Comments on: How the NYT paywall is working http://blogs.reuters.com/felix-salmon/2011/08/12/how-the-nyt-paywall-is-working/ A slice of lime in the soda Sun, 26 Oct 2014 19:05:02 +0000 hourly 1 http://wordpress.org/?v=4.2.5 By: traduceri daneza romana http://blogs.reuters.com/felix-salmon/2011/08/12/how-the-nyt-paywall-is-working/comment-page-1/#comment-55041 Tue, 14 Oct 2014 09:58:30 +0000 http://blogs.reuters.com/felix-salmon/?p=9301#comment-55041 Couldn? to become created any benefit. Reading this write-up reminds me associated with our aged room companion! He / she generally retained referring to this specific. I am going to onward this short article to your pet. Sure he’ll almost certainly have a very great read. Many thanks for revealing!

]]>
By: Elanor Quiring http://blogs.reuters.com/felix-salmon/2011/08/12/how-the-nyt-paywall-is-working/comment-page-1/#comment-54507 Fri, 10 Oct 2014 00:29:42 +0000 http://blogs.reuters.com/felix-salmon/?p=9301#comment-54507 stylish, restrained and easy

]]>
By: traducator daneza http://blogs.reuters.com/felix-salmon/2011/08/12/how-the-nyt-paywall-is-working/comment-page-1/#comment-53707 Mon, 29 Sep 2014 14:04:10 +0000 http://blogs.reuters.com/felix-salmon/?p=9301#comment-53707 I am not sure the place you’re getting your information, but great topic. I needs to spend a while finding out more or figuring out more. Thanks for magnificent info I used to be looking for this information for my mission.

]]>
By: whyUnique http://blogs.reuters.com/felix-salmon/2011/08/12/how-the-nyt-paywall-is-working/comment-page-1/#comment-34983 Fri, 13 Jan 2012 19:32:18 +0000 http://blogs.reuters.com/felix-salmon/?p=9301#comment-34983 Wonder if NYT considered the NPR model of voluntary subscription?

]]>
By: fxtrader14 http://blogs.reuters.com/felix-salmon/2011/08/12/how-the-nyt-paywall-is-working/comment-page-1/#comment-29564 Mon, 15 Aug 2011 11:34:46 +0000 http://blogs.reuters.com/felix-salmon/?p=9301#comment-29564 “the WSJ and FT are still treating their readers with mistrust, as though they’ll be robbed somehow if they ever let their guard down a little.”
Given the WSJ and FT’s customers are mostly bankers/finance-type and the recent experience of regulators, politicians, customers “letting their guards down” to bankers, it seems to me perfectly sound of the FT/WSJ to not trust its customers…

]]>
By: newsjunkie247 http://blogs.reuters.com/felix-salmon/2011/08/12/how-the-nyt-paywall-is-working/comment-page-1/#comment-29560 Mon, 15 Aug 2011 00:19:53 +0000 http://blogs.reuters.com/felix-salmon/?p=9301#comment-29560 I think you are making a false assumption though. You are assuming that a majority of those 200 000 plus users are paying out of choice and that they see the choices that they have. But I think the first comment on this post illustrates the opposite. It isn’t necessarily the fact that people are considering both options realistically and choosing to pay. We don’t know who makes up those 200 000 people. Techsavviness and psychology play a really big role here. If a majority of those paying are somewhat older and less techsavvy, they might think the paywall is harsher than it is and harder to get around. When I shared this video on Facebook showing the workaround (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=N5R4CgDw FX), several otherwise intelligent college grads were very thankful and had not realized how easy it was, just like the commenter above and simply believed that because the marketing painted the idea of a paywall, that one really existed. The NYT doesn’t market this as a low paywall. They emphasize that one still get in through links on blogs/social media, but believe it or not, most people don’t realize that one can also in matter of seconds create such a link in their address bar. If hypothetically, the Times created such a video as posted above, this would be a very different story. There was a really great comment in the German Frankfurter Allegemeine Zeitung that unfortunately has been translated. But it had this key sentence. “The only people who pay are the ones who are too dumb, too lazy or too nice, or those who want to read the paper on an iThingy”. And these are the people the advertisers want to reach? How about the young techsavvy people who aren’t repelled from reading the Times by a non-existing paywall? http://www.faz.net/artikel/C31013/zeitun g-im-internet-die-dummen-die-faulen-und- die-netten-30480810.html

]]>
By: hbobrien http://blogs.reuters.com/felix-salmon/2011/08/12/how-the-nyt-paywall-is-working/comment-page-1/#comment-29554 Sun, 14 Aug 2011 21:30:22 +0000 http://blogs.reuters.com/felix-salmon/?p=9301#comment-29554 “(The NYT is) a publicly-listed for-profit corporation, run for the financial benefit of its shareholders.”

