at a Foreign Press Association dinner last night about how The New York Times is slapping up its online paywall in January 2011.
Media Matters’ Joe Strupp has a bit more on that.
According to Strupp, Keller subsequently told him that most NYTimes.com readers will never have to pay to access the site:
“Those who mainly come to the website via search engines or links from blogs, and those who only come sporadically — in short, the bulk of our traffic — may never be asked to pay at all,” Keller told me in an e-mail today. “People who have print subscriptions will get full website access without charge. So we do not anticipate a major impact on overall traffic, which is important to maintain advertising.”
Hmmm. It seems like there are a whole lot of people who fit into neither of those categories.
I, for one, do not have a print subscription to The Times, but I also visit its website far more than “sporadically.” Does that still mean I “may never” have to pay?
Oh wait, Keller also told Strupp:
“Under our metered model, basically people who use Nytimes.com as their newspaper, who read a lot and depend on it, will be asked to pay a small subscription price.”
So, Keller seems to be saying that the “bulk” of NYTimes.com readers, those who come to the site via linkbait, may or may not ever have to pay, but that one way or another, the many people who actually come to NYTimes.com as a destination will?
As we understand it, based on The Times’ official memo announcing its metered pay model back in January, any non-print subscriber will have to start ponying up after (s)he exceeds a certain amount of page views per month on the site.
And unless we’ve missed something, there are still no details on how many of those clicks users will get before facing a paywall, or how much it will cost.
So in other words, there’s no real news here, right?
NOW WATCH: Briefing videos
Business Insider Emails & Alerts
Site highlights each day to your inbox.