
Well, it’s finally official. As announced on Wednesday, the New York Times will begin charging users for access to its content in 2011. The king of all New York newspapers said that it won’t charge for ALL access, but instead will allow users to access a certain number of its online articles for free. Only once a user exceeds that limit in a month will it ask them to begin paying for access. And of course, those who subscribe to the Times in print will continue to have unlimited free access to online articles.
So basically, it’s a totally reasonable imposition and it should help the Times bolster its finances with more than just ad revenue.
And it comes as no surprise, given the fact that they’ve been rather publicly mulling the idea for some time now. Not to mention, just about every news source either has considered, is still considering, or will consider following suit.
It’s just the nature of the beast for publishing these days, and we’ve discussed it here before. With costs staying equal in a wintry economic climate, users increasingly getting their content exclusively online, and declining ad revenues, publishers across the country have been searching for a way to keep themselves profitable.
Frankly, we’ve been pretty spoiled to get all of our news content online at no charge for so long. And asking users only to pay for access to content above a certain volume is actually a pretty good deal for us all (though the Times hasn’t said how many articles users will be able to access for free). They could’ve taken Rupert Murdoch’s rumored approach and charged for access to all of its online content – it certainly would have the power to do that without any serious drop off, anyway.
But what’s good for them is good for us. The Times needs to continue to bring in the dough via its online advertising, which necessitates a good amount of traffic in order to keep prices competitive. So while having access to some online content for free is a concession to readers, it’s also almost vital for them to maintain and grow their ad revenue stream.
Regardless, the Times says this is not just an attempt to bring in more revenue. They’re actually saying that this is them “betting on the future of the web,” as well. And as far as I’m concerned, given the current state of affairs, it seems about right. Whether things will change drastically enough to make this model archaic before it even exists, remains to be seen.