[DeletedUser]

1. Is the paywall working?

The numbers presented in the case study seem to indicate that the paywall is indeed working, at least for the New York Times. For the past several years of data that was available, there was a steady decline in print subscribers, and a steady increase in online readership. More importantly, there’s a steady increase in the amount of subscribed readers for the online content. However, the most recent data for net income/loss shows the newest data (2011) in the red. Now that it’s 2021 and the New York Times is still in business and still has a paywall, then it must be working out for them. In the age of the Internet when you can piece together a story by reading half a dozen articles from publications with half a dozen different takes on the same story all for free, it is a silly proposition to pay a monthly subscription to a single news company for their “premium” articles. There are many other reputable news sources out there that will offer similar coverage. With many more news companies on the Internet adopting paywalls, it has also become possible to kite around between news sites that feature a paywall without paying for any one of them, as long as they offer a certain number of articles for free.

1. Why are newspapers in trouble? What is the goal of the Times in creating the paywall?

Newspapers are in trouble because of the rise of the Internet. Not only is an enormous physical piece of paper less convenient and portable to potential readers than a tablet or a smartphone, but the content of that newspaper itself has been divided up in to different services. For instance, the most popular classified ad service on the Internet is not operated by a newspaper, and neither are job listings. The downfall of printed media is due to the disruption to their platform that the advent of the Internet brought to the world. News organizations now have to become focused solely on their articles now, because many of the other services that were offered in the papers previously have moved online to a different platform. There is still advertising in online news articles, but the revenue from that alone is not enough to keep newspapers afloat in their current form. The New York Times created their paywall in order to recapture a monthly subscription fee from readers in order to keep their business model profitable while they are hemorrhaging print subscribers and other revenue associated with a printed newspaper.

4. Should the Times actively manage to transition from print to digital?

The New York Times should manage to successfully transition from a printed format to a digital format. Today their website is still going strong. It is also highly unlikely that a news organization would succeed in 2021 with a print-only format. However, until the subscribers who still appreciate a printed newspaper have all died out, it will likely make sense to continue publishing the newspaper in a printed format , as it’s likely still profitable. The printing equipment by this point should have all been paid for long ago, and they’re printing less papers as time goes on, which should decrease their overhead costs. In order to have staying power, the Times will have to re-evaluate their subscription fee on a yearly basis in order to fine-tune and optimize their number of paying readers. It makes sense to continue with a certain number of free articles per reader per month, because otherwise it would be difficult to generate interest in a “premium product” without first giving out “free samples”. Additionally, these free page views are not entirely a loss for the Times. Each page view generates ad revenue for them. In my opinion, online news stories should be free, and the publisher should re-structure its organization in order to adapt to an ad-revenue only model. This would guarantee longevity in the current climate, but there is always the temptation of greater profits by implementing a well-balanced paywall. The question that remains in my mind is whether the majority of online subscribers were previously print subscribers who bought an iPad, or if they are first-time Times subscribers. If it is the former, then the Times will inevitably be forced to ditch their paywall.

[DeletedUser]

I was of the opposite view that their paywall was working. They are on their (at least) third iteration of it and by the data shown, it looked to me as if the only increase in revenue was from circulation print. Also, I have not experienced any “lock-outs” from their website on reading articles , though I do receive notifications on specials to subscribe. Their most recent one is a ” Spring Special ” for a dollar a week. So this makes me question do they even have a paywall in operation currently? I have not experienced it lately, at least I have seen no mention of “X” amount of articles remaining and I have not been locked out from anything I have tried to view. One paper that I know of that I for sure run into limited online article viewings per week/month is Forbes. I believe the Wall Street Journal is the same as this, but being that I have been subscribed to them for quite an amount of time, I could not 100% say if this is a fact. Forbes is definitely a fact. 4 per week without a sub.

