Unless you paid (one way or another), the TimesSelect program denied access to the New York Times' Op-Ed and news columns, as well as searches of the national newspaper's archives.
No one liked the idea when it started two years back, especially existing paper subscribers, who were suddenly cut off until they went through a buggy online signup process. The Times' Web-only readers had to pay $50 a year to view that content -- after a decade of getting it free.On Tuesday, The Times explained the liberation this way:
Since we launched TimesSelect in 2005, the online landscape has altered significantly. 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 New York 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.
A bit of upstairs/downstairs remains: The Times' online archive now is wide open for searches back to 1987, but print subscribers have access to articles dating back to 1851.
What changed ... was that many more readers started coming to the site from search engines and links on other sites instead of coming directly to NYTimes.com. These indirect readers, unable to get access to articles behind the pay wall and less likely to pay subscription fees than the more loyal direct users, were seen as opportunities for more page views and increased advertising revenue.
The few newspapers that could make money for "premium content" have been retreating as Web economics make it clear there's more money in ads than online subscriptions. The most successful online premium purveyor, the Wall Street Journal, appears headed that way under Rupert Murdoch. Update 10/12: Murdoch confirms the site is going all-free.
The web site I worked on for a decade or so, hollywoodreporter.com, opened up almost all of its content a year ago after having most of its existence financed by premium subs. Spooky but my boss made a good call.
Back to the Times:
I've made this point several times on the blog: If you're serious about writing for a mass audience, the New York Times is a must-read. Every day.
I live in L.A., where we have a very good local paper. Yes, the other Times. (Ever notice how so many people hate their city's newspaper? I worked on a real stinker back in Florida, and even my closest pals hurled abuse at me about that daily.)
About a year ago, I decided to have but one paper hit the doorstep each morning. Wasn't hard to choose. The L.A. Times now competes for my attention via its nightly email. The Wall Street Journal, I do miss.
The New York Times recently upped its subscription price and cut the physical size of the newspaper to that ratty new "national print standard." Yuck.
I love that Old Gray Lady anyway. All is forgiven. Baby, you're the best.
Update: 12/11/07: New York Times traffic soared with the demise of Select. In October, the site added 4.9 million readers, according to comScore.
2 comments:
It's about time they dropped that TimesSelect garbage.
Personally, I don't think there's any substitute for the print edition. I do a lot of online reading. I am a blogaholic. But, when it comes to my news, gimme a NY Times and a hot cuppa coffee any day. Something about the ritual folding and sectioning of each page of the paper is... I don't know... better. I just can't read the Times online, except for the occasional single article.
yeah, they did up the price and whatnot recently. A sign of the times. Print is going out. It's a sad thing.
Love that New York Times, Ay? I guess it's okay. I grew up in LA. Read myself many an LA Times. Don't forget, LA Times shrunk the size of their paper a good while before the NYT did. Everyone is doing it...
One of the things you lose with an online edition of a paper is the benefit of the editors' prioritizing of the news -- done via page position, size of headline, amount of text displayed, art treatment, etc. A subtle art.
You do get some of that with an online newspaper homepage, but too much is lost with index-style stacks of headlines arranged in reverse chronology.
New York Times is about an inch narrower than the current L.A. Times, my ruler says. An inch too far ...
Thanks for the comment Chaim!
Post a Comment