The New York Times goes free online - GoFuckYourself.com

Brad · 08-16-2007, 11:32 AM

Here is an interesting article that I just found in the Globe & Mail. Just goes to show that no matter how big you are, you have to evolve to survive. I wish the writer knew a bit more about how business is conducted on the interweb, but what can you do:

Quote:

With The New York Times and The Wall Street Journal said to be looking at removing the “pay wall” around their online content, and others – including CNN, Google and AOL – having already done so, one question springs to mind: Are we seeing the death of paid content online, and the return of free as a business model?

A recent report in the New York Post said that the Times would soon do away with its Times Select service, which charges readers $50 a year for access to columnists, editorials and other features. News Corp. founder Rupert Murdoch, meanwhile, has talked openly about the possible benefits of doing away with the online subscription model at the Journal, which he recently acquired from parent Dow Jones.

Such a move by the prominent business daily would be a significant event. As one of the early adopters online, the Journal has not only been at it for a fairly long time, but is also routinely held up as a shining example of how charging readers for content can be a profitable business.

But if both the Times and the Journal are making money from their online subscription services – which they reportedly are – why would they do away with them? The simple answer is that opening their content up to a broader audience could provide even more revenue in the form of advertising, and more growth potential (since neither service is growing very quickly, if at all).

CNN apparently came to the same kind of conclusion about its online video service, formerly known as CNN Pipeline. The news network charged users $3 a month for access to news videos, but last month it shut down the service and made its video content free.

One CNN executive admitted that while the venture made some money, not enough people were signing up to make continuing with the project worthwhile.

Although the news network didn't mention it specifically, it seems likely that the rise of YouTube and similar free video-sharing sites made it difficult for CNN to continue trying to charge users for access to video.

Google – which now owns YouTube – appears to have come to a similar realization, and recently closed its Google Video service, which charged users to download movies online.

One of the most prominent services to switch from a paid subscription model to a free one is America Online, the former Internet giant that merged with media conglomerate Time Warner in 2000, in one of the most ill-fated business deals in modern memory.

After watching millions of subscribers vanish from its accounts every year, AOL moved last year to make much of its content free online. Even Hot or Not, a popular online dating service, recently dropped its membership fees and went free.

Not everyone has abandoned the idea of charging users for digital content, however, and some companies have managed to create substantial businesses by doing so.

One of the most obvious examples is Apple, with its iTunes music business. Another is Major League Baseball, which generates hundreds of millions of dollars a year by charging for access to video and statistics from games. And while it is difficult to get reliable numbers, there are reports that some online porn operators make a decent living.

At this point, charging for online content only seems to work if the content is seen as exclusive in some way – and even then, the size of the market that can be accessed in that fashion appears to be fairly small, as indicated by the slow or even non-existent growth at both the Times and the Journal.

The flip side of the decision to go free, meanwhile, is that companies choosing to do so add to the already growing number of online businesses whose sole revenue generator is advertising.

And while the number of advertisers interested in the online market is also growing, it may not be growing quickly enough.

If you're a fan of online content, the move to free no doubt seems like a great idea. If you're a company whose business is charging for content, however, things are a little more complicated.

Link to Article

Brad · 08-16-2007, 11:33 AM

Any thoughts?

ztik · 08-16-2007, 11:54 AM

Free content with relevant upsales has always been best in mainstream

IE Write an article in the paper about a book, sell that book as an upsale

08-16-2007, 11:33 AM	#2
Brad Confirmed User Industry Role: Join Date: Jan 2007 Location: Toronto Posts: 2,510	Any thoughts? __________________ Affiliate Manager/Media Buyer ICQ 376 978 529 Skype: bradleyjwscott [email protected]

08-16-2007, 11:54 AM	#3
ztik Confirmed User Industry Role: Join Date: Aug 2001 Location: Nomad Posts: 5,196	Free content with relevant upsales has always been best in mainstream IE Write an article in the paper about a book, sell that book as an upsale __________________ .