NY Times In Denial: Only Teens & The Unemployed Will Game The Paywall
from the emperor-has-no-clothes dept
It's really quite incredible how deeply in denial folks in the upper management at the NY Times appear to be about the paywall. In the last few days I've received some communications from some NYT staffers who seem to agree that the paywall itself is ridiculous, and is a backwards looking policy. As many have noted, the whole thing seems like a case of the Emperor's New Clothes anyway, since it's incredibly easy to avoid the paywall, either with some simple javascript or by just visiting from elsewhere. And yet, NYT publisher Arthur Sulzberger Jr. appears to be in complete denial about all of this, claiming that only teenagers and the unemployed will bother to game the system."Can people go around the system?" Sulzberger, the Times�s publisher, asked at a roundtable discussion hosted by the Paley Center for Media this morning. "The answer is yes, just as if you run down Sixth Avenue right now and you pass a newsstand and you grab a newspaper and keep running, you can read the Times for free."This appears to be someone deeply in denial. First of all, even if it is just done by high schoolers, those high schoolers will grow up. And never subscribe. But, more importantly, he's just wrong. Yes, some people will pay, but many, many, many people who are both adults and employed, will simply avoid the paywall completely.
"Is it going to be done by the kind of people who value the quality of the New York Times reporting and opinion and analysis? No," he continued. "I don't think so. It'll be mostly high-school kids and people who are out of work."
![Hide This Hide this](https://ii.techdirt.com/s/t/i/topclose.png)
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: arthur sulberger jr., paywall
Companies: ny times
Reader Comments
Subscribe: RSS
View by: Time | Thread
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: nyt paywall
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Wow
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Wow
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Wow
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Wow
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Wow
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Wow
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Wow
I also TELL the sites this.
NO 3rd party cookies..
The FIRST person to Prove a Bot/cookie/VIRUS from an advert on ANY CERTAIN site Brike his machine...will make TONS OF MONEY and scare the BEANS out of the other advertisers.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Mike, you must really fear that this thing is going to work, you are attacking it like a hungry dog.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re:
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re:
If something sprang up which was exactly the anti-thesis to your thinking, wouldn't you watch it very closely? That's where you could improve, change, or heck, maybe regret your thinking. And if everything goes as you predict . . . well, that's a damn good backing for your theory, isn't it?
Point is, I could as easily say that Mike is following it so closely because he wants everyone to know that he's being proven right.
But the real matter is that the NYT paywall, no matter what light you view it or Mike in, is relevant to the way Mike thinks about online business, and no matter what the outcome, will be useful to him as a study.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re:
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re:
I have to think there is a more going on. Why isn't Mike discussing how the death of limewire significantly dropped the amount of piracy traffic?
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re:
Probably cause it didn't.
http://arstechnica.com/tech-policy/news/2010/11/horde-of-piratical-monkeys-resurrects-lim ewire-pirate-edition.ars
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re:
perhaps you want to try something a little more recent?
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
Quotes from your article
"NPD Group reports that 12% of US web users accessed P2P services in Q3 of 2010 but this had dropped to 9% by Q4. This marks a continued drop from the 16% who accessed such sites in 2007."
First of all it is talking about the % of web traffic. So if more people are on the web and the same amount are using P2P the number would drop but piracy wouldn't. Second, it says the number has been going down since 07 so by your logic piracy has been on the decline since 07, guess you asshats are winning, who knew.
"NPD added that the average number of files downloaded by individual P2P users halved from 35 in Q4 2007 to 18 in Q4 2010."
Jeeze looks like by your logic piracy has been pretty much drying up since 07, don't know why you are whining so much then.
"The NPD study was based on self-reporting by respondents and its statistical findings must be understood within that context."
LOL
"This all suggests a significant level of displacement happening, where habitual P2P users simply move onto other unlicensed services rather than migrate to legal alternative or stop filesharing altogether.
There are also wider factors at play such as the rise of cyberlockers and VPN (virtual private networks) that make it more difficult to detect where and how frequently unlicensed content is being exchanged online."
So maybe people are just using better services? like bit torrent which is 1000 times more effective than P2P. So where is the proof that piracy is down? Where is the proof that limewire going away had anything to do with it. Also limewire didnt go away just the LLC behind it
perhaps you want to try some reading comprehension?
