So, as I've been saying ever since The New York Times announced its digital paywall more than a year ago, the newspaper of record today announced that it was raising the wall even higher, cutting the number of articles than can be read on its site for free from 20 to 10.
This was no doubt done to increase its number of paying customers online, which is now about half a million, or half of its offline, paper subscribers. And that's certainly a good start. But where will it lead?
Today's announcement suggests that a time will soon come when nothing of The New York Times will be available for free online. This newspaper, in other words, will have thoroughly rejected the model of broadcast media, which made radio and then television the media with the biggest audiences and impact in the 20th century. Free content has already propelled The Huffington Post to an Alexa rank of 84 (based on number of hits and incoming links), surpassing The New York Times at 98, as free online media continue to surge in impact in the 21st century.
If The New York Times continues on this path of requiring payment for its content, rather than devising ways of earning revenue through its advertising, it will continue to move from being the newspaper of record to the newspaper of the past.
Which is not the worst thing in the world. Legitimate theater continues in an age of movies and television, but the stage has long since lost the audiences it commanded in 1900.
This was no doubt done to increase its number of paying customers online, which is now about half a million, or half of its offline, paper subscribers. And that's certainly a good start. But where will it lead?
Today's announcement suggests that a time will soon come when nothing of The New York Times will be available for free online. This newspaper, in other words, will have thoroughly rejected the model of broadcast media, which made radio and then television the media with the biggest audiences and impact in the 20th century. Free content has already propelled The Huffington Post to an Alexa rank of 84 (based on number of hits and incoming links), surpassing The New York Times at 98, as free online media continue to surge in impact in the 21st century.
If The New York Times continues on this path of requiring payment for its content, rather than devising ways of earning revenue through its advertising, it will continue to move from being the newspaper of record to the newspaper of the past.
Which is not the worst thing in the world. Legitimate theater continues in an age of movies and television, but the stage has long since lost the audiences it commanded in 1900.
19 comments:
I'm torn about this. The Times and all newspapers traditionally made their money through advertising, with subscription and newsstand revenue supporting those in the distribution channels, not the content providers. On the Internet, distribution is free, yet the Times (and others) seek revenue through distribution, not advertising. It this an attempt to tap into the power of crowdsourcing, or an abondoning of tried and true revenue generation?
Why is advertising failing to support traditional content providers iin cyberspace when it has been made to work in all other media (perhaps excepting books- movies have preview ads and product placement)? Does it have to do with all other media being the CONTENT of the Internet?
In the case of the New York Times, its problem with online advertising had to do with being dreadfully slow to understand online media, which The Huffington Post was doing from its get-go in 2005. Similar to the way Barnes & Noble was asleep at the online switch while Amazon grabbed the market for online selling of printed books.
Granted, though my understanding was that Huff didn't pay for much of its content, so their revenue needs were different. It still boils down to crowdsourcing supporting/providing the content, not advertisers. B&N just got buggywhipped by Amazon.
Right, that's what I meant about the NYT not getting it. HuffPost understood from the beginning the value of new new media (hyper commenting, etc), being open to and and engaging of the world, even though it was still ultimately (and still is) a top-down, gate-kept operation.
Uh, the reason Huffington Post can offer content for free is because they steal most of it from papers like the New York Times. The Times has to charge subscribers because they actually pay reporters to go out and find news.
"Uh," try providing a little evidence when you put out a charge like that (in exciting bold, no less).
And your point makes no sense, even if it were true. The NY Times' printed paper already makes the vast majority of its money from ads. And, as I indicated in my blog post, broadcast media provide all of their content free - do you think they, "uh," "steal most of it" from printed papers, too?
provide a little evidence?
Huffington Post Slammed for Content Theft:
http://www.wired.com/epicenter/2008/12/huffpo-slammed/
How the Huffington Post stole my work:
http://isabelleroughol.com/blog/?p=733
What It's Like to Get Used and Abused by The Huffington Post:
http://adage.com/article/the-media-guy/abused-huffington-post/228607/
need more?
Yes, I do.
You provided links to allegations - show me evidence that The Huffington Post was found guilty in a court of law, or settled a lawsuit against it for theft of intellectual property, and then I'll look at that.
And even is there is such evidence, it wouldn't prove your across-the-board charge. For that to be sustained, there would need to be lots of cases and lots of guilty verdicts or settlements.
have you read the Huffington Post lately? Can you name any major stories they've broken (without doing a frantic google search)?
And now, because you have no evidence of theft of intellectual property, you try to change the basis of this discussion. Typical.
and because I'm winning the argument you get personal. typical? typical of whom, professor? the people who read your blog?
Not personal at all - typical, as I indicated in my comment, of people (that is, a de facto group) who make wild charges (as you did), and when confronted about them, and asked for evidence, switch the charges or grounds of the discussion (as you did).
Typical sophist argument. But not at all typical of people who read this blog and comment - most of whom are not sophists, and present reasoned arguments (whether I agree with them or not). You, in contrast, throw mud, and then change the subject when called it.
throwing mud? not sure when I did that. Nor was I changing the argument. you took issue with my charge about theft of content, which implies you believe HuffPo does plenty of their own original reporting. I asked you to provide some examples of that. You failed to do so. I don't blame you for that; I doubt many people could. And that's my point.
You threw mud when you wrote of The Huffington Post "they steal most of it from papers like the New York Times" You changed the topic when you started talking about "original reporting," quite different from stealing content, as you and the links you posted allege.
As for the original reporting, I of course agree that the NY Times does much more it than does The Huffington Post. But that doesn't have bearing on my point that the NY Times would be better off without a paywall - just as CBS, NBC, Fox, and ABC News are on the television screen.
and without a paywall, how would you suggest the Times pay for all those reporters and editors producing all that original coverage? print advertising revenue is declining. digital advertising pays a fraction of what print ads do. If HuffPo makes money (and I stress the "if") it's probably as much due to low overhead (i.e., a small newsroom staff) as it is to digital ad revenue.
That's why I mentioned the broadcast media model - huge salaries to execs and on air talent, free content to viewers, all money made from ads. Advertising is CPM, meaning it pays based on how many thousands in the audience - so that could work with the right packaging as well for digital as for broadcast media.
The Village Voice in NYC would be an example of a tough little weekly that at least survived by becoming a freebie, keeping its circulation up, and revenue from ads.
As for HuffPo, apparently AOL thought it was making money, hence their purchase of it for $315 million.
broadcast is a different business, different economies of scale. always has been. this discussion was fun, so I banged out a column on it:
http://journalism.about.com/od/trends/a/Why-Paywalls-Are-A-Good-Thing-For-Newspapers.htm
Glad this inspired a column - hope it gets lots of hits :) Here's a tweet to get that started https://twitter.com/#!/PaulLev/status/183352087344709632
Post a Comment