Bummer
If the Times charges for news, that will not impact the ability of FR members and weblogs to highlight articles and assess their accuracy under the "fair use" doctrine. All that will happen is that the Times will lose the advertising revenue that it gains from those readers at those times when they click through on advertisements.
I remember the worthless B2B auction sites that made you register and sign in to see what was for sale. Now I see the job sites that charge you for delivering mainly the same jobs that you can find for free on Monster.
There are ways to make money from free content with ads. These dinosaurs just need to figure out how to do it.
"For some publishers, it really sticks in the craw that they are giving away their content for free," said Colby Atwood, vice president of Borrell Associates Inc., a media research firm. The giveaway means less support for expensive news-gathering operations and the potential erosion of advertising revenue from the print side, which is much more profitable.
It's there fastest growing revenue source, yet this guy can't see the forest for the trees.
I think we have to look at the television model here: With TV we may pay for the transmission of programming, but we aren't paying for content, advertising pays for the content and on TV when you do pay for content, it's commercial free.
I already pay transmission fees (DSL hookup), but I will not pay for content. I think that newspapers are being "backward thinkers" and that they'll reap benefits from both consumers and commercial accounts if they go with the TV model.
I was contacted by a national polling company for the NYT about consumer reaction to charging for internet services. They apparently have several models for their coming changes.
I used to be a paid subscriber to their 'additional sections' to get their crosswords but quit when they went from $9 per year to almost $30.00.
Forgot the most important part of my previous post. Although I still read some of their stuff and occasionally go on their forums to drive the Libs nuts, I told them I'd NEVER go to their site if I had to pay for it--and I won't.
First, we're not giving information, it's being taken from us by the use of tracking software. If the government used the same techniques, the MSM would be screaming. 'Wasn't this the same bunch all concerned that someone would find out what library books we read? And they're the same group that uses tracking software to watch everything we read, look at, or buy.
"And forum posters and bloggers are illegitimate sources of information and they need to be regulated." Yep, MSM is in deep trouble and we're in their sites. We need to fight web censorship and taxation.
Advertising revenue from online sites is booming and, while it accounts for only 2 percent or 3 percent of most newspapers' overall revenues
Over 50% of their readers are online yet it only pays them 3%. The market is telling them how much their hard left bias is worth.
The NYT is often calling themselves “The Times” as in this article:
The Times's (sic) Web site had
Executives at The Times have
and The Times would
Isn’t there a UK newspaper who’s actual name is “The Times” and wouldn’t this infringe on there trade name somehow?
It's worse than that. I have the Denton paper delivered to my door everyday, and I didn't even sign up for the damn thing.
So it goes into the gutter
What information am I willing to pay for that a newspaper could make money on? What information is my neighbor willing to pay for? What information do I want that makes it worth subscribing to a paper so I can have online privileges?
"A" Section stuff -- I can get better stuff free and online. I'm not going to pay for it. This almost has to be a freebee. "B" Section -- local news. What's going on in town -- here do a New York Times list -- throw in everything including the kitchen sink. A computer can sift though everyone's individual taste -- "classical music", "outside, Sunday" "Church," "dinner, art," and "park play children." There's not space in a print edition to list all events in a town, but there plenty of room online. Without the filter of "what the editor likes," a communities social life can start reflecting the real values of the community.
Online neighborhood chats -- similar to FreeRepublic openness -- ideas for a better community. A place where local reporters can gleen what the local people are concerned about. It's popular here -- it could be a local "must have".
Some will pay for local crime news. What crimes are being committed in my neighborhood and at what time of day, by who?
Homes for sale. A search engine set up so the newest listings can be found, or homes by neighborhood, or by price, or number of bedrooms, or school district.
Sales of any kind in the paper. Would advertisers like to list additional information about their products online for an additional small fee? Classifieds. Again, what's newest, what's closest, what's the cost for all '98 Honda's? Is there an online picture to go with the classified ad?
What's being served at school for lunch, what's the bus schedule, what's the science homework for your 10 year old. ( OK, that last one might be too hard -- then again, some schools might want the privilege of sending the information.)
How's traffic. Coordinate with the local radio station. What jobs are being offered and where? Sort by wages, by community.
Online backup of the newspaper can give readers more information. And the backup ad information could give the newspapers more revenue. Selling a used car? "Six lines in the classified, one price, and a picture on the online site will cost you another price." Department stores doing a "white sale"? Run the ad in the paper, run the details on the paper's web site for a small additional cost. The paper collects for and runs both.
If the reader subscribes to the paper, visits to the paper's web site are free. If not, there's a charge. Make it useful, they will come, they will pay, and they'll come back. Make it an ego trip to the higher glorification of the writers and they'll come and not come back.
The online areas that get the most hits are supporting the paper and need to be expanded. The areas that are not getting hits can be dumped or improved. Paper should advertise restaurants in the paper, and offer the menu, prices and specials online. etc, etc. etc. I can think of many more ways ... as can every freeper.
They're apparently willing to pay what it is worth. Which is nothing.
What was it that Mom used to say about getting milk and buying the cow?
I always thought newspapers made most of their income from advertising and that the actual sale of the newspaper was a break even situation.
The reason newspapers hate and advertisers love web ads is that you actually SEE the clickthrough rates. Ads in a newspaper are useless for those purposes without a coupon. With web ads, you KNOW there's a difference in your response on your site.
Print ads are WAAAAAAAY overpriced. And people are foolish if they pay for web ads that charge by anything but the clickthru.
Should the NY Times begin charging for all of its online web content? Yea or nay!
It was one thing to buy a newspaper and throw it out when done. But now getting the paper is a burden when done i have to stack it in a bin so i can tie it up, store it for 2 weeks till it gets picked up and worst of all, carry the bundles to the curb and hope they get picked up without being rejected because the stack was 3 sheets to high. I used to read 4 or 5 papers a day. To Tie, stack , store and lug 70 papers to the curb is not worth my time or space.