The Times they is a'chargin'

The New York Times decided that, come September, it will start charging for some of its online content. This twists the knickers of many a blogger, but makes me glad.

Recently the New York Times announced that it will start charging for some of its web content. While many people who write for the web are critical of the move, and feel that it will make it harder to link to source material on NYTimes.com, I think it's a great move. A major player in online content is sending the signal that they believe web content has significant value and is worth money to readers. The easy access to archives makes this a good deal for anyone who is serious about news tracking. And, under the fair use provisions of copyright law, subscribers can always liberally quote from articles and respond to them when they blog about Times articles, while still citing permanent URIs.

I'm a New Yorker, and I spend around $250 a year buying the Times on paper at the corner store. Both the paper and online editions of the paper are tax-deductible expenses for me. To me, as a steady consumer of the Times, this service looks like a full backup of the paper edition that will be available whenever I need it. I write this not to say “look at me!” but to point out that, while many have said that the Times is making a huge mistake, I'm ready to pay and have my wallet out. Obviously the Times has come to the conclusion that it's better business to find tens or hundreds of thousands of people like me than it is to give away ad-drenched content on the web. This runs contrary to the vision of the web that many people share, but the Times is part of a public company, and I would be very surprised if they hadn't considered many alternatives before deciding on the one that will best serve their shareholders. (When they announced the subscription plan, their share price rose slightly, which probably eased the pain caused by hundreds of critical bloggers.) For those who don't want to read news that was created by a corporation, and that will always remain freely available by its license, there's Wikinews.

Come September, when the service is slated to launch, the Times website will serve as both a publishing platform for those who want to read the news and as a service for those who want context. You have to pay for the service. 37Signals.com does something similar with their Basecamp online project-management tool, which has both free and for-pay versions, and it appears to be working for them. The Wall Street Journal has solid financials--it's an important part of Dow Jones--and they've been mostly off-limits to all but subscribers for years.

While I think the Times has made a good move, I think they could do three things to better serve the web as a whole:

One, they should do a better job of collating their stories into topic/summary pages, and keep these pages free. These pages would be Wikipedia-ish, or be in the form of timelines, and would link back to full articles. Having a large set of such pages, well-organized, would provide a valuable resource to the web as a whole and would keep the Times' Google rankings high. These pages would increase in value over time.

Two, going forward, they should provide substantive free abstracts of subscriber-only articles, not just an ad-hoc selection from the first paragraph. This would make links to an article have some value to everyone and help people decide whether they want to subscribe to read more. Right now their archive pages just serve as frustrating teasers. Every web page should have some immediate value to its reader.

Three, for the same reason, they should do away with the free registration process required before (in many cases) a page can be viewed. Registration pages have no value to the reader. The Times has decided to make a serious investment in serving its readers, for which it expects them to pay. They should carry that ethos into every part of their site. In the long run, I believe, this will help them build better relationships with prospective subscribers, and will leave them in a better position to promote their for-pay services to site visitors.

In the long run, I think it's better for everyone who seeks to make money from the web when major players like the Times diversify their sources of income. Look at the quality of premium cable TV over the last two decades, when compared to the quality of network TV over the same timespan, to see what happens to content when advertisers are the main source of cash. To some people, the announcement from the Times looks like a step backwards, but I think it's a necessary and useful step for the web as a whole. If the Times pulls this off, then perhaps smaller publishers, particularly those that are not very advertising-friendly, can learn from what the Times does and find their own ways to get money out of their readers--readers who will slowly become accustomed to paying for content they want. The web should serve the needs of its users, not the needs of a few hundred advertisers. If that ends up costing money, so be it; this medium is not inherently free.

.  .  .  .  .  

See also: Advertisement




Ftrain.com is the website of Paul Ford and his pseudonyms. It is showing its age. I'm rewriting the code but it's taking some time.


There is a Facebook group.


You will regret following me on Twitter here.


Enter your email address:

A TinyLetter Email Newsletter

About the author: I've been running this website from 1997. For a living I write stories and essays, program computers, edit things, and help people launch online publications. (LinkedIn). I wrote a novel. I was an editor at Harper's Magazine for five years; then I was a Contributing Editor; now I am a free agent. I was also on NPR's All Things Considered for a while. I still write for The Morning News, and some other places.

If you have any questions for me, I am very accessible by email. You can email me at ford@ftrain.com and ask me things and I will try to answer. Especially if you want to clarify something or write something critical. I am glad to clarify things so that you can disagree more effectively.


Syndicate: RSS1.0, RSS2.0
Links: RSS1.0, RSS2.0


© 1974-2011 Paul Ford


@20, by Paul Ford. Not any kind of eulogy, thanks. And no header image, either. (October 15)

Recent Offsite Work: Code and Prose. As a hobby I write. (January 14)

Rotary Dial. (August 21)

10 Timeframes. (June 20)

Facebook and Instagram: When Your Favorite App Sells Out. (April 10)

Why I Am Leaving the People of the Red Valley. (April 7)

Welcome to the Company. (September 21)

“Facebook and the Epiphanator: An End to Endings?”. Forgot to tell you about this. (July 20)

“The Age of Mechanical Reproduction”. An essay for TheMorningNews.org. (July 11)

Woods+. People call me a lot and say: What is this new thing? You're a nerd. Explain it immediately. (July 10)

Reading Tonight. Reading! (May 25)

Recorded Entertainment #2, by Paul Ford. (May 18)

Recorded Entertainment #1, by Paul Ford. (May 17)

Nanolaw with Daughter. Why privacy mattered. (May 16)

0h30m w/Photoshop, by Paul Ford. It's immediately clear to me now that I'm writing again that I need to come up with some new forms in order to have fun here—so that I can get a rhythm and know what I'm doing. One thing that works for me are time limits; pencils up, pencils down. So: Fridays, write for 30 minutes; edit for 20 minutes max; and go whip up some images if necessary, like the big crappy hand below that's all meaningful and evocative because it's retro and zoomed-in. Post it, and leave it alone. Can I do that every Friday? Yes! Will I? Maybe! But I crave that simple continuity. For today, for absolutely no reason other than that it came unbidden into my brain, the subject will be Photoshop. (Do we have a process? We have a process. It is 11:39 and...) (May 13)

That Shaggy Feeling. Soon, orphans. (May 12)

Antilunchism, by Paul Ford. Snack trams. (May 11)

Tickler File Forever, by Paul Ford. I'll have no one to blame but future me. (May 10)

Time's Inverted Index, by Paul Ford. (1) When robots write history we can get in trouble with our past selves. (2) Search-generated, "false" chrestomathies and the historical fallacy. (May 9)

Bantha Tracks. (May 5)

Tables of Contents