Forum Moderators: open
I hope this works, but I'm doubtful. I'm a big fan of the NYT (as you can tell from my postings, probably).
From New York magazine, via Editor and Publisher's Fitz & Jen [fitzandjen.com]:
The Times has considered three types of pay strategies. One option was a more traditional pay wall along the lines of The Wall Street Journal, in which some parts of the site are free and some subscription-only. For example, editors and business-side executives discussed a premium version of Andrew Ross Sorkin's DealBook section. Another option was the metered system. The third choice, an NPR-style membership model, was abandoned last fall, two sources explained. The thinking was that it would be too expensive and cumbersome to maintain because subscribers would have to receive privileges (think WNYC tote bags and travel mugs, access to Times events and seminars).[nymag.com...]
Even if they just force a login or any intermediate page/prompt: I go elsewhere already.
Why oblivion:
- No more incoming links
- No more indexing (and if they cheat, demands they get unlisted will be fast and loud)
They might as well not even publish it online at all.
Here is a fascinating visualization of NYTimes traffic [bits.blogs.nytimes.com]. The orange colored circles represent mobile web traffic, mostly from commuters.
Nevertheless, I'm not certain that a paywall is the way to go. Many webmasters are discovering there is a market for their ad inventory and selling it directly rather through a third party. Technologies like OpenX make it easier to do. Perhaps they should consider opening up their ad inventory via their own PPC system.
[edited by: martinibuster at 12:01 am (utc) on Jan. 18, 2010]
An interesting observation after watching the videos... it seems that more people in the DFW area (Dallas/Ft Worth) are reading the Times than almost any other location. That sure doesn't speak well for the Dallas news market.
pay wall = proven path to oblivion in the online world.
Considering I never paid for the NY Times before the internet, it's unlikely that I will just because it's online, but that doesn't mean others won't.
I pay for satellite radio and a few dollars a month for their streaming internet version which used to be free, but it has unique content and is a destination so I pay.
I pay for premium video channels on cable, stuff not in the standard packages, just because it's unique content, a destination.
I pay for an online game destination, their stuff is top notch unlike the other sites giving the same games away for free.
Millions actually pay for these same things, why?
Because we're sick of the poor quality crap for free and will pay for something better and unique.
If the NY Times can be the best news source on the planet I'd probably pay for that too.
FWIW, I started charging last year for a service I've been giving away free for many years and those willing to pay are about 30% of those willing to take it for free. I'm totally stoked because that 30% is a huge increase in profit, screw the 70% that won't pay.
If that same news site where charging for access and had 30000 users actualy paying, surely this has to be better than 100000 freeloaders sucking at your bandwidth.
30% of something is better than 100% of nothing.
Mack.
30% of something is better than 100% of nothing.
Big brand media sites get good ad revenues.
pay wall = proven path to oblivion in the online world.
Not if you have content that is worth paying for. There are a good many sites that do well behind paywalls. They do get indexed, and they do get linked (because they have unique content so there is no alternative to link to).
Mack.
NYTimes is not just people shooting each other. There are a lot of different topics from fashion, real estate, travel, tech, science, etc. Apple, Microsoft and others have been doing full page takeover ads [digitalbuzzblog.com] all last year. Apparently some sections of the site do better than other sections [niemanlab.org].
Big brand media sites get good ad revenues.
Which is constantly under attack by AdWords and ad blockers combined.
Mack.
Paywall ideas aren't going to work with news we can get everywhere else, unless everyone does it. But paywall might work with opinion pieces.
Part of the problem with losing the traffic through a paywall is that the ad inventory will drop.
Publishers were wealthy, successful businesses earning big bucks for their shareholders. The Internet has changed all that, and the end result is that newspapers and magazines have to find a lower cost model.
Paywall, ad revenue model, or a combination of them both, and other methods, may well end up being the income model of the future.
Will it work? Only by trying it will anyone know.