I definitely agree with you that online news stories should be free. I would think that many of their subscribers were hard copy subscribers that got sold the dream of “buy an iPad and all of your content will me magically available to you, all in one easy to access place”. I believe they have tried to structure their paywall around this and did not read far enough ahead into the future to just what content would eventually be available on that same iPad….for free. Now, their one save for the upcoming digital age and their “eggs in one basket” approach with that iPad is turning into nothing short of their executioner. Why would anyone pay for a service to receive an article that they can now get, on that same iPad, for free, from 3 dozen alternate media outlets? A hard core New York Times fan for sure, but the number of media outlets has increased exponentially since the New York Times started out.

I just don’t believe newspapers saw this coming, at least not as fast as it did.

[DeletedUser]

I believe it is a good comment to see current NY Times still with paywall. It is not that much apparent from the data available whether paywall actually worked, but a very small percentage of subscribers were shown as online, which made me think that it did not work. I’d love to see the figures from 2011 to today as well, to conclude.

Loved your comments about digital age. I am currently a subscriber to a Turkish newspaper going back to 1920’s as well. I ask myself why is that so. The answer is probably the articles of knowledgeable writers and news with now video attached since I live too remote from local content. Otherwise box scores, ads, employment opportunities, once some most attractive parts of a newspaper all turned out useless.

[DeletedUser]

1) Is the paywall working?

According to the data, particularly the revenues and operating costs of Exhibit 3, the paywall is not working. Not to mention the fact that this has been tried several times before and has not succeeded. Other attributes that may prevent their paywall from working are the “leaky paywall” designs. By allowing their content to be accessed from social media sites, platforms that have billions of users, they may immediately remove themselves from that pool of paid subscribers as the content is available for free from those links. Once gates like that are open, it is very near impossible to shut them again.

3) Why are newspapers in trouble? What is the goal of the Times and creating a paywall?

Newspapers are in trouble because of the digital age. With the advancements in technology that are continuously being made and the plethora of information that is available online, the need or want for hardcopy items are quickly diminishing. This definitely applies to more than just newspapers and a case in point would be encyclopedias. Encyclopedias were the go-to for information throughout my junior high, high school and college days. This could be said for newspapers as well. Newspapers were the go-to for information regarding local, national and worldly information. Their rise to fame was well before any other types of communication for such were even invented. The spreading of news and events via written text have been well documented throughout history, but the invention of the printing press in 1440 by Johannes Gutenberg would change how this information was delivered forever.

As this technology advanced into what we know now as the common newspaper, no one could have guessed how far technology would go and how much it would influence our society. No thought was put into planning for the future of newspapers because it was assumed that they would always be around, how could they not? By making this assumption and not understanding what the future would bring, they essentially failed to plan for that outcome that they now face.

As technology has become ever more present through the likes of social media, blogs, etc. all aspects of the newspapers revenue have been affected. Classifieds, personals, advertising, the stories themselves; all have been brought forwarded upon these new channels and the companies that were using these newspapers have now discovered that they can accomplish the same effect with a lower cost to themselves buy marketing their own advertising on the same platforms that was essentially backdooring the newspapers paywall setup, again through the “leaky paywall”.

By creating a paywall, the Times was likely hoping to up the revenue by going online to compensate for their belief of of their downward slide in their hardcopy print. Perhaps they thought that they would corner the digital world and continue to maintain all of their current clients (or sponsors in the case of advertising). However, by not sticking to their guns and sticking to a bulletproof paywall, a new problem was introduced and this could partly be responsible for their continued downward slide in the parking rate the stupid structure revenue that they had hoped to gain. The influx of new users could possibly be attributed to just that, the newness of it all. Consumers are apt to easily get wrapped up in the “next, latest and greatest thing” and certainly offering their paper on an iPad would trigger this type of movement. As the newness wares off however, as all things eventually do, and the way that the content was provided (and then not provided) its almost like they unknowingly built a poison pill into their paywall model. The first iteration did not work out as tech just was not what it was even then as it is now and they still perhaps did not see what the future would bring. Perhaps if they would have stuck with original plan, it would have worked out today quite a bit more in their favor. It is hard to guess this though and one major likely fault to all of this was the assumption that news papers would always be around, that it was set in stone and that their longstanding clients that they provided for would also always be there, another damaging assumption. They didn’t read far enough ahead to see that the clients they had might take to their own form of advertising etc. on these new platforms.

