
Will we see the NY Times paywall soon? - davewiner
http://scripting.com/stories/2011/03/16/willWeSeeTheNyTimesFirewal.html
======
mrcharles
Given the NYT's war with people who want to read articles without signing up
for an account, this wouldn't surprise me.

But until they do it, I can still google the base URL of an article and click
from google, circumventing the need to log in.

It was so much easier when the article title was on the login page, I could
just select it in chrome, google from right click menu, and click on the top
link.

Ah well, I expect that will continue to work even if they try for a pay wall.
I can't imagine that they don't see google referrals as one of their primary
sources of traffic. Otherwise they wouldn't have implemented the google click
exception in the first place.

~~~
ghurlman
Help me understand, as this escapes me to this day... why is it no trouble at
all to copy an article title, google it, and click on that link, and then a
major PITA to register an account, sign in, check "remember me" and never deal
with it again?

This sort of thing is what throwaway accounts were made for.

~~~
trustfundbaby
If users are going to that length to circumvent the login, that should tell
you something about how much of a PITA the process is in their minds.

All they want to do is read the article and it shows that the NYTimes process
is just not working. I actually have a login to NYTimes, but I can't remember
it since I don't read them regularly ... so if I go to their site and get
greeted with a login screen and whatever computer I'm on doesn't remember my
login ... I tap out and go do something else.

Why they can't sit down and seriously think about ways to change that instead
of going with tried and tired methods never ceases to amaze me.

I mean its 2011 and we're still talking about paywalls for goodness sake ... I
thought those failed ten years ago?

------
silverbax88
I'm not opposed to a paywall for any reason other than I won'r pay for content
that I don't deem worth it. Not making a statement about the NYT. I just don't
read the Times paper edition on a regular basis and therefore see no
justification for paying for their online content. There's never been a story
so amazing that I couldn't just move on without reading it.

I pay for content in some instances, and don't get the anger from people who
grit their teeth and declare war on any newspaper who wants to charge for
their online content. But it would be more likely for me to pay for my local
paper's online content than the NYT.

------
dgallagher
The only major newspaper site successful with a pay-wall (that I'm aware of)
is wsj.com. Here's how I think they do it:

    
    
        1) Give generic information away for free (e.g. Reuters stories).
        2) Place any unique, WSJ-only content, behind a pay-wall.
    

Most content on newspaper websites fall into #1. When you see a link for "all
584 news articles" on Google News for a story, that information is pure
commodity. You won't be able to charge for it.

The #2 category is where the money's at, but only if the information is worth
something to those buying it. For the WSJ, you have extremely wealthy business
people needing detailed info about the economy, and the WSJ is the only place
that delivers it. Their pay-wall easily succeeds; high demand for a scarce
piece of information, coupled with disposable income to buy it.

How does the WSJ get #2 content? Intimate relationships with corporate
executives who don't have all day to talk to dozens of news outlets.
Investigative reporting focused on business. Creating unique niche stories
which you can't find anywhere else. For example, check out "Off Screen, Porn
Sites Trick Advertisers", a pay-wall article:

[http://online.wsj.com/article/SB1000142405274870489360457620...](http://online.wsj.com/article/SB10001424052748704893604576200383793893712.html)

Now search for the story on Google News. 22 hits, none of them relevant,
except for the same WSJ article above! The story isn't anywhere else because
the WSJ created it. If you're in the online porn business, you're probably
signing up for a paid account right about now.

WSJ HACK: If you click on the link in the Google News search results, you'll
get free access to the whole article! :) It's the same URL as above, but
WSJ.com knows you're coming from Google, and gives you free access. They
likely do this for marketing/promotional reasons, and non-tech-savy users
won't usually be aware of it.

\--------------------

The issue with the NYT.com is, while they do create unique content, it's not
typically the type of content people want to buy. What's more important to
you, a story about a competitor for your business dollars, or an article about
which wine tastes best? Are you selling aspirin or vitamins? Aspirin cures
pain right now, where vitamins makes you feel a little bit better about your
future self.

A few years ago the NYT put their Op-Ed pieces behind a pay-wall, but
eventually realized it didn't work:

 _The paper has tried a pay wall before. In 2005, it rolled out “Times Select”
whereby it cordoned off access to op-ed columnists like Thomas Friedman and to
archived stories and other features. That strategy generated around $10
million a year. But it was considered a failed experiment, and the Times
dropped the wall in September 2007._ \-
[http://mediamemo.allthingsd.com/20100120/the-new-york-
times-...](http://mediamemo.allthingsd.com/20100120/the-new-york-times-
officially-starts-construction-on-its-paywall-metered-model-coming-2011/)

Op-Ed is arguably their most unique content, but it wasn't really valuable for
their readers. To charge for content, they need unique information that isn't
available anywhere else, which is also valuable enough for their customers to
pay for. Op-Ed pieces met the first criteria, but not the second.

Perhaps their best way to charge for stuff is to augment it. Shoot a video for
every free article, placing it behind a pay-wall. Some people like to watch
instead of read. Have a pay-walled "additional details" section, outlining
some additional facts not covered in the free article. Subscribers could be
the only ones allowed to talk to reporters directly, asking them questions and
getting feedback. Stories appear 4 hours earlier for subscribers. I'm
brainstorming here (lots of crap, I know).

They're in a tough situation. I think most newspapers have realized that the
40-50% margins from twenty years ago are gone for good. It may be that most of
the industry, outside of a niche few, are going to get stuck with much tinier
margins indefinitely.

------
trustfundbaby
It amazes me that there is still talk about paywalls at old media type
establishments like the NY Times.

Paywalls are a tried and failed method of trying to get people to pay for
content (with notable exceptions) for a couple of reasons (my opinions here
... proceed with caution) ...

a. people don't like to be held to ransom ... "Pay now, or you can't read this
article that your friend just linked you to" is hostile and abrupt ... its
like having a girl (you) show up with a friend to some guy's house and instead
of being a good host and working up to asking you out ... he opens with

"So how about it ... want to screw?"

It might work (law of averages) ... but it usually doesn't.

b. The content that they provide is overvalued in their minds, I forget the
psychological term for this ... but because they spend all this time and money
to report the news, they assume that people care ... and people don't ...
because most news is a commodity.

If I can read the same story with pretty much the same quality of writing on
Yahoo news (and I do ... all the time) why would I pay you for that content on
a nicer looking website.

Truth is that these news organizations need to start thinking like startups
and answer the question

How do we provide more value to the people who read the news?

The Wall Street Journal and sites like Stratfor have figured out how to make
paywalls work by _gasp_ providing content that you can't find anywhere else
and are willing to pay to get your hands on.

Why hasn't the NY Times learned from this?

The NY Times strikes me as the girl that used to be smoking hot, but hit her
thirties and is finding that she's not as attractive as she used to be (even
though she is still pretty good looking) ... and instead of constantly being
chased by men, she now has to actually initiate interaction once in a while.

I think they're having a hard time adjusting to that, even though they could
be killing the game if they got over that mental hump.

oh well PS: Sorry for the rant, I'm a huge news junkie

------
robryan
A paywall will never really work, only way to make it work is a lot of short
term hurt by a heap of news sites. Makes a lot more sense to be the ones
working out how to make the best return on advertising then worry about a
paywall if other sites have already done the hard work in turning public
opinion and removing enough free sources.

------
h5n1
Now might actually be a strategically smart time to do this, what with the
ongoing and particularly major stories across the world.

~~~
rwmj
You mean the one which is being reported across hundreds of free websites,
where most of the content is being generated for free by "citizen journalists"
holding camera phones?

