Putting Up A Paywall Just To Have Advertisers Pay To Take It Down?

from the suckers-bet? dept

There's an interesting article at AdAge noting that while there are various paywalls going up, there are also a growing number of advertisers willing to pay to take down the paywall... and they're willing to pay more than it would have cost to just advertise. For example, Lincoln "paid" for a bunch of people to get the new NY Times' paywall for free, and Volvo is paying for a bunch of people to get free streaming video of Major League Baseball content. What strikes me as amusing about all of this is that the folks putting up these paywalls keep insisting that "advertising alone" can't pay enough... and yet here they are more or less admitting that advertisers are happy to pay "enough," if they're given a promotional package that brings benefits to them. Of course, the silly part of this is that part of that "benefit" to the advertisers is the perception that they're helping people take down the paywall. If that's really true, perhaps we should set up a paywall here at Techdirt just so some advertisers can "pay" to take it down. Any interest? Let us know...

Filed Under: advertisers, newspapers, paywall

NYTimes Threatens NYTClean Bookmarklet Maker With Bogus Trademark Claim

from the uh,-that's-not-how-trademark-works dept

We've already mentioned NYTClean, the four-line javascript bookmarklet that lets you remove the NY Times' paywall with a single click. Apparently, the NYTimes' lawyers, with their interesting interpretation of trademark law, have threatened the creator of those four lines of code, and bullied him into changing the name to NYNewspaperClean. The NYT claims that it's not complaining about the functionality, but just the name:

I am writing concerning your “NYTClean” bookmarklet, posted at http://euri.ca/2011/03/21/get-around-new-york-times-20-article-limit/.

As you obviously know, The New York Times Company has used its ‘The New York Times’ trademark since at least as early as 1851 and today offers numerous products and services under its famous ‘The New York Times’ trademark, including its online version of The New York Times at the URL NYTimes.com, and various blogs and electronic media products. NYTCo’s NYTimes.com website receives over 15,000,000 unique visitors each month. NYTCo owns numerous registrations for its ‘The New York Times’ trademark in the U.S. Patent and Trademark Office and Canadian Trade-Marks Office and these trademarks are among the company’s most valuable assets.

We object to your use of our famous "NYT" trademark in connection with your application and your promotion thereof, which constitutes trademark dilution and trademark infringement under U.S. and Canadian trademark law.

Accordingly, we ask that you immediately cease use of the "NYT" trademark in connection with this application. This email is without prejudice to any action that may be necessary to protect the valuable rights of NYTCo in its intellectual property.

This is trademark abuse. There is no confusion here. No one using the NYTClean bookmarklet thinks that it's endorsed by the NY Times. No moron in a hurry is going to be confused into believing it's a product of the NY Times. The trademark that the company has on the NY Times does not give the company total control over NYT. It only allows them to stop situations where there is clear confusion or dilution, neither of which are likely here. This is just a form of trademark bullying.

Filed Under: nytclean, paywall, trademark
Companies: ny times

Is The NYT Paywall Just A Ploy To Sell More Print Subscriptions?

from the or-are-they-just-crazy dept

There are so many strange and problematic aspects of the New York Times' ersatz paywall plan that sometimes the big and obvious one doesn't get discussed enough: it's really really expensive. A year of full access on all devices comes out to $455 (or $421 if you count their paltry four-week introductory discount). That's more than the Wall Street Journal - way more. In fact it's more than a lot of things, as this chart by Michael DeGusta illustrates nicely:

But it gets even crazier when you compare that price tag to a New York Times print subscription. A year of weekday home delivery only costs $285 the first year, and $322 after that (with some variation by location). That's right: over $100 cheaper than a digital subscription - and a print subscription includes full digital access. Perhaps one of the economists who writes for the New York Times can correct me on this, but that doesn't make any goddamn sense. If you're going to charge $455 a year for a website, you better not tell me I can get the same thing plus a few hundred pounds of free kindling for two-thirds that. If I pay you $150, will you also mow my lawn?

I can think of only two explanations for this. One is that I am severely misinformed about the nature of the internet, and websites are in fact delivered to my computer by truck while system administrators dump barrels of ink in the sewer. The other is that, in the long run, the paywall is just a giant ploy to get their print subscriber numbers up. Some believe that the print prices are purposely obfuscated, but I think this is a temporary situation. I predict two things will happen before the year is out: readers who hit the paywall will start being greeted with home delivery offers alongside the digital packages, and digital subscribers will begin to receive offers to "add on" a print subscription at no "extra" charge.

If I'm right about the New York Times' motives, I'll be pretty disappointed. Their strategy is so confusing that everyone is having a hard time figuring out exactly what they hope to accomplish, but at least it seemed to be an acknowledgement that the economics of news distribution have changed (even if they reacted in an entirely backwards fashion). Now it is beginning to seem like nothing more than an attempt to prop up the same legacy model that has been holding them back this entire time.

