The New York Times will stop charging for accessing parts of its web site including 20 years of archive (from 1987 onwards).
The reason is (I quote):
“The business model for advertising revenue, versus subscriber revenue, is so much more attractive. The hybrid model has some potential, but in the long run, the advertising side will dominate.”
Fantastic! Instead of making us pay, the New York Times will get its money from advertising.
As a corollary, is it possible to have a (paper) newspaper in 2007 which does not have a website with 100% free content? Will that be possible in 2010? I have my doubts.
those guys must be retards, coz i used to always think that this is the proper way for newspapers to work. So i have been thinking that this is the normal way to be but THEY just NOW thought of that! horrible, i usually thought i was dumb, these guys have surpassed even me!
talking about ads :p plz do click on my ads :p
As far as the question asked… I don’t believe that newspapers without website can exists..sauf dans 1 pays ki dans pince meme, since, ppl like to read archives.. just like myself, am going to have some time to check out last month lottery numbers.
hope i win.
I’d rather pay and get pages without adverts (I’m sick of blocking adverts using my browser), and with other features -> like being part of a private user generated content community (say /. digg, delicious, etc, but in a private way).
Paying brings more fun! It’s like paying for email which brings extra benefits.
Thanks for your insight.
The article I quote mentions that some paid to view the Times’ contents. But the vast majority were not regular Times readers and came via search engines. They were not willing to pay to read one article.
I too think that adverts (especially something like AdSense is one of the most efficient way to get a little money when you have an online presence (Up to now, I’ve made a whopping $27.18 with the little (nearly unintrusive) advert in the right column…)
“, IÃ¢â‚¬â„¢ve made a whopping $27.18 with the little “
I’m already on my 6th or 7th cheque :p in 2 years
adsense is the perfect (though definitely it gives google one more grip of the net)
No one click on my adverts even though I have lots of visits :-)
@Mr. Avinash (who needs a wig – you look cute with hair) -> funny. you can only make money if you invite people to click on a particular day and time. say, your mailing list consists of 1000 active contacts. You set different ‘clicking dates’ for 50, and so on. Out of each batch (50), 20 may click. You still generate money over a short period of time, and Google will not cancel your account (too many clicks in a short time -> account cancelled for fraud – that happened to me)
Back @ the Times article -> If I stumble onto a paid article, I usually get to read a summary. From that summary, I can obtain key information to obtain more info from other free sites. Times is NOT outdated because it stopped being paid. All other newspapers including Times, ARE outdated for they are not centered around a community. Hence, the exponential rise of digg and other community sites.
StÃ©phane Lee says
Geeks don’t click.
“Geeks donÃ¢â‚¬â„¢t click.”
Intelligent geekS clicks :) … i have put emphasis on the S for a reason… :p
you are a bright person, i suppose you may understand now :p
like deana said… too many clicks in a short time will get your account cancelled (IF your website doesn’t have that much users and it is not seen continuous over long time).. but you have users, and users have ads also…
geek$ need easy money! click and help your fellow geeks.
I think that ads are a nice thing as stated.
But overdoing them is a bad thing and will naturally keep visitors away. So Deana, I think you need to stop visiting that crappy site! :P
Well, the ads add content to the website. And in the hope of getting money. Nevertheless, I believe that even if you don’t get a superb revenue from the ads, it doesn’t mind! Readers are the most important things. And there are other ways of making money!!