Times announces paid 'membership' for latimes.com
The Times has announced a paid "membership" program for latimes.com. If you are a home delivery subscriber, you are already a "member" of latimes.com, and you won't be charged for reading beyond 15 articles.
Also, some features of the site won't be counted in your monthly articles, including the Games page and the Readers' Representative Journal.
An article by Jerry Hirsch explains the "membership" program vs. a "paywall":
Although digital payment plans are commonly known as "paywalls," The Times is billing its plan as a "membership program" that will include retail discounts, deals and giveaways, as well as access to digital news.
Hirsch's article has details of the payment plans that will be offered to those who aren't already home delivery subscribers.
A registration page has been set up at latimes.com/membership, though it says information will not be available until March 5.
--Deirdre Edgar
If the L A Times requires payment for all articles but the Games page and this Reader's Rep page, the articles that require payment had better be more than a paragraph or two in length. There are quite a number of very sparse articles now on the web edition.
The Times also ought to rethink commenting. Requiring people to join Facebook to comment on some articles has not had the effect of raising the commentary levels at all and bars people who prefer their privacy ( rejecting Facebook helps keep your privacy).
Posted by: Fiamma | February 26, 2012 at 12:41 AM
The end of the LA Times is here. Paywall goes up, and the page views go into the tank. Bye Bye to a once great newspaper.
Posted by: James Earl J0hnson | February 27, 2012 at 05:14 PM
I must agree with Fiamma. The length and quality of articles have been comically poor.
Posted by: CMYK RGB | February 27, 2012 at 11:38 PM
Instead of learning how to adapt to the internet, the paper wants the internet to adapt to it. Paywall for news just means that more eyeballs are going to get the news elsewhere. Do I even bother to look at the New York Times anymore.. nope. And I'll bet their eyeballs are dwindling too. It's comedy of the highest order.
Kind of reminds me of: The beatings will continue until morale improves.
Posted by: Dru | February 27, 2012 at 11:44 PM
I agree 100% with Fiamma's comments.
I have been a loyal >20 yr subscriber to the daily paper newspaper and occasional reader of the online version. Over the years, the LA Times has gotten awfully measly: smaller and smaller, more and more superficial, relying on splashy after-the-fact expose's (like the Bell scandal) rather than day-to-day digging-deep news reporting and community coverage, excellent writers and reporters have disappeared.... Why should I bother with the LA Times anymore? I am a member-listener to KPCC and NPR and I watch the PBS NewHour. At some point, perhaps soon, I might decide that those news-information sources are sufficient enough and I'll dump the LA Times altogether. Can the LA Times really afford to lose even more hold-out subscribers like me? Doubtful.
Posted by: Polly | March 03, 2012 at 09:40 AM
will be nise read the times on the go
Posted by: normanalbertson | March 05, 2012 at 10:42 AM
Polly and Fiamma nailed it. Completely agree.
Posted by: Scott | March 16, 2012 at 09:47 AM
What the LA Times has done is put itself into the middle of making a choice between those who reside in the greater Los Angeles metropolitan area over the people, throughout the nation, including ex-pat's like myself.
When one resides outside of DC, the retail discounts, deals and giveaways, limited to Los Angeles doesn't mean much. besides, ask any fifth grader, is there such a thing as a "free lunch?" If the times were to offer a "no advertisment" version, I am sure that people, like myself, would sign-up.
We hate ads.
Posted by: Steven Moshlak | March 18, 2012 at 04:51 AM
I’m surprised more people didn’t post comments… maybe they were blocked by the paywall.
The length and substance has definitely dwindled, but throughout the Times has remained the news source of record for Los Angeles and the outlying areas. While our expectations from traditional print media have waned, the Times always seemed to surprise now and again with excellent investigative reporting, sports coverage, and editorials (though always predictable.) The content was always worthy of pop-ups, banner ads, and links to paid advertisers who were masquerading as credible news outlets. The content isn’t worthy of directly paying for though. The content isn’t worth having to register for. The content isn’t good enough to remain a viable business if things are so bad the Times has resorted to the promo trial period scheme, followed by what I’m sure is recurring billing to my credit card that’s just a small enough amount I won’t notice or remember. I’ll turn to a source that aggregates stories and spits them out based on my geographic region, for free. Really LA Times and Tribune if you want to marginalize your patrons and just finish off your march to obsolescence you’ve succeeded.
Posted by: Nate G | March 29, 2012 at 11:40 AM
It's remarkable that the LAT even prints comments that are of a conservative nature. The papers and TV slant so heavily to the left that if you want a balanced perspective you have to read Fox and then find a point somewhere in the middle of the two to find where neutrality lives.
Posted by: Charles | April 16, 2012 at 08:40 AM
Wow..I thought the mandatory ads were bad, this is a joke. I dislike yahoo and msn but I like having local and national news on my homepage. I used to click on some stories from the LA Times IN SPITE of the fact they are from a liberal rag who hates America. (To be fair I despise the rIGHT just as much!). I laugh at the fact they want me to pay to read their propaganda.
In fact, I am now boycotting Yahoo and any site the links to the LA Times.
Posted by: Steve | May 29, 2012 at 09:37 PM