The change at the NYT
Given the conversation we've been having here a bit about the future of newspapers and a couple of readers' comments that they'd be willing to pay for e-subscriptions, I thought it was interesting that the New York Time this week decided to drop its Times Select program, wherein certain highly popular features - including their best-read op-ed columnists like Maureen Dowd, were made a pay service for on-line reading. I think the price was $49.95 per year to read that stuff on line. I heard from an unofficial source in the industry that they had gotten about 200,000 people to sign up, which is pretty good, but if the program was an entry into the pay for on-line content world, it was a failure and the Times decision to end it made that clear. As an online Times reader I am delighted not to have to wonder what was being said in those Times Select stories. As a member of the industry it seems to me another sign that the on-line audience will not pay, no matter how much they value the content.
We do charge for getting archived material and we chargefor buying photos and no one seems to object to that. Someday we would love to see our entire stock of historical papers on line. We have microfilm that goes back into the late 1800s. It would be a monster project but wouldn't it be great to have all those Ukiah newspapers in online archives? (Anyone out there with the money to buy us a microfilm to digital reader and about 1,000 hours of volunteer time should call me right away.)
Comments
Any idea what the NYT's hard copy circulation is? It would seem to me getting 200,000 people to pay $49.95 a year would at least pay for itself. I don't know that I'd consider that a failure, but maybe I'm just not thinking big enough.
Posted by: Fred Mangels | September 20, 2007 08:06 AM
For starters, what about putting today's water story online?
It's an important story that more people should read.
Thanks.
Posted by: Janie Sheppard | September 20, 2007 02:32 PM