4) Should the times actively manage to transition from print to digital?

While all signs of everything in this day and age point going to digital and though they realize this, at this point, it almost seems too little too late. Mistakes were made in establishing what it was that they wanted to do and how they were to go about doing so and this will severely affect them in moving forward. With the transition that is being made to digital and the exponential growth of the digital market that is seen today, one would think that they should try to manage their transition from print to digital. However, looking at the statistics from Exhibit 3, circulation revenues are the only thing that increased in the measured times. Are these hardcopy circulations? If they are to manage this transition properly, one thing that should be addressed is the presence of their “leaky paywall”. However, it may be too late for this and by removing this feature from their clients in the platforms that they are promoted on, anger and frustrations about their services could, and possibly would, become prevalent and in essence they could be removing advertising from their own self by not being on these platforms.

[DeletedUser]

I tend to agree with you on paywall is not working, at least back in 2011.

I agree with you about digital content taking over, and especially well established newspapers are having hard time to do the transition.

What I start to observe about the transition to digital of some mainline newspapers is to invest on TV news channels in addition to digital newspapers. This is certainly a way to reach out to a different audience once you gather information as journalists.

[DeletedUser]

All good points, Wyatt. It is very possible that the New York Times is continuing to lose money due to their paywall, because there wasn’t up-to-date data available in the article. A newspaper with a crystal ball would have seen the massive changes in media coming, and planned accordingly.

However, leaks in their paywall may be what has kept them alive this far. They are able to generate revenue off of the free readers as well as the paid readers that way. I, for one, would like to see paywalls disappear in the future.

[Adam]

1. Is the paywall working?

The paywall is at least plugging a hole in the dyke. There is now a line item of paywall revenue. It seems to strike a balance by charging those that rely on the print or digital version of the Times as a primary news source, but making a limited number of articles free per month to people who are more casual readers or who are following links from other sites. More information from subsequent years would shed light on whether or not the paywall was working well enough to make a sustainable business year after year. The Times has the benefit of being the most widely read news source online, but will the market support the paywall price and will that price support the company in the long run. Are there other potential revenue streams that the Times could develop? If the actual journalism is the thing that they have that cannot be disrupted by the new technology, are there other ways to get paid for that journalism like syndication? Or are there other opportunities within the digital landscape to distribute and monetize their journalism like podcasts and videos?

3. Why are newspapers in trouble? What is the goal of the Times in creating the paywall?

Newspapers are in trouble because readership/subscriber number were down as well as decreasing revenues from advertising and classifieds. The goal of the paywall is to create another revenue stream as more and more readers are reading a digital format. Advertisers pay less to advertise digitally and readers were reading for free, so the Times was trying to capture some lost revenue.

4. Should the Times actively manage to transition from print to digital?

I think that there is no choice but to manage the transition. Newspapers had been using the same business model for decades and as long as the technology was static, the business model could be as well. However, when readers are not only accessing articles through a new medium but also using the new technology to take care of other needs historically met by newspapers such as classifieds, personals, public notice, the newspaper has no choice but to adapt to the new technology and also change the business model in order to survive.

[Kalie]

That’s true – perhaps there are other means besides a paywall that could help make up the lost revenue. Syndication, podcasts, etc… All things I didn’t think of.

I know I choose to budget money to maintain a couple of news subscriptions, and I don’t mind because it still ends up being cheaper/less wasteful of paper than a print subscription. I like the idea of reader-sponsored content, as well… As opposed to business, government, or advertiser sponsored content. But, everything’s still got a “spin,” anyways.

