The Value Of The Link vs. The Value Of The Content
from the which-is-more-important dept
At this point, we've probably discussed the newly planned NY Times paywall enough, but a blog post by Reuters' Felix Salmon made such a good point that it's worth highlighting. In talking about the paywall, he notes, as I did originally, that people have a lot less incentive to link to the NY Times as they know it will be harder for others to make use of that link. That I understood, but Salmon made a key point that I hadn't really thought about:I suspect that what's going to happen now is that as the moment of truth approaches, bloggers will increasingly search around for the NYT's replacement as online paper of record: the way that blogs work is that they're backed up by links to reliable sources, and a link is worthless if the person clicking on it risks running straight into a paywall, unable to read the information in question. The NYT's journalism might well continue to be reliable, but its website won't be, any more.That point highlights the difference between valuing the content vs. valuing the conversation (or even valuing enabling the conversation). The top folks at the NY Times (and many other publications) seem to over-value the content and undervalue the conversation. Thus, they think that the content needs to be paid for, but don't realize that they devalue their role in the conversation.
If you want to make the bet that the internet is more about content delivery than conversation and communication, then perhaps this makes sense. But, almost all signs point to the fact that it's the conversation that's the really important thing online, and devaluing that is almost certainly a mistake.
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
Filed Under: content, conversation, link, newspapers, overvaluing, sharing, value
Companies: ny times
Reader Comments
Subscribe: RSS
View by: Time | Thread
nytimes.com unreliable source
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: nytimes.com unreliable source
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
It's isn't cognitive dissonance; I am quite sure it must be something else
I am doing some consulting right now for a major museum. Their marketing VP wants help ramping up a project that is essentially a web magazine in their domain of expertise. Her focus is on all the great content they can deliver.
My question five minutes into our first meeting was: how do you plan to monetize this? (In fact, most of this blogs readership would have known to ask that question.)
Her answer was essentially, "I don't know yet." This was a fair answer as she is bringing me in very early to the project. But as we explored her options for monetizing, it became clear that paying for content was very high on her list. I told her it wouldn't work and explained why (the basic stuff Mike talks about). She insisted that lots of newspapers are going to start charging for content soon. And she is confident that because her material is high quality, it will have value.
Sigh.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: It's isn't cognitive dissonance; I am quite sure it must be something else
Like I said, I agree with Mike and you in principle, but wonder if a museum might be a special and somewhat different case.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
had this exact convo on twitter
Simplified: you may be the best at what you do for (company), but it doesn't save you from the ire of people for what (company) does.
replace company with all the things that drive people nuts: law enforcement, NYT, best buy, walmart, it's all the same. What you associate with, defines your business.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Counting the links
One possibly similar case is the BBC iPlayer. It has great content, but most of it is only available for a week before it disappears.
Using Yahoo's Site Explorer, we can see how many links from other sites there are to iPlayer overall (85,967), the permanent radio pages (7258) and the transient programmes (11). Ouch.
(I know the comparison isn't perfect as the NYT content will only be inaccessible to frequent visitors rather than everyone after a week.)
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
content vs. conversation
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Depends on the pricing
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Apparently not a paywall at all
While that does handle the "cut off from the web" problem, it's hard to see them making any money this way. Still, I could be wrong - maybe some folks just like to go their site and read, and are willing to pay for it. But enough?
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Apparently not a paywall at all
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
This is already happening. I see many cases where commenters complain about a nyt link because of the free reg
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re:
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Googlebot Useragent?
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Years ago
If they do go through with the paywall I am afraid that I'll have to leave NYT for good. I might occasionally look at it or link to it if I absolutely need to, but in general I won't trust it because of the frustration it causes.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Dear New York Times...
We had some great years together. I'll always care for you, but we've just grown apart. I thought I'd found my soulmate when you put your entire archive online, one of the most amazing things an institution like you could ever do. And remember the whole Jayson Blair thing? What a hoot!
It's clear we're drifting in different directions. You're still smart and reliable and well-traveled, but lately it seems like you're only interested in me for my money.
It must be frustrating to have people constantly talking about you, linking to you, quoting you, lusting after your puzzle. It's understandable if you need some time alone, behind closed doors.
You see, Times, times have changed. The world is different now. I long for the old days too -- the days when ignorant puppies didn't bark nonsense all day on cable, the days when we weren't infatuated with celebrity gossip and "reality" melodramas, the days before corporate press releases were news stories, the days when our neighbors weren't such asshole princesses.
Sadly, those days are gone. It's not your fault, our whole nation got greedy. But now I need someone who looks forward, someone who I can grow with, someone who's strong enough to take a stand yet creative enough to make a leap.
I'm so sorry, NYT. Goodbye.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]