« Business People Vermont | Main | Memorial Dolls Slideshow »
Tuesday, August 07, 2007
NYT to drop TimesSelect
Looks like the New York Times is dropping TimesSelect, the service which has put some of its content, and its archives, behind a pay wall. This is according to a story in the New York Post. The Times hasn't made an official announcement. I wonder if this means that everything in the NYT will be available online, for free, forever?
This is a big event in the media's paid vs. free web content debate.
I was on a Vermont Businesses for Social Responsibility media panel a few months ago with WCAX anchor Marselis Parsons, who was complaining to our audience about how people today want to get information "right now" and "for free." As if that were a bad thing.
When he was done talking, I said something along the lines of, "Well, yeah, I do want my information right now, and for free. And I'll get it, too, because that's how we're all going to have to evolve." Can't remember if I added the obvious, "our job is to figure out how to pay for all this, not to complain about it, because this is just how it is. So suck it up and stop bellyaching."
I'm sure I didn't say that last part.
August 7, 2007 at 08:41 AM in Media/Keeping an eye on the competition | Permalink
Comments
Exciting tip, but consider the source ;)
Posted by: Matt | Aug 7, 2007 11:28:10 AM
Incidentally, this sort of thing might be exactly what ol' Marselis was alluding to... he probably would've called the Times for verification before posting it as a fait accompli.
Not trying to snipe here, just pointing it out. Love your blog.
Posted by: Matt | Aug 7, 2007 11:31:03 AM
I found it on Romenesko, so I figured it was worth posting.
Posted by: Cathy Resmer | Aug 7, 2007 11:32:25 AM
Matt,
I wouldn't be so sure. Marselis and our friends at WCAX spread a lot of misinformation. Remember WCAX's coverage of the Judge Cashman story. They misquoted Cashman -- which helped to inflame a very sensitive situation. We never got a retraction or an acknowledgement that they fucked up.
The MSM (WCAX included) spread a lot of misinformation.
On the other hand, Cathy gave proper attribution for her story. If the consumer does not think that the New York Post is a reliable source then he or she can dismiss the blog post.
It sounds like Marselis is ill equipped to survive in the 21st Century. Considering how unreliable he has been as a news producer, that's probably for the best.
-HaHa
Posted by: haha | Aug 7, 2007 12:10:25 PM
Fascinating, Cathy! I've been one of those ponying up for TimesSelect, but haven't been able to access all the features (archives, etc.) because of incompatible browser issues. The shocking thing in the Post report is how FEW current subscribers there are: only 200,000 or so. (Although that must not count print subscribers, who can access Select content for free, I believe.) If I were Dowd or Rich, I would be mad, too, at how this limits my web readership.
Glad to know I'll be saving 49.95 when renewal time rolls around this fall!
Posted by: Lisa Crean | Aug 7, 2007 1:47:04 PM
Cathy:
You aren't the only one talking about this...it was in the New York Post, and here's a snippet from another source at iMedia Connection:
Just An Online Minute… All NY Times Free Once Again Online?
Aug 07, 2007 18:45:41 GMT
The New York Times plans to scrap its two-year-old TimesSelect subscription service and once again make all of the newspaper’s columns available for free online, according to a report in today’s New York Post.
The move comes amid speculation that under Rupert Murdoch’s ownership, The Wall Street Journal will stop charging for content in favor of an ad-supported business model.
The Journal has historically charged users a fee for online access, but it’s one of the few newspapers that’s been able to successfully sell paid subscriptions. The Times, on the other hand, built a large Web presence by making its content available for free — until September of 2005, when it began charging readers for access to columnists including Frank Rich, Maureen Dowd and Nicholas D. Kristof.
Although the company boasts that almost a quarter of a million readers pay $49.95 a year for the service, it’s been apparent for a while that some executives at the Times don’t favor the initiative. Speaking at an industry summit in February, Nicholas Ascheim, the company’s director of entertainment, video and audio products, said that younger users might never read the paper’s columnists if they had to pay for them. “New generations will never get exposed,” he said.
So is the news that the NYT will provide information for free...or is it that the WSJ might actually provide information for free...to the masses...Um...that's sounds kinda democratic to me...and that would be (to para phrase a history prof at Middlebury) "dangerous". Of course, the fact that they are realizing that younger readers won't pay for the news is interesting too.
Seriously though...I was there at the VBSR meeting...and you certainly said the first part...and didn't say the second, although I think a lot of us were thinking it. I know I was.
Elaine
Posted by: Elaine Young | Aug 7, 2007 9:06:35 PM
The comments to this entry are closed.
