You mean the one which is being reported across hundreds of free websites, where most of the content is being generated for free by "citizen journalists" holding camera phones?
Given the NYT's war with people who want to read articles without signing up for an account, this wouldn't surprise me.
But until they do it, I can still google the base URL of an article and click from google, circumventing the need to log in.
It was so much easier when the article title was on the login page, I could just select it in chrome, google from right click menu, and click on the top link.
Ah well, I expect that will continue to work even if they try for a pay wall. I can't imagine that they don't see google referrals as one of their primary sources of traffic. Otherwise they wouldn't have implemented the google click exception in the first place.
Their content is exceptional, no doubt about it. Indeed, I would be more apt to pay for the content than I would be to sign up for an account even though free. If it's free, make it free.
Help me understand, as this escapes me to this day... why is it no trouble at all to copy an article title, google it, and click on that link, and then a major PITA to register an account, sign in, check "remember me" and never deal with it again?
This sort of thing is what throwaway accounts were made for.
It's a protest against required logins. Even making a throwaway account tells them that what they are doing is okay. Whereas I do not count towards their "registered account" statistics, but I do count towards "unique user who isn't and doesn't register."
I would have to imagine it's an exception that makes their policies look asinine.
Think about it through the typical workflow: googling an article for research, and finding a link to NYTimes, and reading it, versus something similar to hitting a research paywall, where there's an abstract and big "pay" button that might as well say Eff You. Then, if the user leaves, there's no ill-will (they aren't coming back anyway); but if they browse around, they get the first one free then a message to sign up. The OP is thinking of the hack as the standard interaction.
Some of us are a little more concerned about privacy to never clear our cookies or cache. If they were smart they would use the same technology HN uses to allow me to post with my Google account, circumventing login completely. I've been an active NYTimes reader my whole life, but I'm not going to make an account when I can read the same article mirrored somewhere else. Which is exactly what will happen when they attempt a pay wall.
They generate income from advertisements regardless if you have an account or not.
If users are going to that length to circumvent the login, that should tell you something about how much of a PITA the process is in their minds.
All they want to do is read the article and it shows that the NYTimes process is just not working. I actually have a login to NYTimes, but I can't remember it since I don't read them regularly ... so if I go to their site and get greeted with a login screen and whatever computer I'm on doesn't remember my login ... I tap out and go do something else.
Why they can't sit down and seriously think about ways to change that instead of going with tried and tired methods never ceases to amaze me.
I mean its 2011 and we're still talking about paywalls for goodness sake ... I thought those failed ten years ago?
I clear cookies/cache daily at the very least. After I created my third or fourth nytimes account I realized it's easier for me to use the Google workaround or Bugmenot than to retrieve my username and password every time I wanted to read an article.
If you open NY Times links in an incognito window, the website won't prompt you to log in. It's easy to do, just right click on the link and select open in incognito window from the menu that comes up. Still annoying, but less annoying than other options.
My suspicion is that they will continue to make it relatively easy to get to the articles for free. Those who go through such elaborate means wouldn't pay for content anyway. It's a form of price discrimination.
A paywall will never really work, only way to make it work is a lot of short term hurt by a heap of news sites. Makes a lot more sense to be the ones working out how to make the best return on advertising then worry about a paywall if other sites have already done the hard work in turning public opinion and removing enough free sources.
I'm not opposed to a paywall for any reason other than I won'r pay for content that I don't deem worth it. Not making a statement about the NYT. I just don't read the Times paper edition on a regular basis and therefore see no justification for paying for their online content. There's never been a story so amazing that I couldn't just move on without reading it.
I pay for content in some instances, and don't get the anger from people who grit their teeth and declare war on any newspaper who wants to charge for their online content. But it would be more likely for me to pay for my local paper's online content than the NYT.
It amazes me that there is still talk about paywalls at old media type establishments like the NY Times.
Paywalls are a tried and failed method of trying to get people to pay for content (with notable exceptions) for a couple of reasons (my opinions here ... proceed with caution) ...
a. people don't like to be held to ransom ... "Pay now, or you can't read this article that your friend just linked you to" is hostile and abrupt ... its like having a girl (you) show up with a friend to some guy's house and instead of being a good host and working up to asking you out ... he opens with
"So how about it ... want to screw?"
It might work (law of averages) ... but it usually doesn't.
b. The content that they provide is overvalued in their minds, I forget the psychological term for this ... but because they spend all this time and money to report the news, they assume that people care ... and people don't ... because most news is a commodity.
If I can read the same story with pretty much the same quality of writing on Yahoo news (and I do ... all the time) why would I pay you for that content on a nicer looking website.
Truth is that these news organizations need to start thinking like startups and answer the question
How do we provide more value to the people who read the news?
