CNN report on the NY Times (via GigaOm):
Still, Times Select has generated just $6 million in sales so far, a rounding error for a company expected to post $3.5 billion in annual revenue this year. Online is just not big enough to significantly move the needle for the New York Times.
Times Select, of course, is where they put their premier columnists and podcasts behind a fee-entry firewall. I miss the columnists terribly, but was never willing to pay. Obviously not a lot of others, either. And I certainly spend much less time on the site. Wonder how that translates to advertisers.
June 22, 2006 at 7:09 pm |
Funny, online is big enough to significantly move the needle for lots of other folks. I wonder if the fee-entry structure is a sound business plan for Old Grey.
Actually, I don’t wonder at all.
Hey Obadiah, glad to see you in the blogosphere!
June 22, 2006 at 7:45 pm |
Hey Gardner! One of the main reasons I started a blog is to meet folks like you. This thing really works! I’m honored.
June 23, 2006 at 1:34 am |
Isn’t this $6 M more than they would have received, otherwise?
- temple
June 23, 2006 at 7:50 pm |
Hi Temple, great question. How much is lost by losing eyeballs through advertisers and subscribers? Consider this $ amount over time, and how many folks can no longer can link to this content, ie., drive more visitors. In non-monetary terms, the less conversation the less relevancy which not only hurts their business, but also the cultural record.
July 8, 2006 at 3:42 pm |
TimesSelect sux donkey ballz. That’s my opinion, in as learned and kind a way as I can manage.
July 8, 2006 at 3:47 pm |
Actually, I can do better: The idea that there is a heirarchy of content “value” in a paper of record such as the Times, which is a de facto open source for information is insulting to the very idea of the Internet and the idea of the role of the fourth estate.
MORE poor people need to understand Paul Krugman, not fewer.
Grrrrrr.