NY Times Does The Math: Pay Walls Don't Make Business Sense

from the about-time dept

As was rumored last month, the NY Times has decided to pull the plug on its TimesSelect paywall service, making all NY Times content from 1987 forward free online (they're also making all of the content from 1851 to 1922 free, but that's already in the public domain). This move comes two years after the paywall was first put in place. At the time, we were one of many who pointed out that this was going to make the NY Times a lot less valuable, and it seems that the business folks at the NY Times finally did the math and came to the same conclusion. They note that subscription growth was slowing (something that was obvious over a year ago) as advertising growth was ramping -- and that they hadn't counted on how many people would be drop-in visitors, coming from other sites. That seems like an odd statement, since it was quite obvious more than two years ago that search engines and other sites tended to drive a tremendous amount of traffic to news sites. Either way, like others before it, the NY Times should be congratulated on doing the right thing, while questioned for what took it so long (or even what made the company make the mistake in the first place).

Filed Under: media, newspapers, paywall, timesselect
Companies: new york times

20 Year Old Complaints About Dying Newspapers Sound Familiar

from the the-more-things-stay-the-same dept

We certainly take our fair shot at pointing out when newspapers make bad business decisions in trying to figure out how to adapt to the internet age -- but (unlike some) we don't believe that "journalism" is dying or even that newspapers are dying. They'll learn to adapt and change with the time. Sure, a few poorly managed and slow to change newspapers may end up having plenty of trouble, but that hardly speaks to the value and demand for professionally produced news. However, for an interesting historical perspective on the imminent death of newspapers it's worth reading MarketWatch editor-in-chief David Callaway's column discussing his 20 years in the news business, where the basic fears sound remarkably similar to what you hear today:

"Back in 1987, it was widely assumed that newspapers were dying. The post-Watergate rush to journalism was over. Circulations were down. And new technologies were threatening. At one point, the hot new thing was to deliver news by fax machine, and papers were going to die because readers would be able to get news quicker by fax. They would even be able to tailor the type of news they wanted to receive. Imagine that."

Journalism isn't going anywhere. It just needs to change and adapt to the times. It's already happening in some places, and the others will figure it out eventually.

Filed Under: journalism, newspapers

Internet Holdouts Upset At Newspapers For Moving Content Online

from the catch-up-with-the-times dept

Romenesko points us to an article by the Baltimore Sun's public editor about people who don't use the internet. Apparently, they're growing increasingly upset at newspapers that are moving more content online and cutting back on what they include in the print edition. Many newspapers have realized that they can save a lot of money by not printing things like tv listings or stock listings in the actual paper, knowing that it's often much easier for most people to find that information online or through other sources. That's absolutely true, but apparently it's upsetting those who aren't caught up on the latest technology trends and have no interest in finding their way online to check the tv listings. While you can understand how they feel, it's really difficult to feel too much sympathy. Things definitely do change over time, but it's hard to justify newspapers spending so much on newsprint and ink when only a tiny percentage of people actually uses that section of the newspaper. Perhaps there are opportunities for more customized offerings, where those who really want printed copies can have alternative sources of getting them, rather than as part of the daily paper.

Filed Under: internet holdouts, newspapers

Canadian Newspaper Gives Away Free Music Downloads

from the that's-the-spirit dept

Earlier this year, there was a huge fuss over the UK's Daily Mail newspaper's promotion giving away the new Prince CD for free with a copy of the newspaper. It seemed like a pretty good way of dealing with the troubles facing both the newspaper industry and the recording industry -- offering a new way of financing music combined with a new way to promote and distribute music, all the while helping give people a reason to actually buy a newspaper. It was so reasonable that it freaked out the recording industry, music stores and even other newspapers. However, it appears that some newspapers have decided to go even further. Michael Geist lets us know that over the weekend, the Vancouver Sun put up a freely downloadable compilation of songs from Nettwerk Music. You may recall Nettwerk as being the Canadian record label that seems to actually understand that the trick isn't in fighting against consumers (or in suing them), but in giving them what they want. Thus, it's not really a huge surprise that it would be this label that took part -- allowing well known acts like Sarah McLachlan and the Barenaked Ladies to take part in this promotion. What's a little strange is that the promotion only lasted for one day. However, it is good to see more newspapers (and bands) at least experimenting with this type of model. It has a long way to go, but through this experimenting the next generation of music business models are going to be discovered.

