[Chart] Why the NY Times paywall will fail

A couple of days ago, the NY Times instored their "paywall", where users can only have 20 free articles per month, once you've crossed the 20 articles limit, you have to pay. When they announced that we'll have to pay for the NY Times I wasn't too outraged or dissapointed, it's by far the best newspaper/news source in the world (in my opinion) so I would't mind paying a sum for it. But when they announced the prices, my mind changed quickly, those prices are ridiculous. There's no way I'm paying $15 a month just to have full access to the website.  It's $20/month for the site and tablet app, and it's $35/month to have full access (website, smartphone and tablet).

Here's a chart comparing the NY Times annual rate to other companies.

Click image to enlarge

Does the Times really think that the general public will pay 455$/year for a digital subscription (most expensive package)?  As the understatement points out, you can have the 20 articles/month for free, subscribe to The Wall Street Journal, The Economist, The Daily and still save 100$. You should have enough information with that.

But as Wired points out, the paywall can make sense financially for the Times, with the increased value of the ads behind the paywall and other reasons (read the article).

However, The NY Times is taking a big risk and I wish them luck because they have a great product but with already so many sites explaining how easy it is to disable the paywall, I don't see how the NY Times paywall can be successful unless they considerably lower their prices.

Sources: The Understatement and Gizmodo