As the popularity of online journalism has increased in recent years, many news outlets have adjusted their approaches accordingly. In the past year, The Spectrum has published several Internet-exclusive articles, and we are hardly alone. Indeed, online content is a large source of readership and revenue for many news organizations.
This was likely the reason why two weeks ago, The New York Times made the decision to begin charging its users for online content. Under the plan, readers would pay $15 for digital and smartphone access, $20 for digital and pad access, and $35 for both.
It is important to note that the Times will still allow readers to access some content for free. Over the course of a month, one can view 20 articles on the site. Knowing this, it is likely that only the most dedicated readers will be willing to pony up the dough.
Taking that into consideration, it seems unlikely that this plan will be successful. Admittedly, online journalism is very popular these days, and many people turn to the Times' website for their news. The problem is that anyone who loves the paper enough to read more than 20 articles a month is likely already a subscriber to the print version; the online subscription would have a very limited appeal.
In this sense, it is important to remember the intimate reading experience that a physical newspaper provides. The Internet, while popular, and more convenient, cannot replicate the appeal of holding a paper in one's hands. Dedicated Times readers probably prefer the personal experience to the digital one.
Additionally, the presence of 20 free articles means that casual readers will likely not be interested. Even if a reader views more than 20 articles a month, he could very easily just stop at 19, and then go to other sources.
Several stories originally reported in the Times are re-tweeted by other news organizations, and eventually posted on their own websites. While there are several articles that can only be found in the Times, a fair chunk of its content is available elsewhere.
Considering the popularity of online journalism, as well as the prestige of the Times, it's easy to understand why the organization would try and experiment like this. A great deal of money can be made from online content, and the Times is simply trying to capitalize on that market.
Unfortunately, it is unlikely that it will be able to find much of a market for this idea. The casual readers won't care enough to pay the money, and the diehard fans will prefer the genuine, physical, article.
