Comments on: How the NYT should construct its paywall A slice of lime in the soda Sun, 26 Oct 2014 19:05:02 +0000 hourly 1 By: SFGary Thu, 21 Jan 2010 07:24:38 +0000 You suggest some very good models but how about just a flat amount, say $25 a year for people who use the site a lot and free to its paper subscriber? By a lot I mean 30-50 page views every day. Or as a commenter responding to the Jarvis/Buzzmachine diatribe suggested the Pandora model of a nominal sum of 99cents/month supported by ads and a full access @ $35 w/o ads.

I do agree that they should develop a model that is painless for its userbase. I am a big fan but if they start locking content like FT or WSJ and go beyond my dollar threshold I’ll go elsewhere even though there’s very few reliable national news sites in the U.S.

By: maxturbo Tue, 19 Jan 2010 18:47:35 +0000 Internet content is not free. I pay about $60/month for my internet content. The problem is that ALL the money is going to the distributor (service provider). Granted I’m paying for high speed pipes, but I certainly would care for those pipes if there was nothing to view, read or hear. Certainly, this ”meter” way of calculating internet use is fair, but they should collect the insanely rich providers.

Why can’t Murdoch and friends take their fight elsewhere?

By: Matthew_Saroff Tue, 19 Jan 2010 18:01:04 +0000 Newspapers have been giving away content for free to readers for generations.

What the readers have paid for is a portion of the cost of putting ink on paper.

Advertisers pay for content.

The problem in newspapers is two fold:
* The bean counters have been systematically cutting the quality of the product to make quarterly numbers.
* Their most profitable section, classifieds, is having its lunch eaten by Craigs List, etc.

By: Bob_in_MA Tue, 19 Jan 2010 03:21:27 +0000 What’s really amazing, is that both the method to circumvent the WSJ’s paywell and that of the FT are simple bugs. I dealt with that in 1999, it isn’t rocket science.

The main reason newspapers haven’t been able to make money on their Web sites is that they are run by idiots. I remember reading 3-4 years ago that the NYT’s Web site was bragging that they had reached break-even. But that was only if one assumed that all the content they received was free! If they had given me the contents of the NYT, I would have been profitable within a week.

By: Matthew_Saroff Mon, 18 Jan 2010 19:15:42 +0000 Ummmm….Which cookies do you delete on the site to bypass the firewall?

I just use rotating throw away email addresses, but deleting a specific cookie would be more convenient.

By: Statman Mon, 18 Jan 2010 18:57:12 +0000 The FT paywall is in fact completely porous. The metering works via a cookie — when you reach your quota, just delete the cookie and get a fresh quota. It’s even easier than defeating the WSJ paywall, which is done by googling the article title.

By: Bob_in_MA Mon, 18 Jan 2010 17:04:07 +0000 I think any pay-per-article meter system is doomed. Who wants to keep track of a dozen different meters at different media sites?

I think the newspaper sites should be allowed an antitrust exemption to form consortiums. Say you combined the NYTimes, the WashPost, papers from Europe, Asia, etc., and then charged $150/year and divided the proceeds based on page views.

By: MattF Mon, 18 Jan 2010 13:25:30 +0000 It’s hard to discriminate between different kinds of links. Would a “linked articles are free” policy work with links from Google or Wikipedia? What if you bookmark an article and then go back to it? What if you go to an article from a cached link?

I think that, to be technically robust, discrimination between links has to as simple as possible and on the server side. So, e.g., front-page, day-of-publication articles are free (which makes sense because they are the most attractive to advertisers), but everything else is micro-metered.

By: BasabPradhan Mon, 18 Jan 2010 04:37:13 +0000 “At the FT, by contrast, the meter slams down a hard paywall after you’ve reached n pageviews in a given month, and then charges you a very large sum for the n+1th pageview. That’s stupid, because no single pageview is worth that much to a reader.”

The FT system worked on me. I eventually succumbed, even though I get the print version as well. (website access is extra, which is a bummer)

However, the performance of is pathetic. It can take 20 seconds for the home page to load. Not a patch on NYT or WSJ.