Dear Home Delivery Subscriber,The bloggers are having a field day with this. I think it highlights an interesting tension point between old-world notions of news as a commodity to be bought and sold and the new information culture on the Internet. I was interested in seeing which was going to win out when TimesSelect appeared. In many ways, media companies are making great strides in 'normalizing' the Internet, and taking advantage of its technological attributes in such a way that the status quo of capitalism is not threatened. Now even Murdoch is hinting that the Wall Street Journal might turn into a free site.
We are ending TimesSelect, effective today. This will not affect any services you are already receiving as a home delivery customer.
The Times's Op-Ed and news columns are now available to everyone free of charge, along with Times File and News Tracker. In addition, The New York Times online Archive is now free back to 1987 for all of our readers.
Why the change?
Since we launched TimesSelect, the Web has evolved into an increasingly open environment. Readers find more news in a greater number of places and interact with it in more meaningful ways. This decision enhances the free flow of New York Times reporting and analysis around the world. It will enable everyone, everywhere to read our news and opinion - as well as to share it, link to it and comment on it.
What is going on? Why didn't this work? Also, would it have worked better has the Times made all of its content subscription online (rather than just op-ed)? Are these an indication that culture (and the people) has trumped economics?
11 comments:
I don't know that culture has trumped economics. I think this just relates to the central problem of the internet for the business world--how do you make it pay?
The web works well for buying and selling products, and tends toward two extremes--low price and the esoteric. People shop the web for many reasons, but two of the biggest are the ability to find unusual or rare items, and the likelihood of getting a product at a discounted price.
If you apply this same idea to news on the net, it would follow that if it is cheap (free) or specialized and highly technical (online journal articles) it will be popular.
Maybe the issue with the Times online service is that it was neither of these.
I’d guess that NYT has found an viable alternative source for income off of this content, making this move possible…click once on the Opinion Section and their star op-ed writers are now sponsored by American Excess…it was probably a few big deals by their sales department on the internet side of advertising…when I was selling ads for a brief period for Detroit Newspapers, not many sales people knew how to sell ads to the website, and I think its still an issue…the sales execs even brought in one of those high energy sales motivation guys when I was there, then we all had to set up appointments with clients and the guy’s sales associate would go on the call with you to help with the pitch…the ease of the sell was based upon a targeted and growing market, but most clients seemed skeptical about moving dollars towards a virtual readership, from having their logo on top of thousands of coffee tables throughout their city…
How many industries can actually make good money through the internet? The music industry produces a large amount of web hype, but we still see the few remaining major labels cling to old promotional ideologies to sell their generally non-compelling music…at this point I see the power of the internet as unquantifiable purely in an economic sense (at least I hope we‘re no longer breeding unworthy dot com millionaires)…who is wielding the most influence appears to be the question to start looking for the new models…YouTube brings video content to the masses, MySpace gives individuals web presence…these models do not charge for participation, but are still earning off of ads and promotions…
The star power of the writers featured on their opinion page was likely a reason NYT thought they could manage charging for content in the first place, but I don’t believe they would have ever had the normal content as subscription only…had it gone subscription, The Times loses readership and millions of viewers (their online advertising kit claims over 13 million unique adult users for Fall 2006)……It would have driven the market for internet news sources wild, with new and existing sites growing to meet the demand, naturally some more legit than others…
Suggestions for alternative ways to earn money as an online newspaper? How about selling reader submitted video documentaries for a low price, with royalties received by the filmmakers? Those can be produced for about as much money as over-hyped rock songs by a major label (sold by iTunes for 99 cents)…
I think the nature of the internet right now makes this a smart choice by the NYtimes. I don't think that culture has trumped economics. In fact, this could prove a profitable move by the NYtimes. I myself was ecstatic today when I finally got to read that Thomas Friedman article I usually just maddingly click on before switching sites. I mean, I know I have to pay but I always forget! That's not the what I am used to as a consumer of the internet. Now, customers like myself have the chance to view what the Times has to offer instead of just going to a different site for certain news. In time, this might lead to increased subscriptions.
What we should be more worried about is the open and free nature of the internet becoming more restrictive. Is this decision by the NYtimes just part of a trend that may eventually be reversed? I recommend an interesting arcticle I read in in the Daily Cardinal (http://www.dailycardinal.com/article/98) about network neutrality, and the threat of big business becoming the gatekeepers of the internet. It made me think about how we take the open nature of the internet for granted.
Personally I do believe that is this instance culture and people have trumped economics. People have become accustomed to being able to access the wealth of information available on the internet for free, of which news is no different.
However the content of Times Select wasn't the the type of journalism that the media should publish as a 'servant of the state.' Rather, it was op-ed pieces by its star writers. This is the type of unique content which helps sell newspaper subscriptions. While the Times should serve the public, it is also a business, and trying to profit from the content generated by its well known writers only seems like good business to me.
I don't believe it would have worked well to make all of its online content subscription based because so many of its casual readers (which help generate much of its online ad revenue) would have been lost. But with Times Select, only loyal readers of the particular op-ed writers could not access the content they desired, and many of these readers likely had subscriptions already.
By doing away with Times Select I feel the NY Times was relenting to the public expectation that online content should be free.
I think this quote from Schiller ( general manager of NYTimes.com) ssays it all: “But our projections for growth on that paid subscriber base were low, compared to the growth of online advertising.” NYT pursues what it has been pursuing all along - selling news(hopefully, good ones). As expressed in the Etteman et al. piece for J561, economic institutioal factors are still in the center, despite shaking hands with the more open trends of the Internet culture. After all, it took them two full years to do the shift.
