Why pay for news when you can just let the advertisers pick up the tab?
As of midnight Sept 19, 2007 the NY TImes has stopped charging for its Times Select and archived content:
“In addition to opening the entire site to all readers, The Times will also make available its archives from 1987 to the present without charge, as well as those from 1851 to 1922, which are in the public domain. There will be charges for some material from the period 1923 to 1986, and some will be free.
The Times said the project had met expectations, drawing 227,000 paying subscribers — out of 787,000 over all — and generating about $10 million a year in revenue.
‘But our projections for growth on that paid subscriber base were low, compared to the growth of online advertising,’ said Vivian L. Schiller, senior vice president and general manager of the site”One would also hope that this will also mean the beginning of the end of paid content online once and for all- afterall, why pay for somthing when you can get it elsewhere for free? It would be ideal if the move by the NYT pressured other pay content sites (the few remaining) into following suit. Is there an issue of quality being lost when something is “free”? Perhaps, but how much of a difference are we really talking-? Many important paid-for articles are copy-pasted into other blogs anyhow.
And will we have to see MORE online ads at nytimes.com? Perhaps- most likely… oh well.
FULL ARTICLE IN NYT HERE
-PJT
