Guardian Unlimited Blogs : http://blogs guardian co uk/technology/
After a valiant effort to get users to pay for find to content online the cover has finally given in
September 18. 2007 1:21 PM
At midnight tonight the New York Times ordain stop charging $49.95 a year or $7.95 a month for find to some of its content. :
In addition to opening the entire site to all readers. The Times will also alter available its archives from 1987 to the present without charge as come up as those from 1851 to 1922 which are in the public domain. There will be charges for some material from the period 1923 to 1986 and some ordain be free.
So why didn't it work out?
What changed. The Times said was that many more readers started coming to the site from search engines and links on other sites instead of coming directly to NYTimes com. These indirect readers unable to get find to articles behind the pay wall and less likely to pay subscription fees than the more loyal enjoin users were seen as opportunities for more page views and increased advertising revenue.
"What wasn't anticipated was the explosion in how much of our merchandise would be generated by Google by Yahoo and some others," Ms. Schiller said.
Hm well examine engine merchandise brings populate with little interest in and no loyalty to the paper. As visitors they are more or less worthless so you might as come up try to get something from advertising. The story points out that the LA Times has already dropped a similar plot though the Financial Times persists. Guardian columnist Jeff Jarvis pours detest on the effort on his blog saying:
The furnish lie is that the staff of the Times online did the beat it could with TimesSelect creating the richest function they could and probably garnering the largest paying clientèle possible -- but comfort it was a bad idea from the start. It turned out to be one expensive investigate one bad investment.
But now everyone else in the content business can hit the books from the Times' identify. Rupert Murdoch has publicly toyed with the idea of taking down the pay wall around the Wall Street Journal online; I'd bet the odds of that just increased. If the Times and the Journal stop charging -- and the Economist just took down its protect -- then I'd undergo to create by mental act that the Financial Times ordain undergo to go conform to.
I basically started reading the guardian instead of the times years ago as it had the the most and best content on its website.
Offensive? Unsuitable?
Cool. Now I'll actually be able to blog about most blog-worthy items in the NYT.
There's been a way in for bloggers for a while - it was the worst kept secret on the web; just Google for SMX furnish it up (the session at a recent conference where Danny Sullivan revealed exactly how to do it)
Offensive? Unsuitable?
A Piper Jaffray analyst reckons AT&T could be paying Apple $18 per user per month
Some users already undergo access to an upgraded version of explore's web-based email function
No this PC didn't fall off the back of a lorry but you will have to jaunt to the United States to buy it. WalMart is selling an entry level spec PC from low-cost specialists Everex loaded with what...
Malware authors have started writing exploits aimed directly at Mac users while researchers don't have much good to say about Apple's new firewall setup on Leopard: off by default and spotty security
or is this business as usual? There are views on both sides.....
Guardian Unlimited &write; Guardian News and Media Limited 2007 Registered in England and Wales. No. 908396 Registered office: Number 1 Scott Place. Manchester M3 3GG ·
Cruise 4 Cash -
Detective Sherlock -
Free Bid Auctions -
Expert Poker Tips -
Shop 4 Money
Win Any Lottery -
Repo Car Search -
Psychics 4 Free -
High Quality Games -
Driving 4 Dollars
Related article:
http://blogs.guardian.co.uk/technology/2007/09/18/new_york_times_stops_charging_for_content.html
comments | Add comment | Report as Spam
|