(average: 4 out of 5)
Loading ...If you're new here, you may want to subscribe to my RSS feed. Thanks for visiting!
While it’s hard to imagine someone who isn’t willing to pay for a sluttier Maureen Dowd it seems the Times is having trouble making TimesSelect profitable.
If true, it only took the Times about two years to realize what the rest of the internet figured out about five years ago. Putting your best writers and archived content behind a subscription online may not be the best idea.
New-media pundits have typically been very critical of TimesSelect, considering it a disadvantage for the legendary publication to be locking up so much content, particularly opinion pieces by well-known writers. “By cutting stars like Tom Friedman and Frank Rich off from the rest of the Internet,” Peter Kafka of the Silicon Alley Insider commented in July, “the Times has diminished its (and their) influence–and helped create room for upstarts like The Huffington Post to step in.”
A representative for NYT would only say that, “We continue to evaluate the best approach for NYTimes.com.”
While the Post article claims that TimeSelect subscriptions fell from just over 224,000 subscribers in April to 221,000 in June the Times claims that is incorrect and that subscriptions are actually up to 224,580 in June. Either way it seems like it won’t be long before the Times realizes that a subscription style format when it comes to archived content.
—admin
Subscribe to Metadish using an 
Post a Comment