[Josh]

1. Is the paywall working?

Based on the data and information provided it would appear the paywall is failing miserably and hasn’t caught the eye of the consumers. Overall, the cost benefit analysis shows a decline in subscribers and online content access isn’t growing at the scale they would hope. Consistent viewers will likely continue on, however; others with less engagement in their newspaper will likely transition over to other resources.

3. Why are the newspapers in trouble?

Ultimately, a systematic and coordinated transition plan with safer benchmarks as they incorporate technology and social media would probably help them. I believe they are in trouble in part, because they fail to truly understand the new market and are playing catch up. Being proactive, promoting forward growth and evaluating such an ever-changing business should be at the forefront of their operations one would think. Digital media and technology are rapidly evolving and it’s hard to keep up with.

4. Should the Times actively transition?

I think a tiered system, that’s well thought out with the end goal being the transition to digital. Costs to maintain the print edition and a diminishing viewership paint a clear picture for the transition. The marketing strategy has to change from the status quo.

[Kalie]

They were “playing catch up,” for sure. But it seems like the technology of the digital age progresses so fast that there is almost no alternative for playing catch up. Even the creators of digital technology do not fully understand the scope of impact that there developments will have. I’m looking at you, Artificial Intelligence.

[Adam]

I think that it is interesting to see what remains of the print news landscape now more than 10 years after this case study. Many papers have gone away and there has been a lot of consolidation. Some papers have gone to weekend only. The only ones that managed to survive were big organizations with the resources to adapt and consolidate, and also the hyper local or niche papers that serve very specific communities with local news that is not carried by other outlets. Even though 3 local papers combined into 1 we still have a good local news source in the weekly Columbia Gorge News, and there was even a new local paper started last year, the monthly South Wasco Times.

[Kalie]

#1 Is the paywall working?

The paywall that The Times implemented is still in use today. Though much of the presented case information took place about a decade ago, The Times is still a prominent source of news relied upon by millions of readers. Though some readers may have been phased out after the creation of the paywall, The Times continues to exist. There may have been hiccups along the way, but the paywall ultimately functioned to keep the reporting outlet alive.

#3 Why are newspapers in trouble? What is the goal of the Times in creating the paywall?

Traditional newspapers are “in trouble” as hard-printed formats fade into disuse behind the prevailing electronic formats of the digital age. Electronic formats offer more convenience to both creators and consumers, and they also reduce consumption of the raw materials that are used to produce hard-printed formats. For these reasons, information is now more digital than ever, and it would be a costly business decision to try and resist this reality.

In establishing the paywall, The Times had the goal of continuing to generate revenue even as use of their hard-printed product declined. While electronic news articles are instantly and “freely” available to consumers, the fact remains true that the research and reporting for these articles is not achieved without expense.

#4 Should The Times actively manage to transition from print to digital?

The Times will not remain a relevant source of news if it neglects to manage its transition from print to digital. At this point, this transition is well-established.

Perhaps this bit of insight is merely experiential (and maybe it’s too optimistic or idealist), but I know many thoughtful consumers of news that are more than willing to pay a fee even for electronically-delivered reporting. Electronic news articles are still a commodity, and charging for a commodity is obviously a reasonable thing for a business to do. Consumers are even more willing to this if the fee they pay comes with some “perks,” like advertisement-free reading, more forms of access, or access to exclusive/bonus content.

[Adam]

Your point about ad-free, exclusive or bonus content is a good one. Those are good incentives to encourage subscription. It gives readers a feeling of belonging/supporting and provides a better reading experience. In the decade that has elapsed since this case study there have been many novel developments in engaging an online audience and monetizing content.

While struggling through listening to OPB during the pledge drive this week, I have been wishing that there was a way for members to hear the newscast without having to listen to the pledge drive. Seems like a simple member login through the website could do this.

[Kalie]

Haha. I feel your pain on pledge drive week.

But I can ultimately get behind the model of listener-sponsored content. Quality journalism isn’t free to produce, and so if it was free to listeners, all that means is that it’s sponsored by someone else. A certain industry, business, government, organization, etc.