The Wall Street Journal and sites like Stratfor have figured out how to make paywalls work by gasp providing content that you can't find anywhere else and are willing to pay to get your hands on.
Why hasn't the NY Times learned from this?
The NY Times strikes me as the girl that used to be smoking hot, but hit her thirties and is finding that she's not as attractive as she used to be (even though she is still pretty good looking) ... and instead of constantly being chased by men, she now has to actually initiate interaction once in a while.
I think they're having a hard time adjusting to that, even though they could be killing the game if they got over that mental hump.
oh well
PS: Sorry for the rant, I'm a huge news junkie
The only major newspaper site successful with a pay-wall (that I'm aware of) is wsj.com. Here's how I think they do it:
1) Give generic information away for free (e.g. Reuters stories).
2) Place any unique, WSJ-only content, behind a pay-wall.
Most content on newspaper websites fall into #1. When you see a link for "all 584 news articles" on Google News for a story, that information is pure commodity. You won't be able to charge for it.
The #2 category is where the money's at, but only if the information is worth something to those buying it. For the WSJ, you have extremely wealthy business people needing detailed info about the economy, and the WSJ is the only place that delivers it. Their pay-wall easily succeeds; high demand for a scarce piece of information, coupled with disposable income to buy it.
How does the WSJ get #2 content? Intimate relationships with corporate executives who don't have all day to talk to dozens of news outlets. Investigative reporting focused on business. Creating unique niche stories which you can't find anywhere else. For example, check out "Off Screen, Porn Sites Trick Advertisers", a pay-wall article:
Now search for the story on Google News. 22 hits, none of them relevant, except for the same WSJ article above! The story isn't anywhere else because the WSJ created it. If you're in the online porn business, you're probably signing up for a paid account right about now.
WSJ HACK: If you click on the link in the Google News search results, you'll get free access to the whole article! :) It's the same URL as above, but WSJ.com knows you're coming from Google, and gives you free access. They likely do this for marketing/promotional reasons, and non-tech-savy users won't usually be aware of it.
--------------------
The issue with the NYT.com is, while they do create unique content, it's not typically the type of content people want to buy. What's more important to you, a story about a competitor for your business dollars, or an article about which wine tastes best? Are you selling aspirin or vitamins? Aspirin cures pain right now, where vitamins makes you feel a little bit better about your future self.
A few years ago the NYT put their Op-Ed pieces behind a pay-wall, but eventually realized it didn't work:
The paper has tried a pay wall before. In 2005, it rolled out “Times Select” whereby it cordoned off access to op-ed columnists like Thomas Friedman and to archived stories and other features. That strategy generated around $10 million a year. But it was considered a failed experiment, and the Times dropped the wall in September 2007. - http://mediamemo.allthingsd.com/20100120/the-new-york-times-...
Op-Ed is arguably their most unique content, but it wasn't really valuable for their readers. To charge for content, they need unique information that isn't available anywhere else, which is also valuable enough for their customers to pay for. Op-Ed pieces met the first criteria, but not the second.
Perhaps their best way to charge for stuff is to augment it. Shoot a video for every free article, placing it behind a pay-wall. Some people like to watch instead of read. Have a pay-walled "additional details" section, outlining some additional facts not covered in the free article. Subscribers could be the only ones allowed to talk to reporters directly, asking them questions and getting feedback. Stories appear 4 hours earlier for subscribers. I'm brainstorming here (lots of crap, I know).
They're in a tough situation. I think most newspapers have realized that the 40-50% margins from twenty years ago are gone for good. It may be that most of the industry, outside of a niche few, are going to get s...
17 comments
[ 2.8 ms ] story [ 54.2 ms ] threadBut until they do it, I can still google the base URL of an article and click from google, circumventing the need to log in.
It was so much easier when the article title was on the login page, I could just select it in chrome, google from right click menu, and click on the top link.
Ah well, I expect that will continue to work even if they try for a pay wall. I can't imagine that they don't see google referrals as one of their primary sources of traffic. Otherwise they wouldn't have implemented the google click exception in the first place.
This sort of thing is what throwaway accounts were made for.
Think about it through the typical workflow: googling an article for research, and finding a link to NYTimes, and reading it, versus something similar to hitting a research paywall, where there's an abstract and big "pay" button that might as well say Eff You. Then, if the user leaves, there's no ill-will (they aren't coming back anyway); but if they browse around, they get the first one free then a message to sign up. The OP is thinking of the hack as the standard interaction.
Khoi Vinh ain't no fool.
They generate income from advertisements regardless if you have an account or not.
