Starting in April non-subscribers will only be able to see 10 articles, slide shows or videos a month for free, down from 20, the paper says this morning. If you want more, then you’ll have to buy one of The Times’ digital subscriptions. Now brace yourself for the caveats: Even if you’re past the limit, you can still see an article for free if you reach it via a search engine, or an email or blog link — but you can only see five a day from some unnamed search engines. The NYTimes.com home page and section fronts also will be free to browse. Smartphone and tablet users will be able to see top news stories for free — but will have to subscribe to see anything else.
The Times tried to spin the news as sign of how well it’s doing in the digital world. One year after it erected its pay wall, the paper has 454,000 paid digital subscribers. “We knew that readers placed a high value on our journalism, and we anticipated they would respond positively to our digital subscription packages,” Chairman Arthur Sulzberger Jr says. Still, he has a lot riding on his ability to nudge online readers to pay — without giving print customers an incentive to switch to a lower-priced digital-only subscription. Barclays Capital analyst Kannan Venkateshwar estimated this month, before the latest announcement, that The Times might generate about $100M a year in revenues from digital subscriptions. Although that “is not high on an absolute basis,” it’s needed to offset the more than $50M a year loss in print ads, he says. But the digital sales effort needs a lot of attention and tweaking. And Venkateshwar notes that “the company’s efforts historically on the digital side have been sporadic and the company is still to appoint a CEO” to replace Janet Robinson who left with a sweet exit package at the end of 2011.


If you’re on Chrome, just install the Do Not Track Plus add-on. Everything at NyTimes.com becomes free no matter how many times you visit or from where.
Just type the article name into search engine or delete the nyt cookie from your browser.
What a great business plan. Just one of the reasons why the NYT’s has seen its’ readership zoom to the heavens. Ooops, they have lost readers every year for the past ten years. Soon, with business sense as illustrated here, they will out of business. Yaaayyyy.
The Times on the web is OK, on the Kindle it’s lousy, but I now have it on the iPad and it’s terrific. They’ve captured the look and feel of the paper digitally on the tablet and I consider it a steal at twenty dollars a month.
you’re right! you’re being stolen from.
I love the NY Times and will always subscribe to it
L.A. Times’ $200/year paywall has forced me to find other news sources and it’s working out fine. Better, really, because I would not of known of the alternatives otherwise.
I agree! Its great to read the times on an ipad
According to Bloomberg, “….(Janet) Robinson’s exit, which costs Times Co. more than the company earned in the past four years…” That’s right, their CEO made more than the entire company made in four years.
Next fiendishly clever marketing ploy? Charge readers twice what they had been paying.
Maybe they hired Oprah as a business development consultant.
It’s still too easy to get around. I’m looking for a reason to have to pay. They really need to eliminate the free articles completely — between the multiple search engines and the free links I read whatever I want to on the site. If I had to, I’d definitely subscribe. But this is at least a step in the right direction, and maybe it’s part of a longer term gradual plan.
Why these greedy mf are doomed to fail.
1. Their online news is late
usually a few hours to a few days.
2. CNN guardian yahho etc give a better overview for mobile reading.
3. If I have to pay for the times why do they have ads on the page ( double dipping)
4. Most of the times is not direct in the field reporting.
Online ads make sites a mere pittance. Think about it – infinitely expanding supply of available ad space means that advertisers can drive ever-harder bargains.
easy, just hit ESC before the page/article finishes loading and you will be able to view it before the subscription page pops up. As I do on Variety online…
NYT, Meet me at camera three…
What are you guys thinking?
Is the new motto of the paper “All the news we don’t want people to read?”
NYTimes is by far the best online daily newspaper in the US. It’s a must read for me every day. They are one of the very few publications that I am more than happy to pay and support. And I say this as someone who loves FREE.
I will not weep at the eventual death of the big newspapers. They are no different from tabloids except they do politics instead of superficial nonsense tabloids dish out. You have to wonder which one is worse?
Build your high walls to your content, that’s fine – same goes for the ever-increasing cinema prices – all you do is bar people from wanting it, or if they do want it… they’ll find a way to get it free (as described in an above post).
Piracy is not the problem. We need to revolutionize the way we see culture and offer media. If it’s not free, people go elsewhere or find a way to get it free.
There has to be a better method that bombarding people with malicious and overbearing advertisements or increasing prices. And if you don’t think there is, then you’re just part of the problem.
Anyone with even a modest knowledge of computers can bypass the NY Times paywall in seconds, the same goes for the LA Times and Variety. It literally takes me less than 10 seconds on a Mac, and I can read as much as I like all month. Am I a thief? If the subscription rates were reasonable, I would subscribe (I recently DID subscribe to Variety after getting a very attractive combo print/digital offer from them). $200 a year? Laughable.
If you subscribe to their RSS feeds you can also view their content without having to pay.
Smart move. (not) This is exactly the way Variety made itself non-existent. The old guard falls to the ground with a thud!! Good luck!