Quote:
Originally Posted by bhartman36
Everything but the crossword and editorials were free. The paper trusted that people who liked the newspaper enough would pay for a subscription for the editorials and crossword. Apparently, readers didn't value them enough to do that. So this paywall was an attempt at a "Screw you" that failed.
|
Apparently, some of the editorial writers were upset. Being part of the very little that was behind the wall, most readers just gave up on editorials & read blog posts elsewhere instead.
Quote:
|
Just to be clear: I'm not against people charging for content. I'd like people to pay for the things I write, too. But a) the NY Times was free for a long time, so people feel a bit cheated (whether that's justified or not) and b) if you're going to do it, at least do it well. It's really not hard to create a paywall.
|
The problem with the NY Times isn't that they want a paywall. Any site can do that; it's easy. It's that they want a paywall AND they want the same kind of constant publicity that goes with being a free news source online. They want people to link to their site, to drive new eyeballs to their adverts, to quote NY Times articles to each other to encourage more readers.
And they want to be paid per reader. Or per reader who reads over a certain amount.
They strike me as wanting to put up a toll lane for people turning left on a busy intersection, and then being surprised when people go a few blocks farther and double back instead of paying it.