Comments on: The NYT’s paywall A slice of lime in the soda Sun, 26 Oct 2014 19:05:02 +0000 hourly 1 By: SimonBrady Wed, 03 Mar 2010 18:22:53 +0000 Well this is all a bit self-serving isn’t it? A blogger with no responsibility for generating the money to pay him and who admits that the value of his blog is predicated on links back to good (and expensive to produce) journalism criticizes an organization that has to pay its staff for charging for the product that they produce and upon which his blog has hitherto relied. And furthermore, he recommends his own employers’ content which, where it is not charged for (and lots of Reuters content is), is a cross-subsidy for other media services which do have to make a profit. It seems to me that you all want good free content and therefore explicitly accept the advertising driven model without realizing that dependence on advertising is a threat to the quality you once respected. If you won’t pay for properly verified and investigated content, and are happy to accept the vagaries and problems of the blogosphere, then fine. But don’t criticize people for trying to make the money to pay their staff with.

By: Ghandiolfini Sun, 24 Jan 2010 10:56:10 +0000 …Felix, I suppose what I am saying is that I am not a big fan of video clips, but would like Radio Reuters – a service that plays uninterrupted music for 55 minutes with a 5 minute news headlines every hour. Low bandwidth consumption please.

By: ReutersRat Fri, 22 Jan 2010 05:00:08 +0000 If anyone wants to calc in the numbers on the cost of printing and delivering the actual papers, I pulled them together here: e-the-newspapers/

By: gregspielberg Thu, 21 Jan 2010 19:38:37 +0000 Great piece and fair reaction. Not sure that the NYT’s exploration of partnership options signifies desperation. Seems like the opposite; otherwise, why partner?

What’s most interesting to me is thinking about paywall communities. If Facebook started charging $5 a month, would internal communities be any less robust? I don’t think so. As journalism companies get stronger at connecting people, the communal aspect will be part of the draw and a perk of the price of entry.

The link problem you bring up is big, but it doesn’t have to be an all-or-nothing proposal. The NYT can create links for influential bloggers that are functional for the bloggers’ readers but can’t be tossed around on FB, TW, email etc.

By: klintron Thu, 21 Jan 2010 19:06:03 +0000 I can’t help but notice that all the old IHT links work now, they just redirect to the NYT site. And they’re not behind a paywall (but they are behind the standard NYT registration wall).

I didn’t even know the FT had a “meter” until the NYT meter rumors started. I occasionally read articles there and occasionally link to them. I read and link to NYT articles far more frequently, but given a sufficiently generous meter (say, 20 articles a month) I don’t see why this would be a problem for me or for most readers and bloggers.

By: fragmatic Thu, 21 Jan 2010 14:42:19 +0000 ” If they start charging, they’re going to lose me!”

And their employees, roofers, landlords, electric companies etc say, “If they stop paying me, they’re going to lose me.”

When push comes to shove, they’re not going to care about losing readers that won’t pay their fair share of the costs out of some strange ideological objection.

Let’s just see how long Mr. Felix Salmon keeps his job after the last newspaper goes out of business and stops paying Reuters.

By: michtom Thu, 21 Jan 2010 09:29:32 +0000 Along with Reuters is McClatchey, which has been giving readers the only consistently truthful reporting on US imperialism of all the US mainstream news sources.

By: Ghandiolfini Thu, 21 Jan 2010 08:24:50 +0000 I suppose it depends on the ‘mix’ of news that one desires. I prefer a superficial global balance, through a variety of mediums as it moves through my real-time-lines during my ‘awake’ day:

1. Television which I get while at home/working at home – CNN, BBC, EuroNews; AJE, Russia Today; (Asia-Pacific really lacks in this regard);
2. Radio which I get via my hifi/mobile while working and traveling;
3. Lamp-Posters of headlines as I travel;
4. Reuters during breaks or by choice.

So in a way my cell phone, internet and satellite TV subscriptions already costs me +- $ 100 + $150 + $50 = $ 300 converted in local parity, which forms 5% of my budget before taxes, which is actually high when one starts adding up all the rats and mice and considering that the service provider capital infrastructures should by now be paid off after, say 20 years.

One should also distinguish between newswires and news presenters, the latter buying and feeding from the former and the former supplying both, mostly by monopoly ?

In modern times I really don’t know where people find time to read print anymore, it is environmentally not PC anyway and the detail depresses and confuses me.

I hope Agnes Crane’s article is not prepping us to start paying for this globally inconsistent and messy website. I only have time for headlines and superficial opinion and blogging with the fun factor driving me.

As always the answer lays/lies in the maths, i.e. after representative surveys, calculating contribution per unit for above options by subtracting variable unit costs from matching unit revenue streams and optimizing the options, while considering fixed costs, which I doubt the NYT did, which is why they have become desperate.

By: nicfulton Thu, 21 Jan 2010 05:38:09 +0000 Felix – isn’t a really key question here just where the meter-level is set that converts to “subscription needed”? Let’s say they set it at 60 articles / month. How many of those people clicking through on a link from your blog would be affected? 1%? 3%? 5%? I can’t imagine that more than 5% of unique visitors to NYTimes would hit 60/month level, so the impact is pretty small. However, those hitting 60/month are almost the definition of regular readers and maybe they’ll understand the value they are getting from the paper (albeit in online form) and be willing subscribers. At that point your link works all the time – right?

By: Taron-M Thu, 21 Jan 2010 03:52:20 +0000 Also, web advertising doesn’t generate the same revenue as print or television advertising. And advertising isn’t a stable revenue generator, especially in difficult financial times. I’m confident that you’ll see the Internet eventually switch away from free content to pay-for-use content…like most other businesses. I don’t recall seeing McDonalds offering free food paid for by advertisers. If it was a good business model, I’m sure they’d be all over it.