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
speak backwards now may I so
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
http://www.google.com/search?q=porco+b%C3%ADzaro&ie=utf-8&oe=utf-8
Just so you know.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
http://www.batman-superman.com/superman/cmp/bizzaro.html
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re:
I'm interested too. Not that I really care whether it works or not. I keep reading about it because it's like watching a NASCAR race and you just know there will be a spectacular crash soon.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re:
Because whether P2P usage is going up or down isn't the goal or really a discussion topic of this blog.
Now, if somehow this correlated to increased music sales, then perhaps the RIAA could be vindicated.
Reality is that the study only showed P2P and not overall piracy (locker sites, streaming, etc).
So, what's the news you wanted reported?
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re:
Mainly my issue, though, is that if TAM's real problem was that he doesn't like the topics covered on techdirt, he just wouldn't read Techdirt because it doesn't interest him. In reality, he just needs to bitch about EVERYTHING to make himself feel important, and he keeps coming back here every single day even though it's clear by now that he doesn't like Techdirt. Seems insane to me. I hate Fox News, and once in awhile I'll see what they are up to so I can mock them a little, but I sure as hell don't watch every minute of every broadcast.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re:
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re:
As for me, Techdirt interests me, because many of the people who post here in the comments are interesting, and it is nice mental exercise to express points of view, especially when they don't match up with those of the "koolaid soaked masses", as it were.
It is way more intereting to discuss with people you don't agree with, than it is to stand in a room full of people that you agree with.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
There must be more to the story and discussing an unrelated topic. Bravo!
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
Well, sorry. Blame the real TAM (the former handle of a well-known AC) for trying with all his pathetic might to get on my nerves for the past week or so and, though I am loathe to admit it, succeeding slightly.
It is way more intereting to discuss with people you don't agree with, than it is to stand in a room full of people that you agree with.
On that we agree, which raises all sorts of paradoxes...
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re:
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re:
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re:
Um. The paywall does not change or break any URLs. So, no, that has nothing to do with anything.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re:
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re:
And why should anybody here give a damn about what you need?
Right.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re:
Well, by his own logic, he must really fear Mike is right and is now attacking him like a hungry dog.
Yay! Cyclical douchebaggery is fun!
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re:
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re:
you must really fear that this thing is going to work, you are attacking it like a hungry dog.
Sounds like you're describing yourself...
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re:
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re:
But then, so is your fail response to being so easily caught out.
Pathetic. Troll harder.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re:
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re:
We're just laughing at them. (Not with them.)
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re:
It doesn't hurt him any if it works and he's wrong. I'm sure he can admit it.
Rather, I think he covers it, and I deeply appreciate his efforts for this, because it is HILARIOUSLY FUNNY!
I need a great laugh. And this is it.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re:
-CF
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Love the comparison..
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
And you're harping on them for this.
Jesus Christ, even when they take your advice, you feel compelled to shit on them.
If there is a more negative blog on the Internet, I've yet to find it. Even the Angry Video Game Nerd occasionally finds a game he likes.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re:
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re:
I run NoScript on my Firefox install. This will get around the paywall. I'd hardly call myself a pirate as NoScript is to me a basic protection, little different than any of the major anti-virus software out there.
The NYT paywall is ineffective at getting people to pay if it is so easily defeated by common and legal methods people use to access content.
Is that really so hard to understand?
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re:
amen.
if i'm not mistaken, one needs to block nyt.js. i do this on firefox and do not see the mtr.js which i can peruse on chrome, which doesn't have the most fabulous noscript.
and yes, mtr == meter.
ok, i hope mike doesn't get upset, but here's the entire script:
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re:
Try NotScripts?http://optimalcycling.com/other-projects/notscripts/
https://chrome.google.com/webstore/detai l/odjhifogjcknibkahlpidmdajjpkkcfn
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re:
Bawwawahhhahahhaahhahhhahhaahhahah
$40 million.....LOLOL
WTF - did they not even consider SERVER side authentication? $40 Million must have included $39.5 million in promotion, $400K in equipment and $50k in "user studies". The intern who wrote that was still overpaid.
-CF
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re:
So in six weeks when they switch it to server-side blocking are you going to recant or are you just going to hide and hope nobody remembers you said this?
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re:
"Looks like the NYT finally got their sh!t together - hooray for them - their paywall is rock solid."
Mmmm... So what message are you going to come back here with in a year when the grand experiment is shown to be a failure? I'm fairly confident we won't hear from you.
