The New York Times Sees Its Paywall Future ... And It Looks Like Weight Watchers?
So what will a New York Times paywall look like? According to NYT Co. CEO Janet Robinson, it will look something like the online pay models of Weight Watchers and Consumer Reports.In other words, if you think the Times has only been examining the paywall models of other newspapers' online efforts, as it plans its own, you're dead wrong.
Which, of course, begs the question: "What are the models of those two companies?" They have similarities, but they're not what one would call identical. Consumer Reports -- which, notably, carries no advertising, in any medium -- doesn't offer any content for free. It offers a minimal online discount to print subscribers, of $19 per year vs, $26 for non-subscribers, so that isn't exactly a free ride. People also can subscribe to the Web site for $5.95 per month.
Weight Watchers' model seems more instructive, in terms of what the Times might do, at least. Its online weight loss program -- as opposed to the plans in which members show up at meetings -- has a tiered plan, which basically rewards commitment, however short-term. Though the prices themselves would no doubt be lower, it offers the first three months at a total cost of $65, with each month thereafter being $17.95. The other plan offers the first month for $47.90 before changing to the monthly rate. Both companies' subscription models are cross-platform, offering mobile tools in addition to computer-bound ones.
So, how do you take these plans and align them with the Times pledge? Here's how the Times paywall plan was explained in the Times earlier this year:
... a visitor to NYTimes.com will be allowed to view a certain number of articles free each month; to read more, the reader must pay a flat fee for unlimited access. Subscribers to the print newspaper, even those who subscribe only to the Sunday paper, will receive full access to the site without any additional charge.Hmmm. It's hard to say. The best guess one could make is that the "flat fee" is fungible, an alliteration that an old newspaperman might love. Perhaps what the Times is looking at is a cross-platform play which will make the price lower over time for online-only subscribers who commit -- giving the paper some stability in what is a grand content experiment. It seems highly unlikely that it would make an about face and, like Consumer Reports, charge even print subscribers for access. So am I write right about this? The proof, as they say, will be in the paywall -- which launches sometime next year.
Related: