New York Times Ready to Charge Online Readers

This article from the New York Times discusses many of the possible business model options that are apparently being considered right now. What stands out for me is why its taken so long to figure it out, and I believe there really is only one option. As other newspaper sites have adopted the pay-for-content model its actually helped the NYT. Users from around the world who seek free content head on over to the NYT to get it. Right now the increasing traffic and page advertising probably translates to a positive business direction. What I’m also seeing is that the custom Apple ads are also changing the revenue game a good bit. It looks like Apple have basically walked away from traditional media/banners etc. and now create custom ad styles that embrace rich media and uniquely position their brand at a URL that’s very demographically right. I’m sure there’s a decent fee for running these campaigns. My fellow designers and I do get a little giddy when we see the latest Apple campaigns when we spot one on PitchFork.com, ESPN.com and CNET.com. I wonder do none designerly/tech folks (The iTunes and iPhones kind) feel the same way? I bet a good few do. These ads are a massive step forward for digital advertsising and as someone who’s involved in this world a bit I see it very positively. I’m tired of creating things that very few people have an interest in, or bother to click, and Apple have done a great job to make it feel like your being entertained/communicated to in a unique and innovative way (I guess it’s just like their products). I’m not sure how this strategy translates for other brands and industries, I fear it might kill the uniqueness of it all, but could give some of the big agencies something to chew on.

I’m not sold on general advertising for a highly trafficked news site, and a brand like the NYT is selling themselves short if this the direction they go with. I like the pay-for-content strategy. As mentioned in the article I see a light shell of a site (International and domestic versions?) covers the news and features, offers several free clicks to full stories, and then a prompt to purchase a subscription. So why is this a better option?

Control your own destiny. With X amount of dollars in the kitty you know how much you have to spend. NYT –> Consumer. No middle men effect revenue.

Easier to package. Make deals with other companies to give free digital subscriptions to the NYT. Lot of talk about the tech/computer industries creating tablets and even more devices to consume content on. Content is still king, and without it many of the gadgets are worthless.

Focus on what you’re amazing at. Your brand and general appeal to people is related to quality reporting, opinion, and journalism.

Create new digital products. Iphone, Android apps etc. But let’s not forget that we’re all still in the middle of a significant change to the industry. New ways to consume content and monetize them are going to come along (and a bunch will fail along the way.

Owning all the data about your subscribers. Tracking users clicks and habits to an even greater extent should provide a platform for even better advertising and sponsorships.

There will be a hit on page traffic, but what’s most important is that the majority of the NYT revenue is not at the mercy of traditional advertising campaigns and a change in the overall economy/business climate. One downside is that it might get tricky to integrate user generated content into a locked site … but maybe the worlds view on a topic is too much, and that a more specific audience commenting and discussing a topic creates a more meaningful experience.

How do you plan for a future that keeps changing? You don’t. Get comfortable with a percentage of your world being a little upside-down and unknown. Right now a cloud based and ubiquitous format for content and entertainment seems to be the big push, but who knows where that goes, and what’s around the corner.