Ah, urban legend strikes again. To quote from “Why We Should Stop Teaching Dodge v. Ford,” by Lynn A. Stout, in the Spring 2008 issue of the Virginia Business & Law Review:

“Dodge v. Ford is indeed bad law, at least when cited for the proposition that the corporate purpose is, or should be, maximizing shareholder wealth. Dodge v. Ford is a mistake, a judicial “sport,” a doctrinal oddity largely irrelevant to corporate law and corporate practice. What is more, courts and legislatures alike treat it as irrelevant. In the past thirty years, the Delaware courts have cited Dodge v. Ford as authority in only one unpublished case, and then not on the subject of corporate purpose, but on another legal question entirely.

Only laypersons and (more disturbingly) many law professors continue to rely on Dodge v. Ford. This Essay argues we should mend our collective ways. Legal instructors and scholars should stop teaching and citing Dodge v. Ford. At the least, they should stop teaching and citing Dodge v. Ford as anything more than an example of how courts can go seriously astray.”

Further down in the article we find:

“What about state corporation codes? Do they perhaps limit the corporate purpose to shareholder wealth maximization? To employ the common saying, the answer is “not just ‘no,’ but ‘hell no.’” A large majority of state codes contain so-called other-constituency provisions that explicitly authorize corporate boards to consider the interests of not just shareholders, but also employees, customers, creditors, and the community, in making business decisions. The Delaware corporate code does not have an explicit other-constituency provision, but it also does not define the corporate purpose as shareholder wealth maximization. Rather, section 101 of the General Corporation Law of Delaware simply provides that corporations can be formed “to conduct or promote any lawful business or purposes.””

So the NYT *might* be run for the financial benefit of its shareholders… but there’s no necessity for it.

]]>
By: SSDependent http://blogs.reuters.com/felix-salmon/2011/08/12/how-the-nyt-paywall-is-working/comment-page-1/#comment-29533 Sun, 14 Aug 2011 07:44:42 +0000 http://blogs.reuters.com/felix-salmon/?p=9301#comment-29533 Well, Felix, I’m certainly glad to see that your readers, most of them apparently, are gainfully and happily employed, but I would remind those of you who are so snugly living in your privileged and rarefied worlds that outside that bubble there is a recession going on–and, indeed, if we are to believe people like Floyd Norris and Paul Krugman, may very well be rapidly closing in on RECESSION REDUX–and that some of us who find ourselves consigned to living in the lower rungs and have as a result not held a job, literally for years, find even $5.00 a month, let alone $15.00, a not exactly inconsiderable sum to be tossing out to the venerable Grey Lady for the honor of staying informed. I know, I know, I realize that there are some who find that hard to believe and think nothing of sneering at those forced to work around that blasted paywall, but I can assure you, sad to say, that it’s all too true. Please read the national and financial sections of that paper a bit more conscientiously and try not to be as smug as those appalling Republican clowns we see every night on tv who seem hell-bent on making our lives a living nightmare.

]]>
By: David239 http://blogs.reuters.com/felix-salmon/2011/08/12/how-the-nyt-paywall-is-working/comment-page-1/#comment-29531 Sun, 14 Aug 2011 06:21:26 +0000 http://blogs.reuters.com/felix-salmon/?p=9301#comment-29531 Were I back in Boston, I’d subscribe to the print edition, but here in Tokyo, paying more and getting less grates. But there’s not much other than Krugman there any more (see above on Brooks, Fish, et. al.) and Krugman’s not behind the paywall, if I understand correctly. (And you can just read the other econ blogs to see what Krugman’s up to.)

So the bottom line here is that the NYT isn’t providing enough content to justify the bother of signing up and making sure they can deal with a non-US account.

]]>
By: david3 http://blogs.reuters.com/felix-salmon/2011/08/12/how-the-nyt-paywall-is-working/comment-page-1/#comment-29527 Sat, 13 Aug 2011 23:24:15 +0000 http://blogs.reuters.com/felix-salmon/?p=9301#comment-29527 Spot on Felix. I never went to the IMA until it was free. After going once, free, I realized what a great treasure it was and have since contributed.

]]>