“Every channel has a 14-day free trial, and many offer discounted yearly rates. For example, Sesame Street will be offering full episodes on their paid channel when it launches. And UFC fans can see classic fights, like a full version of their first event from UFC’s new channel. You might run into more of these channels across YouTube. Once you subscribe from a computer, you’ll be able to watch paid channels on your computer, phone, tablet and TV, and soon you’ll be able to subscribe to them from more devices.”

Partners include The Young Turks, UFC, Jim Henson Company, Mark Cuban’s HDNet and the Sesame Workshop. Not all channels are live yet, a first list of 53 initial launch partners can be found here.

Some of the new partners should come as no surprise to paidContent readers: We reported earlier this week that YouTube’s employees have been testing paid channels for the Sesame Workshop, Baby First TV and Cookie Jar TV for months.

YouTube said Thursday that it wants to make subscriptions available as a self-serve feature to select partners soon. Asked how big of a cut YouTube is taking from subscription fees, a spokesperson told me that partners get to keep “the majority share,” without elaborating further.

The latest casualty is NYClean, a bookmarklet that lets readers zap away “over the limit” messages that appears in front of Times stories. I discovered the change on Monday when, after having reached my monthly quota of 10 free stories, I tried and failed to use NYClean to read another story. The tool (see the arrow) zapped the message for a second but then the message came right back:

This is the second time in as many months that the Times has shut down a trick to evade its meter; in February, readers discovered they could no longer access a blocked story by chopping off the end of the article’s website address. Times spokeswoman Eileen Murphy explained the situation this way:

“As we have said from the time we launched our digital subscription model, we are aware of various loopholes to access our content beyond the allotted number of articles each month. It remains a priority for us to protect the value of our content so we will continue to make adjustments to optimize the gateway through technical security solutions.”

The new restrictions come at a time of increased acceptance of metered paywalls. In recent months, popular blogger (and paidContent Live guest) Andrew Sullivan introduced a meter — now at $1.99 a month — while longtime paywall holdout the Washington Post said it will launch one this summer.

The Times’ get-tough measures create dilemmas for readers like me who are running out of workarounds. I like the New York Times but, since I already pay hundreds of dollars a year for a Wall Street Journal subscription, I am not in a position to shell out full fare for a second paper. Perhaps the Times will introduce a grazing option (say 50 articles for $5) or introduce paywall partnerships across publications.

The piece in question is by media analyst Ken Doctor who notes the FT is the first newspaper to have “crossed over” by amassing more digital subscribers than print ones. As of February, the respective numbers were  316,000 to 286,000; the feat fulfills the FT’s prediction at paidContent 2012 that the cross-over would occur in 2013. (You’ll be able to hear more digital-media industry predictions at paidContent Live on April 17).

As Doctor explains, the accomplishment results from shrewd business decisions such as persuading companies to buy individual subscriptions for their employees: “Rather than leaving B2B customer sales relationships to aggregators like Lexis Nexis and News Corp.’s Factiva, the FT began converting corporate FT buyers to direct relationships.”

Doctor acknowledges that daily newspapers don’t have the same corporate opportunities, but says that they can follow the FT and Politico in creating a valuable niche: “If dailies’ news and information are as critical locally as the FT’s is to a global business clientele, why not test a new model? .. [Politico] Pro works several niches. Mr. and Ms. Publishers, what’s your niche?”

If a publisher can come to occupy such a niche, they may enjoy the same virtuous cycle as the FT where margins rise with digital revenue while distribution costs stay nearly fixed.

But it’s hard to see how the FT case study can apply to anyone other than the FT. Recall that even the New York Times is struggling to “cross over;” its digital revenues are rising but, overall, the paper’s overall operations are shrinking. The Wall Street Journal, with a similar global business niche, may be the only other publisher with a hope of crossing over this year.

Doctor also cites the FT’s 30-person data and analytics team as integral to the company’s digital transition. He points out that such teams can supply critical intelligence about customer targeting and revenue optimization. But do other publications, which can no longer afford copy editors, have the means to hire dozens of data scientists? Probably not.

How many other newspaper and magazine brands can you name that even stand a chance of making this crossover?

The New York Times Company posted earnings on Thursday morning that show the company’s ongoing struggle to create significant growth in its digital operations. While circulation revenues continue to rise, all forms of advertising are in decline and overall revenue is shrinking.

The company posted earnings per share of 32 cents (excluding special items) which is about what analysts predicted. Compared to the same 13-week period from a year ago, total revenues decreased 0.7 percent, with advertising revenues down 8.3 percent and circulation revenues up 8.6 percent.

The circulation revenues should, in theory, be a bright spot for the Times but it’s not possible to tell how much of that 8.6 percent comes from new digital revenue and how much from an increase in the price of the print edition (the Times doesn’t break out these numbers).