Filed Under: business models, paywall, print
Companies: ny times

News Corp. Claims 79,000 Subscribers To Its Paywall For The Times

from the details-please? dept

Back in November when News Corp. released some subscription info for its paywall for The Times/Sunday Times (publications which it walled off behind a complete paywall), the details were really lacking. They claimed 105,000 "paid" digital users, but that mixed up a bunch of different kinds of users, including one-off "daily" purchases and subscribers. They did say about 50% of those were "monthly" subscribers, but there was an introductory £1 per month rate, as compared to the full £8.67 per month rate that would go into effect after the first month. So, now, with News Corp. claiming 79,000 monthly subscribers, I'm wondering how those "intro" plan subscribers are being counted. Did all of them convert to full priced? How many dropped off? Are they still counting those who dropped off in that subscriber count?

Either way, while 79,000 subscribers may sound like an impressive number, I'm still not convinced the economics works out. Assuming that they're all paying the full price, subscribers are paying almost exactly $1 million per month. That's not bad, but it's not a really huge number for an operation like News Corp. either. And if it's true that traffic to the websites dropped about 90% from about 21 million unique visitors down to less than 3 million unique visitors, ad revenue from the site really isn't bringing in that much (no matter how many times they try to spin the audience as being "more valuable.") It still seems like they almost certainly gave up significantly more in ad revenue than they're making via the paywall, and while there are still new signups, over time it's going to be tougher and tougher to sign up new users. Clearly, the paywall is not a complete disaster, like some others, but it still doesn't seem like the economics add up here.

Filed Under: paywall, the times
Companies: news corp.

The Emperor's New Paywall

from the that's-not-a-paywall dept

We've already covered just how easy it is to get around the NY Times' $40 million paywall. NYT management is clearly lying when it claims that most people won't bypass the wall, when it's so incredibly easy to bypass... even by accident. With the DailyCaller listing out five more ways to bypass the paywall (not even counting things like the bookmarklet or turning off javascript) such as "removing '?gwh=numbers' from an article's URL," it's finally occurred to me:

This is the Emperor's New Paywall.

The NY Times isn't robed in a paywall at all. It's naked and simply wants people to believe it has a paywall, in the hope that some people will pay and that the masses won't call them on it. Except unlike the Emperor in the fairy tale, you have to believe that the NYT management must recognize this, and is simply playing stupid in its interactions talking about this. It really seems to think that by playing stupid and pretending it really has a paywall, which is truly just a voluntary donation program, it will make people more likely to pay. And I'm sure some people will pay, but I can't believe the numbers will be enough to move the needle. The thing that I still can't understand is how it could spend all this time and money preparing for this and not add a single bit of additional value in this scheme. You would think that during those 14 months someone might have come up with a plan to add more value that was worth paying for, but it seems that they didn't even consider that as a worthwhile option.

Filed Under: business models, paywall
Companies: ny times

Good Question: How The Hell Did The NYT Spend $40 Million On That Paywall?

from the please-help-explain dept

We've already expressed our bewilderment at the NY Times' new paywall and the fact that it cost the company $40 million and took 14 months to build. Some are now reasonably asking what about the paywall could have possibly cost $40 million?

The New York Times already had a credit card processing system for selling home delivery. It already had a database management system for keeping track of Web site registrants. What did they spend the $40-50 million on? A monster database server to keep track of which readers downloaded how many articles? They should already have been tracking some of that for ad targeting. In any case, a rack of database servers shouldn’t cost $40 million.

I'm guessing that some of it involved user testing. The NY Times keeps trying to claim that it was its own users who told them this was the paywall they "wanted." But, still, between a ton of research, a bunch of programmers, some equipment... I'm having trouble figuring out how $40 million could have been wasted on this. Any help?

Filed Under: expense, journalism, paywall
Companies: ny times

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."

"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."

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.

Filed Under: arthur sulberger jr., paywall
Companies: ny times

Does The NY Times Donate To Wikipedia For Being A Massive Source Of Information?

from the questions,-questions dept

Glyn Moody points us to an interesting analysis, by David Gerard, of yet another problem with the NY Times' moronic paywall: that it means the NY Times will be cited a lot less on Wikipedia, thereby handing over the "first draft of history" to other publications like The Guardian and the BBC.

But the even more interesting point comes after that:

Every journalist I've spoken to since 2006 uses Wikipedia as their handy universal backgrounder. Funnily enough, there's a distinct lack of donations to the Wikimedia Foundation from newspapers and media organisations. How much did the New York Times donate in the fundraiser?

We do this stuff for everyone to use and reuse. Journalists taking full advantage of this is absolutely fine. But claiming we should then pay the papers for the privilege is just a little odious.

