New York Times 'close' to charging for website content

 A detailed report in New York magazine says The New York Times appears to be just weeks, or even days, away from announcing it will charge for access to its website.

According to New York (very broadly speaking, a Big Apple version of Metro, and not to be confused with the dryer New Yorker), the Times has been considering two paid content alternatives.

One is a mix of free and subscriber content, as per Rupert Murdoch’s The Wall Street Journal (or indeed NBR).

The other is to follow The Financial Times which offers “metered content”; that is, you get to read a number of stories for free before being asked to subscribe.

According to New York, the metered approach is favoured.

The magazine reckons that before the recession, the forces of free held sway at The New York Times.

With around 20 million unique browsers, it had become the paper of record for the English speaking world, putting it in the plumb position once online advertising finally matured.

But with online advertising stalling and falling during the meltdown, Times chairman Arthur Sulzberger Jr has, apparently, veered more toward those who believe the web will never generate significant ad revenue.

Five billion reasons
Certainly, some kind of fix is required.

Despite building one of the world’s most popular sites, the family-controlled, publicly-listed New York Times Company (NYSE: NYT) has seen its market cap slip from around $US7 billion in 2002 to under $US2 billion today.

A previous attempt at introducing paid content at the Times was tepid, throwing a wall around a handful of star columnists like Maureen Dowd (in the manner of the one-time NZ Herald experiment).

This time, paid content may return on an industrial scale.

Would it work? I doubt it. People will pay for content they think will help them make money (see some of the numbers and arguments around NBR’s paywall here). But mainstream news? Not happening. Back to the drawing board, Arthur.

Apple to the rescue. A little
Incidentally, New York speculates that Apple’s tablet, due to be unveiled next week, may tie in nicely with the Time’s paid content plan.

Apple is said to have been in talks with publishers all around the world about its tablet - including Fairfax. The spin is that this e-book/e-newspaper reader (no one knows what it is exactly yet) could save print media in the manner that iTunes has saved the music industry.

This argument overstates iTunes’ success. Although it’s been undeniably huge and successful for Apple, most surveys reckon all legal download services put together still account for less than 10% of the online music market.