One of the most storied news dailies, The New York Times, has been talking about a pay wall for well over a year. Like most newspapers, times are tough, and to survive and thrive, new sources of revenue must be found. For obvious reasons, subscriptions are one of the most appealing potential revenue sources.

Yesterday, The New York Times finally pulled the trigger and announced that it will be launching a paid subscription model later this month.

The key components of this model are:

  • Monthly prices ranging from $15 to $35.
  • The ability to read 20 articles each month, and certain sections, for free without a subscription.
  • No limit on the ability to read articles freely (regardless of the above limit) for certain search and social media referrers.

The Good

Newspapers are hurting, and the Times is no exception. The business models of the past aren't the business models of the future. While it's still unclear which business models will win out, it seems likely that they'll have to include some form of paid content.

By launching a paid offering, the New York Times is at the very least trying to step into the future instead of burying its head in the sand and believing that the status quo is sustainable. This is a very important step for the newspaper.

The Bad

We live in a multichannel, multi-platform world, and consumers want to be able to access the content they've paid for when they want and where they want. Yet publishers have largely been reluctant to give them that flexibility.

In the case of the Times, access to content via and a mobile app is $15/month, access to content via and an iPad app is $20/month and an all-access plan is $35/month. Print subscribers get all of this included in their print subscription.

While there are a few economic reasons that can be cited for charging different amounts (Apple's cut of iPad subscriptions, for instance), there's little reason to believe that consumers are going to jump for joy at the structure the New York Times has established, which asks users to pony up more than $240/year above the base subscription price just to be able to access content in its most desirable format everywhere and anywhere.

The Ugly

From a reader perspective, the fact that content will remain freely accessible when coming through social media hubs (Facebook and Twitter?) is a great thing. Yet for the New York Times, it seems like a foolish approach.

After all, a significant number of consumers -- including those most hungry for news -- use these sites to share and discover content. Why not encourage them to become paying customers?

Essentially what the New York Times seems to be telegraphing is that it's not confident it can convert one of its most important sources of traffic -- social media. That's sort of like an online retailer giving away product for free to potential customers who come through search because it doesn't it think it can convert search traffic. Crazy!

Given that social media is already such an important source of traffic for newspapers and is only going to be driving an increasing amount of it going forward, the New York Times' unwillingness to even attempt to convert this traffic hints that it really doesn't believe it's solved one of its most vexing challenges: finding a way to convince consumers that it has content worth paying for.

Patricio Robles

Published 22 March, 2011 by Patricio Robles

Patricio Robles is a tech reporter at Econsultancy. Follow him on Twitter.

2641 more posts from this author

You might be interested in

Comments (3)


Daniel Vaudrin

How about a model that would have short snippet type articles available via social media, but have real in-depth articles available for pay. You might remember this, but there was a time when reporters were actually reporters, on the street and in the field that would report on what was really happening. Now, everyone knows that the majority of "reports" are simply accumulating press releases and other reports to print something.... Some people want to know the real truth, maybe there is money to be made there!

over 7 years ago

Alec Cochrane

Alec Cochrane, Head of Optimisation at Blue Latitude

Hey Patricio,

Alternatively, the social media plan could be genius. If the NYT have done some analysis of who shares their content and where they find it, it might turn out that those that share via social media also get via social media. If they cut off the free access via social media, it won't be shared any more and they'll lose visits and potentially links (thus increasing search traffic, which does convert).

Of course someone could anecdotally have come up with my theory without bothering to test it. In which case they could be about to fall flat on their face.

I'm also fairly certain that they are underestimating the intelligence of their users. 20 free articles will have to be done either through insisting on sign up (which will reduce the numbers seeing the articles) or through cookies (which people will circumvent by deleting them).


over 7 years ago

Ashley Friedlein

Ashley Friedlein, Founder, Econsultancy & President, Centaur Marketing at EconsultancyStaff

If you read the analysis of our own Twitter traffic (see you'll note that roughly 60% of our Twitter visitors are Returning Visitors and they generate 90% of the transactional e-commerce revenue we allocate to the Twitter channel.

Which is to say that if the NY Times allows access via social media, including Twitter, then they might just be allowing access to precisely those people with the highest propensity to pay in the first place?

over 7 years ago

Save or Cancel

Enjoying this article?

Get more just like this, delivered to your inbox.

Keep up to date with the latest analysis, inspiration and learning from the Econsultancy blog with our free Digital Pulse newsletter. You will receive a hand-picked digest of the latest and greatest articles, as well as snippets of new market data, best practice guides and trends research.