Marcus Carab, who works in a newsroom, made a similar point in response to that article a few weeks ago when the NYTime's Bill Keller claimed that the Huffington Post was a "pirate site," in that newspaper reporters rely on tons of other sources that never get any credit, let alone payment (excuse Marcus' Canadianisms, he can't help it):

Forget the fact that pavement-pounding reporting is a form of aggregation from the public - newspapers actively aggregate from tonnes of published sources too. Every newsroom has a table covered in copies of every other newspaper in town - in case you missed something, or they got an angle you didn't, or you think one of the stories can be taken further. In addition to reporting, all journalists do research: they look up other articles on the topic, find past magazine interviews and pull data from published reports. Many science articles in newspapers are just summaries of journal articles.

And that's just what went on and still goes on in the traditional media ecosystem, amongst the old players. Newspapers actively aggregate from blogs too. Every journalist in entertainment or technology starts his morning looking for leads on blogs, and the first thing any reporter does when they get an assignment on a topic they aren't familiar with is look it up on Wikipedia.

So this raises a really good point about the silly claims from the NY Times and others about how they need to get paid, since they believe that they're the "originators" of the news. I do wonder how many of the people at the NY Times did contribute to Wikipedia? I would bet many of the folks who insist that their own work needs to be paid for by users, have in turn never once contributed to Wikipedia.

Information comes in all sorts of forms from all sorts of places. The NY Times is good at what it does. No one is denying that. But it's delusional in its thinking that it somehow is the piece of the puzzle that is worth the most here.

Filed Under: donations, journalism, paywall, sources
Companies: ny times, wikipedia

Am I Violating The DMCA By Visiting The NYTimes With NoScript Enabled?

from the simple-questions dept

As we continue to explore the NY Times' bizarrely pointless paywall, it comes as no surprise that the wall itself is barely any wall at all. It's not even a fence. It's basically a bunch of fence posts, and someone screaming: "Pay no attention to your own eyes. There is a fence here, and you should go round the front and pay at the entrance... unless someone sent you here. Then walk on through." That, of course, is bizarre, and it means that most people will never actually see any fence at all. But it gets even more bizarre when you discover that the "paywall" itself has apparently been written in javascript, meaning that when you do hit the wall, the full article you want to read actually loads in the HTML, it's just then blocked by some script asking you to pay up. That means it's even easier to remove than many had predicted (no need to even delete cookies or any such nonsense). In fact, that link above points people to NYTClean, a four-line javascript bookmarklet, that makes it easy to remove the paywall with (literally) the click of a button, should you actually encounter it.

Now, when I read that, my first thought was that certainly sounds like a "circumvention device" under the DMCA. The author is Canadian, so he may be protected for now, since Canada (thankfully) doesn't yet have an anti-circumvention clause that makes any such circumvention tool illegal -- though, the Canadian government is still apparently considering a law that would add just such a clause. Of course, to anyone who understands what's going on, that's ridiculous. Four simple lines of code to remove a javascript popup should not be considered a tool for infringement, but it is.

Of course, that got me wondering. I tend to use the always excellent NoScript extension when browsing, which turns off javascript, except on a few key sites where I enable it. If the stories about the NYT paywall being done in javascript are true, then I'll simply never run into it at all, no matter what I do.

So, here's the question: have I broken the law by using NoScript? I've used it for years, and it seems pretty ridiculous to claim that I now need to specifically go and whitelist the NYTimes just because it wants to hit me with an incredibly porous paywall. But, technically, I could see how an argument could be made that merely using NoScript makes me a DMCA violator by "circumventing" technical protection measures. Does this also mean that NoScript -- an incredibly useful tool -- has suddenly become a "circumvention device" overnight, because the NYTimes programmed an incredibly stupid paywall in javascript?

What this really should highlight is the massive problem with automatically outlawing all "circumvention" and "circumvention devices." It leads to particularly dumb situations like this, when a clueless newspaper puts up an amazingly poorly thought out paywall in a manner that makes very little sense.

Filed Under: dmca, javascript, noscript, paywall
Companies: nytimes

NYTimes Columnists Telling Readers How To Get Around The Paywall

from the they-don't-want-to-be-hidden dept

As we learned the last time the NY Times blocked its esteemed columnists off behind a paywall, those columnists really don't like being cut out of the conversation. So it's somewhat amusing, in the wake of the new paywall announcement, that star columnist Paul Krugman is already telling readers how to get around the paywall. Since it will be free to visit stories if you come in from elsewhere, Krugman is telling people an easy way to do so:

But for those who haven't [subscribed], arriving at this blog via links won't count against your ration of free nytimes.com views. As I understand it, for example, you can come in via my automated Twitter feed; and of course clicking on links at Mark Thoma or other blogs will also work.

Of course, in thinking about this, you have to wonder if there are going to be additional unintended consequences for the Times. For example, its home page is going to lose a lot of value, because each click now has a significant "cost." However, if you were to browse another site... say, one some third party set up that linked to the Times' articles, you could click those links without that cost. Your basic economics has to say that this harms the Times' own site while opening up opportunities for third parties to collect that traffic. It would be interesting if a Nobel Prize winning economist... such as Paul Krugman... decided to make that point to the geniuses in upper management at the NY Times.

Filed Under: paul krugman, paywall
Companies: ny times