any of the rest. If they aren't going to let me read/blog about them, I'm not going to write about them.
I wonder many they'll lose?
Posted by: baltar at September 13, 2005 12:00 PM | PERMALINKSomehow I missed it. I only saw the link on the homepage in the last couple of days. As always, you have a better eye for detail than I.
Posted by: binky at September 13, 2005 12:02 PM | PERMALINK