But you stay here on WW, whom force login after x pageviews. WW does just fine for links, crawling and traffic.
Paywall ideas aren't going to work with news we can get everywhere else
Maybe that's part of the equation.
Shut the doors and lock out the me-too news scrapers and some of the news that originates from the NY Times is now only found exclusively at the NY Times behind the pay-wall.
The NYT is a strange example.
They want and need to make more money than they are with their good work. What is going on now is not sustainable.
All news reporting is not equal. Some kind of iTunes system that is at least getting some cash flow for creative efforts is needed to fund the news. But, we don't always get want we need or want.
Shut the doors and lock out the me-too news scrapers and some of the news that originates from the NY Times is now only found exclusively at the NY Times behind the pay-wall.
How would you actually go about that though? It would seem that a major change would have to be made to freedom of speech laws if you want to ban: "According to the NYT..[snip rewording of NYT article different enough to avoid copyright problems]..."
But I agree that this is the issue - I don't think you can found a paywall system on opinion pieces, since they aren't the problem the newspapers have as I understand it. Their problem is that they spend a lot of money having real journalists out their finding real stories, and the revenue stream supporting them has come crashing down.
I hope they can figure out something that works to be honest, or in ten years time all we are going to find anywhere is a thousand rewordings of the same corporate or government press release. And opinion pieces.
How would you actually go about that though? It would seem that a major change would have to be made to freedom of speech laws if you want to ban: "According to the NYT..[snip rewording of NYT article different enough to avoid copyright problems]..."
How would you actually go about that though? It would seem that a major change would have to be made to freedom of speech laws if you want to ban: "According to the NYT..[snip rewording of NYT article different enough to avoid copyright problems]..."
Once it's all pay-walled, you have to sign a licensing agreement to access the site.
Freedom of speech and contract law are two totally different issues :)
Agreed you'll never stop the "according to the NY times" type of stuff but you can certainly stop the wholesale quoting of articles which happens today.
When you don't care if the content is indexed you can easily use technology to thwart copying and pasting even such as using a Flash formatted news page.
More importantly, I don't see local advertisers fleeing any time soon.
[edited by: incrediBILL at 4:54 pm (utc) on Jan. 18, 2010]
Maybe they don't know what they're doing when it comes to monetization. Or maybe they're content isn't worth paying for. Or maybe they need to cut expenses. Perhaps all three.
But... with the amount of "free" info out there I do not think they will attract any new paying members, and I predict their paying customer base will slowly dwindle down until they re-visit this decision.
I just can't see many younger people signing up. Not because of the content but because of the availability of that content for free elsewhere.
For one thing, it forces the me-too rewriters to either get a subscription or rewrite someone else's stuff.
It would be funny if the only subscribers they got were people who planned on stealing/rewriting articles.
Which is constantly under attack by AdWords and ad blockers combined
The FT used to have their CPM rates on their site. Have a look - not many people are getting that from Adsense, or paying it to Adwords. They have some content behind a paywall as well.
Demaestro, exactly. I do not believe most newspapers really have much unique content.
They must have a new plan of attack. I'm not sure if it ties in with e-readers (can't you already read the NY Times on Kindle?). They may have an ace up their sleeve. We'll see.
That was when they lost me as a customer, and I won't be back unless I have a professional requirement to do research on their site.
Which is constantly under attack by AdWords and ad blockers combined.
if the site isn't delivering ads via a well known ad server it won't be blocked by an adblocker.
if they are delivering their ads via their own site and server they'll show up just fine.
Micro payments via internet connected smart phones is getting closer to reality.
I dont think its the fee thats the problem, its the type of fee that is.
I dont wont to buy the whole newspaper. Just acouple of articles tht are of interst to me today. What should I be charged for that? A couple of cents an article?
A monthly fee ... no thank you.
CC payments ... no thank you.
Paying from a small cash deposit made into my phone, yes please.
P
