the smedley log - suburban scrawl

Tattered take on TimesSelect
(Isn’t it every columnist’s dream to have fewer readers?)

Matt revisits the New York Times’ decision to restrict online access to their pool of columnists via their forthcoming TimesSelect service. While it is going to be restricted starting next month, don’t fret. They are generously making this great new service available to web surfers for a paltry fifty dollars a year.

What’s more is their new sweetheart deal for bloggers. Simply buy this annual subscription (full-price) and continue linking to NYT columnists. Every surfer you re-direct to the NYT who dishes out the fifty bucks for a new subscription earns you a kickback from the fabled news giant. I don’t know about you, but that last time someone offered me the “opportunity” to pay to help sell their product, I wasn’t too receptive. I’m almost surprised the Times didn’t herd us into a hotel conference room buy us lunch before leveling such a revolutionary offer.

I have to agree with Matt’s take; this may increase revenue, or not—but it’s bound to decrease the number of incoming links to their content from a blogosphere that sends millions of readers a day shuffling to one news item or another.

After all, what do all columnists dream about, if not to limit the number of readers who can see their work?

It’s too bad that the Times is completely missing the new media wave. There is money to be made in this brave new world, but restricting content is not one of them.

That, at least, is my guess, but we’ll see…

I think theirs is a mis-calculation common to old media types who have precious little perspective on modern trends.

I don’t doubt that they will see a little bit of an influx of cash in the short-run (though I could be wrong about that)—I just don’t think you can build an audience in this era by cordoning off your best original content from new readers.

Forgive me for this trip down memory lane, but I spent a few years in marketing/circulation for a somewhat smaller newspaper. Like most print publications, we made most of our money off ad revenue (not subscriptions); I have to think that the same would be true of the NYT.

Either they don’t understand the current information culture, or they simply don’t believe they can work with it. Either problem indicates (to me) a lack of relevant knowledge of the situation, because even if free online readership represents a drop in revenue, they’ll never get that back by extorting the audience. I can’t help but think ad sales are the key to this, and if they’re not capable of generating enough ad revenue, maybe they’ve got a more significant problem than just us online moochers…

So the New York old-Timers still think it works that way, huh? What a shame.