Filed Under: canada, downloads, music, newspapers
Companies: nettwerk, vancouver sun

People Are Promiscuous In Their News Sources

from the good-for-them dept

One of the defenses that people often put up for newspapers' dislike towards Google News is that newspapers don't want "drop in" visitors. Instead, they want people who specifically read The Local Paper Times, or whatever, rather than randomdude23 who shows up from across the internet to read one story. So they want people who are going to go straight to their site, stick around and read many different pages. After all, this is exactly how newspapers used to work. Most people would subscribe to one, possibly two, local newspapers and then read a good portion of it (potentially, cover to cover). Unfortunately, however, that's not quite how people consume news these days. A new study shows that people are rather promiscuous in their news consumption. They constantly divide their attention among many different news brands. This shouldn't be surprising, considering how many news options people have these days, though it should also ease the worries of those that believe people get all their news from one source and therefore need to be "protected" from bias at that source. This "news promiscuity" is also a reason why news providers should go out of their way to cater to the needs of their readers, as it likely means that they're constantly reshuffling their "news portfolio." Therefore, doing things like making your content tougher to access -- as the NY Times just did with the Freakonomics RSS feed -- is only an invitation to lose readers to a more friendly source that knows it needs to keep its readers' attention.

Filed Under: newspapers, sources

Google Finally Hosting News On Its Site: Will Newspapers Get Pissed Off At AP Now?

from the ah,-the-shifting-marketplace dept

Earlier this month, we noted that it had been a year since Google had done a deal with the Associated press and there appeared to be nothing to show for it. That led to speculation that the deal really had nothing to do with with some new "news" product, and it was really about paying off the AP so it didn't sue Google for linking to AP stories (the way some other news organizations had done). That seemed strange because it was quite difficult to see what the Associated Press or anyone else had to argue about if Google News was providing their news partners more traffic. However, the snickering over a lack of any real project seems to have kicked Google into action, and they've just announced that they're going to start hosting news content on their own site from the AP and a few other news organizations the company has done deals with. Amusingly, I was unable to find the AP version of this story hosted on Google itself, but did find the Canadian Press version. There don't appear to be any advertisements on the Google hosted version, but there are links to "related news" -- which makes a lot of sense. Of course, if I were a publisher partner of the Associated Press, I'd actually be really upset by this deal -- but directed at the Associated Press, rather than at Google. This deal is likely to lower traffic to other sites that republish AP reports. So all those partners get no benefit from the deal and actually lose out on traffic. If there are newspapers who want to get upset about Google News, they should get upset at the AP for basically giving a bunch of their traffic directly to Google.

Filed Under: associated press, google news, newspapers
Companies: associated press, google

Now That NY Times Archive Is Online... People Wish They Could Forget The Past

from the so-what-do-you-do? dept

It's interesting to hear that the New York Times gets approximately one request a day to delete an old article, because we get those requests at Techdirt as well (though, not nearly as often). In both cases, it's often due to someone who is upset that, even if the old article was accurate at the time, it's no longer the case any more -- but Google still calls it up on searches. Clark Hoyt, the current Public Editor of the NY Times discusses the struggle the paper has about what to do in those circumstances. Traditionally, they've just said "sorry, we can't do anything" to people. Now there are cases where they may add a correction or an additional note on incorrect information. There's even a bizarre (and somewhat silly) suggestion that they should have their archives simply "forget" certain "less important" news.

However, what may be most odd is that the article does not include one of the most obvious way to deal with these issues: post a response from the person who feels wronged, to give their side. When people complain about old posts on Techdirt, assuming they're factually accurate, we simply suggest that people put up a comment on the post explaining their side of the story. Of course, this response is quite similar to the new Google News comment feature that so many journalists seem up in arms about -- fearing that it will simply be used for spin, PR and distortion. What they forget is that if such comments are clearly marked as coming from the biased party, people can take that into account, and it provides the additional info necessary for people to make a more informed decision. The NY Times piece also leaves out a second option: that the person can get themselves in the news again, and have the old stories disappear into the dark caverns of Google's later page search results. In fact, that technique may be working for Allen Kraus, one of the guys used as an example in the NY Times piece. Thanks to this new NY Times piece, many of the links on Google appearing under his name are already about this particular story, rather than the old one he's upset about.

Filed Under: newspapers, old news, permanent record
Companies: new york times

People Want Analysis Of The News, Rather Than Just Facts

from the probably-maybe dept

Last summer, Carlo wrote up a fantastic analysis of what's wrong with journalism, which highlights the false focus on objectivity. The point he makes is that there's nothing wrong with reporting the facts, but people get value from the interpretation, analysis and insight that people provide around the facts. That's what we've always tried to do around here at Techdirt. I, personally, chuckle whenever anyone complains about "bias" or a lack of objectivity here. We've never claimed to be reporters or journalists. We've never claimed to be objective. From the very beginning of this site's existence (I know, since I was there), it has always been about giving our opinion and analysis of the news. If we don't have an opinion on something, we probably are a lot less interested in writing about it. And, despite the anger by a small subset at our "non-journalism," we've found that most of our readers read us because they value that opinion and analysis. In fact, in the coming months, expect to see us dive even further into insight and analysis.

