Comments on: More NYT paywall math A slice of lime in the soda Sun, 26 Oct 2014 19:05:02 +0000 hourly 1 By: aengblom Tue, 26 Jan 2010 22:36:35 +0000 While I don’t disagree, I think there’s one clear flaw in our logic: It assumes that the online news industry will look relatively similar in the future. If you expect the industry to see slow gradual change, the NYT’s proposal is dead.

The only way I see this making sense is if there is a fallout in the news industry and publications start either dieing or going behind the paywall en mass. That could, and I emphasize, could, mean that people start paying up for news at at least one site because there’s no other way to get it.

In other words, it’s a cynical play.

By: gemfinder Sat, 23 Jan 2010 19:32:16 +0000 Basic rule of business: revenue models emerge early, or not at all.

Paywalls have generally failed for 10 years. It’s irrational to expect the same effort to yield a different result this time.

The only Web news success stories are single-subject verticals with captive reporting staff, e.g. Consumer Reports and the Wall Street Journal. Generalists and AP resellers are all dying. The Times can really only survive by going vertical, e.g. politics, and being the last survivor with its own reporting team.

Why is this not obvious to the industry?