You Have 2 Minutes To Read Business 2.0
from the ridiculous dept
A month ago, we wrote about how Business 2.0 made the backwards (perfectly business 1.0) decision to take themselves off the internet unless you were an AOL or Business 2.0 subscriber. Following my complaint about this, a PR person from Business 2.0 contacted me and said that for any Business 2.0 story I wanted to link to, I just needed to contact her and she would provide me with a non-subscription required link. I'm open to these ideas, so a few days later I requested just such a link... and was told that that particular article wasn't available. I also had to wait a day to get that response - which isn't exactly internet time around here. I explained to her why this policy was ridiculous, and how it made Business 2.0 less valuable and less likely to get more subscribers, which she promised to pass on to those in charge. In the meantime, she also gave me a subscription code to get into the magazine, which she said I can pass on to readers of the site (why? I don't know). However, if you want to get in, use 079751240X. In the meantime, it sounds like Business 2.0 is getting even more ridiculous. In sharing their content with sister site CNN, they make it appear that their content is free. And it is, if you read quickly. The links are free for two minutes only. After which, they will reload, and they'll want you to buy a subscription. They're hoping (bizarrely) that readers will be so interested in the article they've just been kicked out of, that they'll pay for a full subscription. Instead, they're going to find incredibly pissed off readers who were reading an article that they suddenly (with no warning or explanation) have no more access to. Apparently, Business 2.0 is making a new artform out of pissing off your customers.
Thank you for reading this Techdirt post. With so many things competing for everyone’s attention these days, we really appreciate you giving us your time. We work hard every day to put quality content out there for our community.
Techdirt is one of the few remaining truly independent media outlets. We do not have a giant corporation behind us, and we rely heavily on our community to support us, in an age when advertisers are increasingly uninterested in sponsoring small, independent sites — especially a site like ours that is unwilling to pull punches in its reporting and analysis.
While other websites have resorted to paywalls, registration requirements, and increasingly annoying/intrusive advertising, we have always kept Techdirt open and available to anyone. But in order to continue doing so, we need your support. We offer a variety of ways for our readers to support us, from direct donations to special subscriptions and cool merchandise — and every little bit helps. Thank you.
–The Techdirt Team
Reader Comments
Subscribe: RSS
View by: Time | Thread
Business 2.0?
I don't even look at it any more.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
No Subject Given
Show 'em a little tease and maybe they'll dish out for the whole thing?
All this does is annoy and make me go to google to get the story elsewhere (if I can't already find it on here that is)
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
No Subject Given
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
No Subject Given
I still read salon, and don't really mind having to look at a windows media player ad for 15 seconds to view the site. This cloak and dagger shit has got to go.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Suits
No surprise.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Suits
I beg to differ.
It's a technical solution (it works) that's a bad business decision (because it alienates customers).
That sounds more like a bad decision made by a techie or a techie-turned-business person.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Suits
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Your time is up ...
Bye Bye Business 2.0 !
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
No Subject Given
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
filtering out "refresh"
[ link to this | view in chronology ]