That's why it's interesting to see reporters coming to terms with new studies suggesting that opinions are exactly what younger people are looking for in their news. The editorial worries that this inevitably results in the lowest common denominator of angry commentators like those you see on the various cable news channels, but that need not be the case. The thing is, people don't value opinions for the sake of opinions -- they value opinions based on facts (which is often missing from cable news). That is, just because people want opinions, it doesn't mean that the facts go out the window. They want to know the facts, and then they want to see the interpretation of it. They mostly understand opinion for what it is, knowing that the analysis is based on the facts, and that leads to other interpretations and analysis.

In fact, despite the claims of an internet "echo chamber," one of the things that makes the internet such an interesting medium, is the idea that anyone can respond and discuss stuff. If someone disagrees with our interpretation of the facts, we want to know about it, and we want to discuss it. That's how we all learn and we all become smarter. So those in the news business shouldn't fret the value that people put on opinions these days. Those opinions still need a factual basis, and the ensuing discussion often highlights more important finer points that are missed if you're just staring at the objective facts all day. But that's only going to happen if traditional news organizations recognize the value of opinions -- and the ability for people to talkback and discuss those opinions (and the facts they're based on).

So far, though, that doesn't appear to be happening. Tim Lee points us to an LA Times editorial that gets plenty of facts wrong while trashing bloggers as being only interested in opinion. Yes, certainly, there are some folks out there who are only in it to make a point or be heard. But it's the combination of facts and opinion and analysis that has the chance to make these discussions that much more meaningful. It doesn't mean that you do one side without the other. It means, both are needed together.

Filed Under: facts, newspapers, opinion

LA Times: Publishers Think Google Is Worse Than Osama bin Laden

from the no,-really? dept

While the SF Chronicle may have gone through the stages of Google grief, it appears the LA Times is still very much in the denial stage. In fact, it's such extreme denial, that it's reaching near-satire levels. Robert Niles at OJR points us to an editorial in the LA Times saying that "many publishers" believe that Google and the internet are "a greater threat... than Osama bin Laden." Niles does a good job walking through how ridiculous that statement is, including pointing out that the LA Times refuses to name a single publisher who actually believes that. However, as has been pointed out many, many times, Google is not a threat to newspapers. It's only helping them. It's funny that, on the rest of the internet, tremendous money is spent on "search engine marketing" and "search engine optimization" to get better ranked in Google. Yet, when Google ranks newspapers well, suddenly, it's worse than terrorists. You would think that a newspaper with professional reporters would actually bother to get the facts and understand this -- but apparently that's too much to ask. The editorial goes on to complain about Google's new news commenting feature, because how dare Google actually provide people involved in a story a chance to tell their side? Apparently, all information needs to be guarded by some gatekeepers who don't even seem to understand how Google works. Of course, since the LA Times wants to keep those in the story quiet, you can't comment on the article. However, if I were Google, I'd add a response to this... on Google News, to demonstrate why that comment feature makes so much sense.

Filed Under: denial, newspapers
Companies: google, la times

SF Chronicle's Stages Of Google Grief Lead To Suggestion For Google To Just Buy Newspapers

from the follow-the-discussion dept

First off, before someone brings it up in the comments, I'll point out that the following post refers to the views of various columnists at the SF Chronicle, rather than any sort of discussion among those who have any real impact on the SF Chronicle's strategy. However, it is quite amusing to see the "stages of Google grief" showing up on the editorial pages of the struggling San Francisco newspaper who has had to rid itself of hundreds of reporters lately. Back in March, columnist David Lazarus (who apparently is no longer at the paper) vented his frustration about the internet by suggesting that newspapers get rid of free content entirely, with the goal of blocking off so-called moochers like Google News (despite the fact that, yes, Google News actually sends the Chronicle more readers). Then, in May came the bizarre suggestion on the SF Chron editorial pages that Google had a social or moral obligation to simply hand money over to newspapers. That got lots of people laughing, so now, yet another columnist at the Chron has adjusted the thinking to suggest that rather than just hand over money, Google should buy some newspapers, but then just leave them alone, noting that Google would probably make for a better newspaper boss than Rupert Murdoch. This seems to be sort of the full circle Google of thinking here. First, denial that Google is an opportunity to actually drive more business to newspapers. Then, anger at Google and a plan to block it off. Then there's the bargaining/begging phase where they suggest Google simply owes them money. Next comes depression (represented by all the layoffs) and finally acceptance that Google as a buyer could be the savior for newspapers.

Filed Under: newspapers, search engines
Companies: google, sf chronicle