All they want to do is read the article and it shows that the NYTimes process is just not working. I actually have a login to NYTimes, but I can't remember it since I don't read them regularly ... so if I go to their site and get greeted with a login screen and whatever computer I'm on doesn't remember my login ... I tap out and go do something else.
Why they can't sit down and seriously think about ways to change that instead of going with tried and tired methods never ceases to amaze me.
I mean its 2011 and we're still talking about paywalls for goodness sake ... I thought those failed ten years ago?
I pay for content in some instances, and don't get the anger from people who grit their teeth and declare war on any newspaper who wants to charge for their online content. But it would be more likely for me to pay for my local paper's online content than the NYT.
Paywalls are a tried and failed method of trying to get people to pay for content (with notable exceptions) for a couple of reasons (my opinions here ... proceed with caution) ...
a. people don't like to be held to ransom ... "Pay now, or you can't read this article that your friend just linked you to" is hostile and abrupt ... its like having a girl (you) show up with a friend to some guy's house and instead of being a good host and working up to asking you out ... he opens with
"So how about it ... want to screw?"
It might work (law of averages) ... but it usually doesn't.
b. The content that they provide is overvalued in their minds, I forget the psychological term for this ... but because they spend all this time and money to report the news, they assume that people care ... and people don't ... because most news is a commodity.
If I can read the same story with pretty much the same quality of writing on Yahoo news (and I do ... all the time) why would I pay you for that content on a nicer looking website.
Truth is that these news organizations need to start thinking like startups and answer the question
How do we provide more value to the people who read the news?
The Wall Street Journal and sites like Stratfor have figured out how to make paywalls work by gasp providing content that you can't find anywhere else and are willing to pay to get your hands on.
Why hasn't the NY Times learned from this?
The NY Times strikes me as the girl that used to be smoking hot, but hit her thirties and is finding that she's not as attractive as she used to be (even though she is still pretty good looking) ... and instead of constantly being chased by men, she now has to actually initiate interaction once in a while.
I think they're having a hard time adjusting to that, even though they could be killing the game if they got over that mental hump.
oh well PS: Sorry for the rant, I'm a huge news junkie
The #2 category is where the money's at, but only if the information is worth something to those buying it. For the WSJ, you have extremely wealthy business people needing detailed info about the economy, and the WSJ is the only place that delivers it. Their pay-wall easily succeeds; high demand for a scarce piece of information, coupled with disposable income to buy it.
How does the WSJ get #2 content? Intimate relationships with corporate executives who don't have all day to talk to dozens of news outlets. Investigative reporting focused on business. Creating unique niche stories which you can't find anywhere else. For example, check out "Off Screen, Porn Sites Trick Advertisers", a pay-wall article:
http://online.wsj.com/article/SB1000142405274870489360457620...
Now search for the story on Google News. 22 hits, none of them relevant, except for the same WSJ article above! The story isn't anywhere else because the WSJ created it. If you're in the online porn business, you're probably signing up for a paid account right about now.
WSJ HACK: If you click on the link in the Google News search results, you'll get free access to the whole article! :) It's the same URL as above, but WSJ.com knows you're coming from Google, and gives you free access. They likely do this for marketing/promotional reasons, and non-tech-savy users won't usually be aware of it.
--------------------
The issue with the NYT.com is, while they do create unique content, it's not typically the type of content people want to buy. What's more important to you, a story about a competitor for your business dollars, or an article about which wine tastes best? Are you selling aspirin or vitamins? Aspirin cures pain right now, where vitamins makes you feel a little bit better about your future self.
A few years ago the NYT put their Op-Ed pieces behind a pay-wall, but eventually realized it didn't work:
The paper has tried a pay wall before. In 2005, it rolled out “Times Select” whereby it cordoned off access to op-ed columnists like Thomas Friedman and to archived stories and other features. That strategy generated around $10 million a year. But it was considered a failed experiment, and the Times dropped the wall in September 2007. - http://mediamemo.allthingsd.com/20100120/the-new-york-times-...
Op-Ed is arguably their most unique content, but it wasn't really valuable for their readers. To charge for content, they need unique information that isn't available anywhere else, which is also valuable enough for their customers to pay for. Op-Ed pieces met the first criteria, but not the second.
Perhaps their best way to charge for stuff is to augment it. Shoot a video for every free article, placing it behind a pay-wall. Some people like to watch instead of read. Have a pay-walled "additional details" section, outlining some additional facts not covered in the free article. Subscribers could be the only ones allowed to talk to reporters directly, asking them questions and getting feedback. Stories appear 4 hours earlier for subscribers. I'm brainstorming here (lots of crap, I know).
They're in a tough situation. I think most newspapers have realized that the 40-50% margins from twenty years ago are gone for good. It may be that most of the industry, outside of a niche few, are going to get s...