I would have to agree with the last post. I wouldn't necessarily score this as culture 1, economy 0. Yes this change does come as a response to the evolution of online content, and I do agree with Sue there is definitely a normalizing process occuring during our generation. However, the reason this change was made was not as a concession to the journalism culture club by NYT media producers. I would argue there is a clear economic rationale beyond this decision. There is an organization of political economy within media today. It's everywhere, and I believe it is naive to think that NYT responded to their journalistic conscious to end witholding their content. Schudson talked about 'legitimated power holders'. While this post has nothing to do with Watergate (as Schudson talks about) it does have everything to do with who holds the power in the eyes of media producers. As the world of online news continually changes, NYT is only adapting to not be left behind. They're responding to the 'power holders' who choose to view free content at other sites. While the internet has changed the rules of the game, the game is the same. Money talks, and NYT was in position to lose it if their online circulation declined. NYT needs to keep its readers to secure its position in the market. Nothing more, nothing less. While I would like to believe NYT made this decision in response to a culture desperate to improve the democratic discourse in this country, I don't believe anything could be farther from the truth.
kyle
This is a puzzling development, considering that home delivery subscribers are told that everyone already gets New York Times op-ed content, along with other services, for free online. Then why start TimesSelect at the risk of angering nonsubscribers and media purists for hiding the meat of a news publication?
After all, a survey of the September 23, 2007 edition on NYTimes.com indeed shows a busy but comprehensive Internet package that allows surfers to hit links to get complete stories and flip to sections of interest. There are op-ed contributors and a wide range of topics.
It seems TimeSelect was an experiment to increase readership by making the more saleable non-news sections with substantial advertising support available to a broad base of potential customers. When the response to hidden op-ed content was negative and potential customers apparently decided to go elsewhere, the test was deemed a failure and cut from the budget.
Considering Bagdikian and McChesney's calls for a deomocratization of media and public sphere for political, social and cultural discussion of issues, there is considerable irony here. A TimesSelect with op-ed content available would have appealed to a potential new subscribers that spend money as well as follow issues. Exclusion and alienation of that group impeded growth and potential profit. Further, satisfied readers would see likely to read other sections that would promote buying that supports advertisers.
If, as McChesney put it, the Internet is "important space for deomocratic communication," it seems media owners would also benefit from drawing in a variety of readers of all classes so that they could have a brighter future bringing news and entertainment through multiple media.
If NYT had ever made their entire content accessible by online subscription, no one besides subscribers would have visited their site and this would have defeated the purpose of having a presence on the web.
It makes business sense to have all NYT content freely accessible because when people can link to the NYT stories and engage in discussions, it generates more traffic to their site and keeps the advertisers happy since they are getting the exposure they paid for.
In visiting the NYT site to learn more about TimesSelect, I noticed that articles published 1851-1922 and 1987-present are freely accessible to everyone. While articles published between 1923-1986 is viewable only by “paid Archive” or to specific subscribers. It’s interesting to note the years NYT chose to restrict access were pretty significant to U.S. history (WWII, Vietnam, Korean Wars, Watergate, landing on the moon, AIDS).
Looking at the NYTimes as an institution, it has necessarily had to change its rules of procedure to conform with cultural expectations. I think this is, indeed, a form of cultural values not trumping economics, but manipulating them. The New York Times online will still be making money off of its articles online--it will just be doing so in a different way, as has much of online advertising.
Technology, in this case the internet, according to some, has hugely changed advertising methods by way of "niche marketing." Others argue the basic concepts of advertising have stayed the same. Now, New York Times select makes viewers see an ad before viewing its special articles. You can't switch the station as you might on a television commercial, you have to view the ad, a least for a second, before accesssing the article.
Its a push and tug that's going on in online news-- the struggle between freedom of information and profit-seekers. The two influence each other, but I believe the public has a greater influence on the other to change, because after all, they have the power to spend their dollars where they want.
This decision by the NY Times makes perfect economic sense and holds social value merely as an aside to its business concerns. I cannot remember how many times I tried to access NY Times content online for research only to be denied my intellectual enlightenment because of a severe lack of the benjamins.
I doubt, however, that NY Times was thinking "we need to educate more people." It is the nature of new media to change old media and thereby the markets in which they exist. You can find anything on the net for free if you work hard enough. Look at digital music - it has changed the entire music industry. At first, it was free, then we were forced to pay, but now the industry is moving more to allow free flow because they know people are trading in other places. It has changed the old industry.
In the sense of online journalism, as Bagdikian and McChesney wrote, conglomerations are still operating with the best business sense in mind. Better to bring people to your site for your advertisers than have them find it elsewhere and lose your advertisers. So, this was a good business move by NY Times with society piggy backing on its decision
I agree with the post above mine, and really most of the comments made so far. We read in the Bagdikian article about the importance of advertising in the media's economy today, and I agree that eliminating Times Select is not a significant economic problem for NYT, as they can still direct NYT readers towards advertisements.
I don't think this was the sort of decision where NYT said "hey, let's let everybody access our articles because that's what they want, and that's how they prefer to consume online media." I do think that they considered that perhaps Times Select was not a desirable option for their readers, but if they could force every online reader to pay for a subscription, I suspect that they would do so. As we read in "Media and Society," the press in the United States has made a decided shift to being a "commercially based press." With that said, I think that NYT still has business and profit in mind, and made this decision knowing that, bottom line, they will still be making money.
Post a Comment