Comments on: 20 Smackers for a New York Times Kindle Subscription

By: Nike Takes Stance with Tiger Woods | The Fight Against Destructive Spin

Nike Takes Stance with Tiger Woods | The Fight Against Destructive Spin — Wed, 07 Jul 2010 17:01:16 +0000

[...] about Spirit Airlines charging $45 for a CARRY-ON bag (not checked luggage!!) and relate it back to Tuesday’s blog post about the New York Times charging for content. But then, whoa! I saw the new Nike ad which features [...]

By: driver download windows 7

driver download windows 7 — Tue, 18 May 2010 07:33:21 +0000

Wow! Thank you! I continually needed to write on my website something like that. Can I include a part of your post to my website?

By: jayjay

jayjay — Wed, 28 Apr 2010 13:20:15 +0000

The only reason they have the ‘large’ number off hits they have:
1. Google post about 20 percent of their news section from the New York Times. I really hate that.

2. See #1.

3. Most news engines use the NYT articles for the webfeeds. Drudge, MSN,etc. So, even if you hate this opinionated dribble like I do, you see it plastered everwhere.

By: Doug Davidoff

Doug Davidoff — Thu, 08 Apr 2010 00:28:57 +0000

Great conversation here – thanks for triggering it. Paige, as I said in our comments on my blog, sorry if my words came across harder than intended. I think your points (all of them) are quite good and are the prevailing opinion.

While I realize that the comments on this post by no means represent a statistically significant sample it’s exciting (for me at least) to see just how many people say “yes – I would pay for such content.” Maybe that means that professional journalism has a brighter future than most think – I certainly hope so.

By: R Kaye

R Kaye — Wed, 07 Apr 2010 15:05:38 +0000

With all the misinformation and disinformation on the Internet, news from a reliable site that provides insight is valuable. I’m willing to pay for it.

By: Amanda

Amanda — Wed, 07 Apr 2010 03:24:28 +0000

I would much rather pay $20 for a subscription than watch my favorite paper fold. This whole idea that we’re entitled to everything free on the internet is absurd. It’s ideal, sure. I’d love for everything to stay free seeing as I read a few different newspapers each day. But it’s not realistic. These newspapers need to survive, and it seems like the only way they can do this is to start charging for content. Could it backfire and fail? Absolutely. But I haven’t seen any other viable alternative yet. I don’t have any negative feelings towards them for charging.

By: Paige Worthy

Paige Worthy — Wed, 07 Apr 2010 02:17:10 +0000

In the “hindsight is 20/20″ category, I think what traditional media outlets like the Times will have to do is give people an incentive to pay for the content. If it’s just text and some small photos to click through…no way. You can barely hold my attention to the jump as it is — I’ll piece it together myself from other sources.
But if there’s video. Or audio extras. Or links to reporter blogs that enrich the content. Or something else that makes it worthwhile for me to be paying to see it? I would consider paying.
As a journalist, though, I honestly wonder how long publications like this will be around as we know them. Whether on paper or by e-reader.

By: Gini Dietrich

Gini Dietrich — Wed, 07 Apr 2010 01:54:25 +0000

I believe the traditional media MUST find a way to stay relevant in the online world in 2010 or they all will go by the wayside. The problem is that they’ve given away the content online for free for so long, it’s difficult to ask people to pay for it now. If they’d had an online subscription for 40% off their print subscriptions to begin with, I don’t think we’d be having this conversation. But hindsight is 20/20, right?

I would pay for content, if it’s something I really find valuable.

By: Morgan

Morgan — Tue, 06 Apr 2010 23:28:13 +0000

Paying $20 a year for an NYT online subscription wouldnt be outrageous. they have plenty of content i read on a daily basis instead of having to search 100 different sites and waste a bunch of time. If the content changed, that would be a different story. theyre called professional journalists because they get paid. its gotta happen somehow. plus, i love bittman.

By: nvartist

nvartist — Tue, 06 Apr 2010 21:58:21 +0000

The New York Times gave up “reporting” the news long ago. Therefore, it engages only in editorializing the news. I don’t want their opinion for free, let alone pay for it. If they go this route, I feel they will go by the wayside. The question really should be, how much will they pay me to read their “news.”