-CF
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re:
sure sounds big and scary, uh-oh.
by definition, a "meter" counts what any given remote node is doing, and the only way to positively identify a remote node is with info dropped on it's hard drive:
a cookie entitled NYT-M, containing an md5 hash entitled gwh.
if this node both deletes said cookies and! doesn't run mtr.js looking for said cookies, nyt is hosed trying to track this node (aka MY fucking computer).
btw, they're already making several calls to their servers when the script runs:
'//meter-svc.nytimes.com/meter.js?url='
'script.src = NYTD.Hosts.jsHost + '/js/gwy.js';'
to both run their server side tracking suite and to instantiate the paywall gateway w/in the browser.
the $40 mil probably went mostly into the database creation and mgmt needed to run this meter at the required enormous scale.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re:
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re:
If I point my web browser of choice (w3m) at the New York Times web site, I can read all the content. Should I be considered a "pirate" because the NYT has posted content there, thus making it available to anyone on the Internet, and I've accessed it?
After all, it's hardly MY fault that they blew $40M and failed to consider that not everyone uses Firefox, Safari or Opera. (Or IE. Yes, sadly, some inferior, stupid, utterly clueless and appallingly careless people still use IE.) And apparently nobody bothered to explain to their management that the public Internet is...the public Internet.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re:
First, spending $40 million to put up a paywall is hardly "ignoring pirates". Second, "focusing on customers that want to pay them" should include figuring out how to get those customers to want to pay them (i.e. giving them a reason to buy), and not just throwing up a toll booth and declaring victory.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Yeah right ....
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Yeah right ....
I just did that today, actually. And I have to tell you, it feels great.
One MLB online package was all it took for me not to care about cable anymore...
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Yeah right ....
I am on the verge of dropping cable myself. I just need to find sources for 2 more programs online.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Yeah right ....
-CF
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Yeah right ....
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Yeah right ....
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Yeah right ....
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Yeah right ....
2. Spend a night or two showing her how to navigate TV online with whatever you use to watch (channel websites, Hulu, Netflix, etc.)
3. Spend a few bucks making an easy system that streams the images to your existing TVs in the house so she can see what it looks like
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: #10
And you're harping on them for this."
Obviously, he's harping on their dependence on a stupid and doomed solution and their denial of reality.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: #10
If anybody he liked were trying this, it wouldn't be a "stupid and doomed solution," it would be a "worthwhile experiment."
They have not paywalled off the whole content. They let you see some. They let you share. They will continue to get ad revenue from all of these activities. Only heavy users - e.g., the ones who might value the content the most - will probably ever encounter the "paywall," except rarely.
If the NYT were giving away a movie and selling a DVD with extra content on it, that would be praised. They're giving away 20 articles and all the sharing you can do, and charging for the extra content. But they get shit on for it. Why? Because they're the NYT and not some struggling musician who rails against the evils of copyright.
The advice given here is constantly to ignore people who are never going to pay you, and try to get money from the ones who will. That's what they're doing. Oh, sure, maybe they're not doing it whole-hog, giving away everything and selling lunch dates or T-shirts or articles written just for you or whatever, but they've come halfway. And yet they've been shit on no less than four times in the past two days.
This is completely off the rails hatred and self-aggrandizement.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: #10
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: #10
Weird. I actually *do* like the NYT. It's one of the reasons why I keep talking about this. I hate to see them make such a bad business decision.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
My google RSS feed and NPR app are better anyway...
Good luck NYT!
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
its called being frugal..
its HOW rich persons STAY RICH.
Poor man does the SAME thing?
its called Theft..
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Offended
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
He says that, like it's just a foregone conclusion that the New York Times is still a relevant source for quality reporting. Have we flashed back to 1990 when I wasn't looking?
If so, word to your mother.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
New definitions of theft
Copying = theft.
Reading something without paying = theft.
Circumventing or ignoring a javascript block = breaking and entering.
High school kids are mostly thieves.
People out of work are mostly thieves.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Theft huh?
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Theft huh?
1. if the Advert comes from your site..I will watch it.
2. If an advert has a COOKIE, I WONT..
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
It all ads up
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
I don't think so either. Nobody values the quality of the New York Times anymore.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
news costs money
I haven't paid for news in a decade and don't miss anything that is published in the NY Times. As soon as I see a news site that wants me to register for free I immediately close it and find the story else where in less than 20 seconds. I would imagine most would do the same as soon as they ran into a paywall to ready the NY Times. Like they have something special that you would pay for. Like they have the only people who know how to report news!!! NOT lololol. RIP NYT.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]