The Volokh Conspiracy
[Orin Kerr, September 17, 2007 at 10:45pm] Trackbacks
The NY Times Has Given Up on TimesSelect,
reasoning that these days you want to draw in eyeballs and sell ads rather than keep them away and sell content. (Hat tip: Instapundit) The story also notes that changes may be coming over at the Wall Street Journal's website:
The Wall Street Journal, published by Dow Jones & Company, is the only major newspaper in the country to charge for access to most of its Web site, which it began doing in 1996. The Journal has nearly one million paying online readers, generating about $65 million in revenue.

Dow Jones and the company that is about to take it over, the News Corporation, are discussing whether to continue that practice, according to people briefed on those talks. Rupert Murdoch, the News Corporation chairman, has talked of the possibility of making access to The Journal free online.
I am respondent:
I think people have often already been able to get around the times-select feature anyway. I have no technical knowledge, but I believe that articles already past their temporary pass-thru link can typically be accessed for free after you spend just a little time searching for them.
9.17.2007 11:07pm
stevesturm:
it only makes sense to do this if advertising sales stay strong, strong enough that the Times gets more from ad sales than they do from subscription sales. if/when advertisers realize they're not getting a great return on their advertising dollars (and no matter how they spin it, they're not) and start cutting back on their online advertising expenditures, the Times (and the WSJ if they do the same) is going to regret giving up a revenue stream.
9.17.2007 11:22pm
Dilan Esper (mail) (www):
Darn, where is Mickey Kaus going to get his material now?
9.18.2007 1:03am
Whatyousee (mail):
The WSJ should tough it out for a while. They are not an ordinary paper and I suspect making it free would not increase readership much. And killing it would not save.

They have a million people paying online. And those are not paupers. They are readers with money that want the service.

With $65m in online subscription revenue they are not making money. But they might not have a serious loss. Product costs would still have to be borne by the newprint edition anyway.

Subscription management costs won't fall; users subscribe, renew, and pay online anyway for both the online and print versions.

They must have a web presence. Not a trivial cost when going first class. Barron's shares that. Is Barron's to quit online too?

Archiving is expensive but not horribly so. Terabyte drives are selling below $1000 retail.

True, the online edition tosses in an opinion column. What do two writers cost? What does it cost to have a current column to direct users to breaking news during the day?
9.18.2007 1:09am
Truth Seeker:
if/when advertisers realize they're not getting a great return on their advertising dollars (and no matter how they spin it, they're not)

What about TV? As soon as commercials come on people channel surf. How can TV advertising pay off? The web ads keep annoying you while you are trying to read the articles. (Especially those damn dancing silhouettes.)
9.18.2007 1:46am
Mac (mail):
Could not agree with you more re those dang dancing silhouettes! They give me a headache. Could they be outlawed as a public nusance, do you think?
9.18.2007 3:04am
stevesturm:

What about TV? As soon as commercials come on people channel surf.


I've long felt most TV advertising (except for infomercials and other direct response commercials) has been done for the ego of the advertisers and the agencies (much as web advertising is today) and not because it represented a great return on investment.
9.18.2007 7:57am
JB:
There have been some great classic TV ads. I can't think of any at the moment since I don't watch TV anymore, but that has, in the hands of some admakers, risen to be an art form. I have some hope still that the quality of commercials will increase as admakers try to keep people from channel-surfing by making interesting-to-watch commercials.

Online advertising hasn't reached that stage, or never will.
9.18.2007 8:22am
yellojkt (www):
I am so psyched to have Mo MoDo again. When they couldn't be read or linked, the NYT shop was becoming increasingly irelevent.
9.18.2007 9:17am
Xmas (mail) (www):
I think the WSJ has things set up the right way. Their opinion pieces are available free on the opinionjournal.com website. The news pieces are behind a paywall, but sometimes they put popular stories out on the free site.

It's a good mix. I'm not sure how the WSJ readers would react to advertisement heavy pages.
9.18.2007 11:37am
Elliot123 (mail):
"What about TV? As soon as commercials come on people channel surf. How can TV advertising pay off? The web ads keep annoying you while you are trying to read the articles. (Especially those damn dancing silhouettes.)"

TV ads disappeared from my house the day I got TIVO.
9.18.2007 4:47pm
R. Richard Schweitzer (mail):
The WSJ Online charge is worth it for just not having to deal with all the papers to stack and recycle.

I get Economist (you have to take print) FT, London Times, Telegraph (mainly for Niall Ferguson, to avoid clicks for L A Times); lots of other stuff even if it costs, one wastes less time on the Web Editions.

And my father was one who worked with Dr. Herty to make bleached Kraft possible!
9.18.2007 5:32pm

PicoSearch
Help