New York Times to ax premium online content, rival says

Note: This story was updated at 6:00 a.m. PDT to include a correction from a New York Times representative regarding TimesSelect subscriber figures cited by the New York Post.

Citing anonymous sources, the New York Post has reported that rival Manhattan paper The New York Times is planning to do away with TimesSelect, the subscription-only content on its NYTimes.com Web site. According to the article by Holly M. Sanders, the main obstacle at the moment is reconfiguring the site's software.

A Times representative told CNET News.com that the company isn't releasing any statement beyond: "We continue to evaluate the best approach for NYTimes.com." The representative did point out, however, that the Post had made an error: Sanders' article said that the number of TimesSelect subscribers had fallen from 224,000 in April to slightly over 221,000 in June. According to the Times, TimesSelect subscriber numbers have actually risen from 220,090 in April to 224,580 in June.

The demise of TimesSelect, which has been in operation since 2005 and puts archived content as well as popular opinion pieces behind a subscription wall, has been rumored for some time among New York media circles. Adding fuel to the fire is News Corp. mogul Rupert Murdoch. When speaking about his decision to purchase Wall Street Journal company Dow Jones, he suggested that the Journal might free up its own premium content.

New-media pundits have typically been very critical of TimesSelect, considering it a disadvantage for the legendary publication to be locking up so much content, particularly opinion pieces by well-known writers. "By cutting stars like Tom Friedman and Frank Rich off from the rest of the Internet," Peter Kafka of the Silicon Alley Insider commented in July, "the Times has diminished its (and their) influence--and helped create room for upstarts like The Huffington Post to step in."

Currently, TimesSelect subscribers pay $7.95 per month, or $49.95 per year, for access to op-ed columnists, archives dating back to 1851, extra multimedia features, and occasional access to the Sunday paper's articles before they are made available for free or in print.

[thammerlund]

Really?

I can only hope this is true. I stopped reading nytimes.com when they took away the editorials.

[baygbm]

It's about time

I read times every day online, and I?ve been waiting for the demise of TimesSelect. I used to read the restricted content before it was limited to paid subscribers. Once it became restricted, I simply looked elsehwere.

When/if it is freely available I will read it again. The one I miss most is Maureen Dowd; Tom Friedman has lost credibility with me.

[ewsachse]

Good or bad?

Tom Friedman was the fool who said that the US would be out of Iraq in six months. That was several years ago (2003), and he kept repeating the same "six months" mantra over and over. This lead to the term "Friedman Unit". Anyone who pays the NY Times to read that nonsense is a fool, but maybe if more people read it for free then more people would criticize the NY Times for employing such incompetent columnists.

[devbost]

Everything you said is true...

...but look at the bright side: Paul Krugman will once again be available for free. That's certainly worth rejoicing over.

[enovikoff]

Best News Analysis Online

I read a tremendous variety of news content online and the Times has the best analysis and commentary that I've found. I can tell because it actually stimulates new ideas in *my* head and opens my mind to different ways of seeing things.

Sure, the Times has pundits that make mistakes and the whole paper has made terrible mistakes, especially complicity with the Bush propaganda machine prior to and after the Iraq War (watch nauseating footage about how the media sold the truth out on "Bill Moyers' Journal", replaying this week, covered at http://www.pbs.org/moyers/journal/btw/watch.html)

However, despite its many failings, it still caters to a thinking audience and has deeply analytic articles. I welcome the return of its hidden content to the web.

The question is, how does a newspaper make money on the web ?

[tsi26]

Ummmm...

How the F*** does Google make any money off the web? Hmmmm...let me think. It must be because they are a publicly traded company and they are bilking their investors. Yeah...that's the ticket!

[thriftyT]

What the Times SHOULD do...

The Times Select concept was a case of shooting oneself in the foot (in exchange for $45!).

It's a good move to free up the content.

Now let's talk about the paper itself. That the NYT stubbornly holds on to the newspaper format and refuses to go to a tabloid format is beyond me. They could increase their daily circulation easily by 50 - 100K a day simply by moving to a tabloid format.

The roadblocks to implementing this may be technical and logistical. I certainly hope it's not some irrational fear of becoming just another tabloid.

And don't get me started on an e-book/podcast strategy. They should be a purveyor of subsidized e-readers just like cell phone carriers subsidize cell phones. The Times is perhaps the only paper in the US with the scale to even attempt such an undertaking.

[tsilverl]

NY Times Premium Content

It's odd that this article doesn't mention that existing NY Times
newspaper subscribers receive free access to the premium content.
We read the daily news, features and Op-Ed pieces online and
enjoy the Sunday NY Times with our coffee and danish. No better
way to spend a Sunday morning... Also, your headline implies that
the content will go away - I suspect that only the designation as
"Premium" will be removed, leaving everything else intact and
available in some form. Why the fuzzy headline?