Will or would you pay more for the NYT as it becomes yet-more subscription focused?

So, New York Times overall revenues are up. But, that's because digital subscription revenues have more than offset ad losses. (That's even though digital advertisers, especially targeting social media channels, can't deliver what they promise.)

Nieman reports on how the $800 million in online subscription revenue, and total subscribers, are all records, and the dollar amount hit a Times target a year early.

Percentages aren't listed, but there's two takeaways here.

One is that subscriptions as a percentage of digital revenue continue to grow, to about two-thirds of the total last year.

The other is that — albeit slowly — digital ad revenue grew again, in the face of that ongoing print ad slump.

Well, the old gray lady has decided to raise that online subscription price. The increase is 50 cents a week. Or 13.3 percent to look at it that way.

It's the first time the Times has ever done it. (Nieman adds at its link that this won't hit everybody. Basically, they'll start with the people who have subscribed the longest.)

Would or will you, whether not a current subscriber as a would or if you are as a will, pay the extra?

I wouldn't. For professional as well as personal reasons.

And those reasons largely overlap.

On the op-eds side, the fact that an editorial page editor doesn't edit individual columnists, as seen with Bret Stephens citing a racist to turd-polish "schmart as a whip" Ashkenazi Jew legends, is unacceptable on both professional and personal counts. Now, other big dailies like the Bezos Post may do the same, but, that doesn't make it acceptable.

On the personal side, the narrow range of the paper's op-ed columnists, and the narrow range of its foreign policy news coverage, especially on all things Israel and Middle East, is Reason No. 1 I don't subscribe now. But, that's also a professional issue. I see alternative papers and websites, or a mainstream paper like the Independent in Britain with Robert Fisk, doing much better on Middle East coverage. The Times chooses to color well, WELL within the duopoly lines.

Putting the professional hat on again, the Times says, per the third link, it wants to hit 10 million on digital subscriptions by 2025, compared to its current 4 million. I doubt it will. If Trump is re-elected, I think its pandering to "the resistance" will eventually plateau. And I don't otherwise see any way it can "goose" itself to 10 million.