Update: On an earnings call, executives addressed the company’s large cash reserve which has been the source of speculation about whether the Times would re-issue its dividends which are a source of income for the clans that control the paper. For now, the company will not use the $955 million in cash for dividends but will instead pursue a conservative strategy based on reducing long-term debt and investing in its digital operations (this is good news for those rooting for the paper’s long-term sustainability).

Incoming CEO, Mark Thompson, also used the call to state that he views growth opportunities in international markets, new products with the Times brand and an expanded events business.

Analysts on the earnings call pressed executives for details about the nature of its digital subscribers to the New York Times and the International Herald Tribune which now number 640,000 (a 13-percent increase from the previous quarter.) Most of these come from people who already visited the Times website frequently, which raises the question of how many more new subscribers the company can draw in. NYTimes.com general manager Denise Warren pointed to marketing operations outside of internal Times channels to say this number would grow.

Analysts also questioned the fate of the Boston Globe which now has 28,000 digital subscribers, an eight-percent increase from the last quarter but still a small overall number.

Overall, the bottom line here is that this is the same old story for the New York Times company: it is shedding revenue, assets and longtime staff faster than it can build up a new digital business. If you’re looking for positive signs, the company’s decision to hold off issuing dividends is important because it shows a willingness to invest in the Times’ future. The company’s ongoing brand strengths and creative marketing may also provide it with a way forward.

The study, “Paying for What Was Free: Lessons from the New York Times Paywall,” is by Columbia University associate research scientist Jonathan Cook and Indiana University assistant professor Shahzeen Attari. They surveyed 954 New York Times  readers shortly after the paper announced, in March 2011, that it would enact a metered paywall, and then again 11 weeks after the paywall was implemented. In the post-paywall survey, participants read one of two “justification” paragraphs, one emphasizing a profit motive and one emphasizing financial need (that paragraph concluded, “if the NY Times does not implement digital subscriptions, the likelihood that it will go bankrupt seems high”).

Participants then “rated how the information changed their support for the paywall and their willingness to pay.” The results showed that “When participants were provided with a compelling justification for the paywall — that the NYT was likely to go bankrupt without it — their support and willingness to pay increased. In contrast, when participants were provided with a justification that emphasized financial stability, their support and willingness to pay decreased.”

The authors conclude, “Our results imply that many NYT readers resisted the newly implemented paywall and that perceptions of fairness are key to helping consumers adapt to abrupt changes in pricing. As other content providers follow the lead of the NYT, they may benefit from providing compelling justifications that convince consumers of financial necessity.”

That said, “most readers planned not to pay and ultimately did not,” the authors write. They “decreased their visits, devalued the NYT, and frequently planned to exploit loopholes to bypass the paywall or switch providers altogether.” So guilt is a somewhat effective weapon, but it’s not a guaranteed way to get readers to pay.

via Jim Romenesko

The CR iPad subscriptions launch with the January 2012 issue, which goes on sale December 6. Also starting with the January 2012 issue, print subscribers (who pay $29 per year) will have access to the iPad edition for free. Single issues are available through iTunes for $4.99, monthly iPad subscriptions are $2.99 and annual iPad subscriptions are $24.99.

The iPad edition is not included with online subscriptions, however: Subscribers to ConsumerReports.org, who pay $26 per year, can add the iPad edition for an additional $12 per year. (Somewhat confusingly, print subscribers don’t get free access to ConsumerReports.org, but can add it for $19 per year.)

Previously, iPad subscriptions were not available (single issues of the magazine on the iPad were $3.99) and print subscribers did not get free iPad access–something that made many of them quite unhappy, judging by the iTunes comments. (“As of now I rate CR a poor buy and do not recommend,” wrote one user.)

Chris Moody, CR director and general manager of print products, told Folio that the company intended all along to offer iPad/print bundles and iPad subscriptions, but didn’t have the resources to do so at the outset.

Consumer Reports is also releasing seven new iOS and Android smartphone apps (in addition to the free apps it’s already released), ranging in price from $0.99 to $4.99 per year. Consumer Reports Mobile Shopper, for $4.99, lets users scan barcodes to see Consumer Reports ratings and reviews. The other apps focus on appliances, babies’ and kids’ products, eco-friendly ingredients, TVs, washers and dryers, and hospital ratings.

A digital edition of Consumer Reports is also available for Kindle Fire, Nook and Nook Color, and Zinio, at $2 per month. Those editions are not free for print subscribers and are not optimized for Android tablets with larger screens, but Moody said the company is working on it.

Time Inc. and Condé Nast offer all-access subscriptions, bundling print and digital access, for some of their titles, while Hearst still charges print subscribers separately for digital access.