After months of consideration, the NY Times has confirmed that they will begin to charging consumers who wish to access more than a certain number of articles per month. This all begs the question… Would you pay to access this sort of content on the web? Or would you just look elsewhere?
While you think about that, here are some links to interesting articles that I’ve recently run across. And guess what? They’re all free!
- How to Report Tax Frauds and Tax Cheats
- IRA Conversions: What’s Special About 2010?
- Knowing When to Outsource Your Taxes
- The Need to Re-Think Retirement
- Best Credit Cards of 2009 (part 2)
- How to Choose ETFs for Your Portfolio
- Even a Small Emergency Fund Can Bail You Out
- When Not to Save Money
That’s it… Have a great night (or day, depending on when you read this).
I’ll pay for online subscriptions – I actually “subscribe” to a few sources by donation, since they don’t charge – but I’m not sure if I’d subscribe to the NYT.
I’d def. pay for a Reuters or AP subscription if they offered it to individuals, though – half the newspapers are just reprinting off the wire anyway.
Go elsewhere. What is a feed reader other than a crafted-just-for-me, completely free newspaper? Interesting that they’re following in the footsteps of the WSJ. From what I’d heard (which could be completely wrong), the WSJ’s plan hasn’t worked out very well for them.
And thanks for the link. 🙂
It depends how they charge.
If they charge per-article, then no. If they charge a reasonable rate for free-reign browsing, then I might. I enjoy browsing the NY Times, and will often read articles or parts of articles about subjects I’m not familiar with. Some of it is interesting and some isn’t, but not enough of it is interesting to pay-per-article and hope.
I would look elsewhere for news online.
Definitely go elsewhere. Thanks for the link, by the way. 🙂
Yup, the internet is full of news and so far I don’t think I’d go over my monthly NYT allotment. But it’s certainly their prerogative.
I will just go elsewhere.