New York Times to launch paywall March 28; reveals pricing

The New York Times has revealed the terms and pricing for its paywall, to be erected (two months late) on March 28.

People will be able to access up to 20 stories a month free (but will have to register to read them).

To read beyond 20, it will cost (all $US):

• $15 per month for access to the website and a mobile phone app (available in RIM BlackBerry, Apple iPhone and Google Android versions)
• $20 per month for website access and an iPad app
• $35 per month website, mobile phone and iPad access

The paper's "top news" section will remain free on all mobile phone and tablet editions; other sections will be paywalled.

Print subscribers will be able to access the various digital editions free.

Social media sidesteps paywall
Intriguingly, people will be able to circumvent the 20-article limit if they get to a story via a Facebook or Twitter link but there will be "a five-article limit a day for people who visit the site from Google."

Second time around
This will be the New York Times' second stab at paid content. Its first – which put a wall around columnists – fell over in a screaming heap (as did various attempts to mimick it, including one by the NZ Herald).

The new 20-stories-free approach mimicks that of Murdoch's The Times in the UK. 

In November, News Corp claimed 105,000 people had paid to visit The Times since its paywall was erected in July (Times readers can pay £1 a day for a 24 hour pass, which includes the web but not mobile versions of the paper, or £1 a day for 30 days then £2 a week, which covers both web and mobile editions).

By ComScore's count, the number of unique visitors to The Times nose-dived from 2.15 million to 1.46 million between July and October. Pundits were split on whether subscriber revenue would outweigh the fall in ad reveue associated with the traffic decline (NBR's Nielsen numbers have increased since its paywall was erected, if you're curious. See below).

Cash crunch
The New York Times claims 30 million online readers.

As with the UK's Guardian, the rise of its online edition has led not just to the reassertion of the paper's domestic influence but also made it a global brand. You could make the case that it's become the journal of record for the entire English speaking world.

The bad news is, of course, that the Times' website is afflicted by the same phenomena as every other traditional publisher; as has been well canvassed, online ads yield a fraction the revenue of print.

A run of bad financial results culminated in its parent company's decision to borrow $US250 million from Mexican mogul Carlos Slim (recently named the planet's richest man by Forbes) at a 14% interest rate.

The Times is looking to diversify revenue by charging for content.

The question now: will extra money from paywall subscriptions be enough to outweigh any ad revenue lost if traffic falls?

Will it work?
As a working journalist, your correspondent would like to see the Times' paywall work.

But I don't think it will. There are simply too many good alternative sources of general news.

Perhaps, in this respect, new media is not so different from old media; people will pay for unique, specialised, or (yes) expensable content, but mass media market brands may be better off focusing on a mass audience free content/ad-funded model.

How NBR is faring
Publisher Barry Colman this week revealed that Fonterra has become NBR Online's latest corporate subscriber. 

Fonterra's 16,000-strong payroll includes 2500 executives who earn more than $100,000. The company joins more than 20 other major corporate, universities and government departments whose staff have access to NBR Online paid content.

The dairy giant's addition comes on top of individual executive subscribers who are joining at a rate of 280 per month.

The subscriber growth comes in the wake of record user numbers, Mr Colman said.

Since January 24, NBR Online's unique New Zealand users have averaged 40,098 a week and domestic page impressions 173,311 by Nielsen's independent measure.

In the six months leading up to the launch of the NBR Online's paywall in July 2009, the free site averaged 26,895 domestic unique browsers a week and 135,806 impressions.

How the AFR is faring
On February 11, Fairfax revealed the Australian Financial Review's paid online subscriber figure for the first time.

The publisher said AFR.com.au - whose paywall was launched in 2002 - now has 6711 subscribers.

Unlike the Wall Street Journal and some other paid business websites, the AFR has kept its online subscription pricing steep (or, as it would put it, exclusive).

A subscription to AFR.com.au costs $A44 a month ($A528 a year) if you're also a print subscriber, or $A109 a month ($A1308 a year) if you're online-only (which reminds your correspondent that he must file his expenses; yes, that is one advantage that business sites enjoy in the race for online revenue).

AFR.com.au had a rocky launch, with the site very slow to load and user-hostile. But a slick makeover by French company Methode (also responsible for The Wall Street Journal's latest look) seems to have done the trick. Fairfax said AFR had 53% growth over the past year, implying 4400 paid subscribers this time last year.

How the FT is faring 
Pearson's annual report, released in November, had threads of digital news throughout – including the juicy morsel that the Financial Times's paid online subscriptions increased more than 50% over the past year to pass the 180,000 mark (in total, the FT has around 500,000 subscribers, many of them overseas).

For people outside of the UK, FT.com subscribers are charged (in $US) $25.99 per month or $38.99 per month for a "premium" paid account that adds serveral columns, plus access to a cuttings service.

How the Wall Street Journal is faring
The Journal hasn't put out an update on paid subscriber numbers for some time. At the time of Murdoch's takeover, they were put at one million.

While the AFR and the FT charge premium prices for online content, the Journal is by comparison cheap as chips at $US119 per year.

The paper has tried to gee up revenue recently by charging extra per week for Amazon Kindle, Apple iPad, iPhone and BlackBerry and editions, which cost up to $US17.99 per month.

Will mainstream New Zealand papers take a punt?
Will any general publications follow the lead of NBR and Consumer.org.nz and make readers pay for some content?

As noted above, an early Herald attempt fell over.

Your correspondent finds it difficult to see either APN or Fairfax charging for mainstream news content.

Across the Tasman, the Sydney Morning Herald has started charging for its iPad app ($2.59 for one month or $13.99 for six months).

That's a smart move; the generation raised on free web content is, equally, habituated to paying for mobile content.

The Herald's Jeremy Rees recently told me that his paper's iPad app had been downloaded more than 32,000 times.

A Mercedes ad, which used to load at start-up, has now expired. Before it expired, Mr Rees said paid content would be considered if an equivalent campaign was not renewed. Currently, however, there are no plans to charge for the app.