The NY Times had been one of the few major international newspaper brands online to charge for content. Now only the Wall Street Journal Online and the FT.com remain.
With speculation that Rupert Murdoch will dump subscription charges for the WSJ.com when he takes control, which will also end the FT.com's chances of remaining a paid-for site, it won’t have a choice but to join the WSJ.com in the free-content world or suffer the consequences as Murdoch bares down on the Pink 'un.
In a letter to readers posted on its website today, the NY Times said that it is ending charges for TimesSelect as of tomorrow allowing all of its online readers to read Times columnists dating back to 1987.
Paying customers will receive a refund. But why now and why the change? Simple, the paper says the online landscape has altered significantly with the rise of search in news and social networks. And it is about reaching a broader audience -- beyond the few who are willing to pay.
"Readers increasingly find news through search, as well as through social networks, blogs and other online sources. In light of this shift, we believe offering unfettered access to NY Times reporting and analysis best serves the interest of our readers, our brand and the long-term vitality of our journalism. We encourage everyone to read our news and opinion, as well as share it, link to it and comment on it.
"We welcome all online readers to enjoy the popular and powerful voices that have defined Times commentary. All this will now reach a broader audience in the United States and around the world."
There was a time -- and it was, in dotcom terms at least, long ago -- when paid-for content still held out a possibility, with many early sites charging readers for access. At Haymarket we pushed forward with the subscription model on what was CampaignLive.com. We continued this policy all the way through the early days of Brand Republic until earlier this year.
Many other sites were charging as well, such as Silicon Valley's local newspaper the San Jose Mercury News.
But in the land grab for online space there was a moment of doubt and many working in the early days of the internet did not think that people would pay for content. Sure content was king, just not paid-for content.
The argument was simple. If you make people pay they will go elsewhere, and if they go elsewhere you won't get them back. It was a huge leap. Suddenly all of this content that consumers paid hard cash for on the newsstand was free. Newspapers like the Guardian went from early experiments to very quickly giving it away.
As that paper pushes itself as the global liberal voice online you can imagine that executives at the New York Times Company across the Atlantic were looking at that and thinking they are going for our readers and we have to do something about it. They did, and very soon someone else will do something more about it and that will probably be Murdoch, and it will probably be over as far as paid content goes.
Gordon Macmillan
Blogging for:
Member since: 03 Jun 2008
Last login: 26 Nov 2009
Total Posts: 1,624
