Paying for The New York Times Online

The New York Times reported today that The New York Times will begin charging users for online access after viewing a yet-to-be-determined number of free articles.

A quick Twitter search for "new york times" yields 15 first-page results—8 of which are negative reactions to this idea. (How's that for a scientific way of determining the pulse of the nation? Move over Anderson Cooper, I'm an iReporter.)

From the article about the plan:

But executives of The New York Times Company said they could not yet answer fundamental questions about the plan, like how much it would cost or what the limit would be on free reading. They stressed that the amount of free access could change with time, in response to economic conditions and reader demand.

Let's talk a little bit more about that.

First, the good

The idea of a fluctuating amount is great. I think this conveys trust in your brand and encourages constant interaction. It invites users to continually check your price and lets them know that you're being sensitive to their needs and current events. Kind of important for a paper.

And the idea of charging is good. You can't run your business at a loss. The internet is growing up, the dot-com bubble has bursted, re-inflated, and re-bursted. Let's find ways to monetize this thing or go back to working at the mill.

But then, the bad

I don't buy the idea that the problem is the payment. My parents' generation has been paying for newspapers since they were delivered by wooly mammoths. And the type of people who are interested in what the NYT has to say are the type of people who are willing to pay for it. Just because Facebook and Twitter are free doesn't mean everyone in the 18-25 demographic will never pay for anything again¹.

I'd posit that their "fundamental questions" are wrong. If I land on an NYT page asking me to pay for the content, do you know what's easier? Going back to Google and looking for the same thing on the Atlanta Journal Constitution or the Wall Street Journal. And do you know what's easier than logging in to read news? Not logging in to read news.

How they are going to solve this problem is the real question.

Glad you asked

For news, the initial shock of a login system and the inconvenience of it are simply too much. And I see two options for success.

One. If the New York Times can succeed in this new world, it might require they develop a renewed voice and a stronger tribe.

The readers who define the NYT and the Wall Street Journal are getting old. They're going in to that last two-thirds of their life that we call "retirement."

These monolithic newspaper companies are now competing with fast, nimble organizations that aren't in the newspaper printing business. They're not even necessarily in the news business. Think Fast Company, 37 Signals, and The Huffington Post. Then think of the thousands of speciality-sites killing it in their own industry. For free².

You can try and compete with each of these in your traditional newspaper sections—technology, world, local, etc. Or you can try and compete with Alltop as an idea-aggregator. But either way, kick the notion that you're competing with the other local or national papers.

Wherever you decide to go, if you're going to charge, and if people are going to pay, you can't go on as you are.

Two. Eliminate the interface barriers.

• Develop the best damn news-delivery interface the world has ever seen. (Perhaps along the lines of the Times Skimmer?)
• Somehow beat Twitter for speed and the aforementioned "new competitors" for quality.
• Find a way to make login painless, or better, unnecessary. Err on the side of accidentally giving someone free access instead of accidentally making someone login.
• Convince your audience that your site is the single best place for them to get news, and never disappoint them when they come to you looking for something.

I frankly don't know if solution two is possible. And in the end, surviving as a company might mean narrowing your focus, developing your voice, and accepting smaller revenues. People will pay, but ad revenue will shrink, and circulation will narrow. This is less-than-ideal for a business whose job is to increase revenue, but it's markedly better than bankruptcy.