When the New York Times announced in 2005 a new premium web service wherein only folks willing to pay an extra fee would have access to the writing of certain columnists, most media watchers thought it would be a huge failure.
Well, after about two years, it seems critics might have been right.
According to Slate's Mickey Kaus, TimesSelect might be going the way of the dodo (emphasis added throughout, h/t Glenn Reynolds):
[Kaus Files] hears rumblings that the paper is about to abandon the whole misconceived project in which it has blocked unpaid Web access to its op-ed columnists. ... P.S.: The Times claims fewer than 225,000 customers pay the $49.95 TimesSelect fee, up less than 100,000 from what the paper was claiming in November, 2005. More get the service through their regular subscriptions. Meanwhile, the Times could use the ad revenue that would come from increasing the readership of the columnists (by making them free). And the columnists would like to have the readers. ... All this was quite evident two years ago when Pinch Sulzberger embarked on this folly, of course.
As Kaus pointed out with a hyperlink, a Media Bistro poll predicted the demise of TimesSelect in September 2005 (emphasis added):
Last week we asked you for your opinions regarding the Times' new subscription-only online package that included prominent NYT columnists and an assortment of online add-ons. Your reaction: To put it mildly, you weren't that thrilled. (Are any of you subscribing? Any of you? Besides you, Mr. Keller.)
[...]
If the goal of having a website is to keep readers interested in reading story after story, clicking around the damn site for hours, being attacked by s****y banner ads, then why in the hell would you drive them OFF your site by asking them to pay for Times Select?
A September 2005 BusinessWeek article shared this view (emphasis added):
It's true consumers are willing to pay more for certain media offerings. (Consider today's cable bill vs. 1995's, or the costs of broadband vs. dial-up.) But one key market perversity is that this dynamic does not apply to print. Financial analysts find a growing dependence of leading papers -- including the Times -- on discounted subscriptions.
And on the decade-old Web, "free" is the default setting, and it's difficult to make readers reboot. O.K., there's The Wall Street Journal (744,000 online paying customers and counting) and some targeted business sites. There are a few paid non-porn plays, like the Milwaukee Journal Sentinel's Packers Insider. But in August, the Atlanta Journal-Constitution doubled back on a year-old attempt to establish a paid sports Web site. In May, the Los Angeles Times made its calendarlive.com entertainment section free again, following a two-year bid to charge $4.95 for monthly access.
It has proven next to impossible to get online users to pay for something that's not hard business data (which promises to make them money or keep them from losing it) or that doesn't play into fanatical tribal identification. While the Times' Maureen Dowd is a darling of her ideological set, political loyalties have not yet translated into the face-painting extremes of sports.
At the time, Instapundit's Glenn Reynolds was also nonplussed by this idea as he told radio host Hugh Hewitt:
The New York Times thinks it's going to make money selling op-eds, but hard news reporting is the killer ap for news media organizations. If they want to come up with opinion, they're competing with guys like me, and we can kick Paul Krugman's butt any day.
In reality, when it comes to economic commentary, my thirteen-year-old daughter can kick Paul Krugman's butt while actually including real financial facts as opposed to making them up as Krugman is known to do.
Moving forward, there's no question that conservatives have been hoping for the demise of TimesSelect. Certainly, this has nothing to do with missing this content. As Reynolds wrote Thursday:
It was a bad idea, but I find I don't miss them all that much. I get Times Select for free, but I basically never read Dowd or Krugman anymore.
Exactly. And this is one of the reasons conservatives around the country will laugh their heads off when Pinch or Keller announce TimesSelect's demise.
After all, at this point, they'll be confirming that which most of us already knew: no one in their right mind would pay a penny for the opinions of Dowd, Krugman, et al.
I only hope Pinch and/or Keller will invite us to the funeral so that we can pay our final disrespects.
—Noel Sheppard is the Associate Editor of NewsBusters.
Editor at Large
Comments Policy
Gee, that's too bad...
July 20, 2007 - 11:02 ET by lnthompGee, that's too bad... They're going to make the Times columnists available to everyone and thereby reduce the quality of the free stuff available on the web.
Lee T.
U.S. Navy (ret.) / Vancouver, Washington
The history of the race, and each individual's experience, are thick with evidence that a truth is not hard to kill and that a lie told well is immortal.-- Mark Twain
HA!!!
July 21, 2007 - 14:53 ET by PAPA LPINCH THIS I WOULDN'T READ THE NYSLIMES FOR FREE
Free Liberal Bias
July 20, 2007 - 11:06 ET by allanfThere is plenty of free liberal bias on the web. Why pay for it? I was a print subscriber to the New York Times from 1960s until about 2002. I will notfinncially reward the disgraceful conduct of the "once respect New York Times"
Regardless of the fact that
July 20, 2007 - 11:58 ET by JDWRegardless of the fact that the dem campaign contributions are filling at record rates, look at Politico's blog recommendation list. On top is Kos. Why would these leftist freeks pay for anything when they have been trained it should be government provided?
If the NYT killed the charge what happens to circulation?
JDW
News media: Scoreboard for terrorists
I always thought the NY
July 20, 2007 - 11:05 ET by PeskyDaneI always thought the NY times trying to charge people to read their colunmnists was insulting. Haven't sent a dime there way since high school. They'll be a free paper within my lifetime, setting up kiosks next to the Learning Annex circular.
Arrogance
July 20, 2007 - 11:09 ET by dagdaI thought it was arrogant of them to charge for their columnists. I told them I would pay if they took the bias out of the NYTimes. Have not had to spend a dime so far. :)
Our real problem, then, is not our strength today; it is rather the vital necessity of action today to ensure our strength tomorrow. Dwight Eisenhower
I'm astounded that the NYT
July 20, 2007 - 11:09 ET by sarcasmoI'm astounded that the NYT might have actually fooled almost a quarter of a million people to pay, as this makes them much more of a success than I predicted at the time. OTOH, people on the 'net find reasons to pay for porn, too, despite a wide variety of free selections.
JMR
It is pretty bad when the
July 20, 2007 - 11:54 ET by dscottIt is pretty bad when the loons have to pay for their daily ration of insanity from the NYT. Even loons know they can read op/eds in the Atlanta Journal Constitution, WaPo and LAT spewing BDS for free.
The other thing to consider is this, did Maureen Dowd and the other insanity laddling cafeteria servers of lunatic conspiratorial BDS earn enough money to support themselves in the manner to which they are accustomed? Did Sulzberger learn an inconvenient truth that as usual liberal ideas don't pay and few will buy into the Socialistic gruel unless force fed or slipped in as filler between servings of the news? It must particularly gall Sulzberger that Rush earns more money for his Right wing speech than all of the BDS spewers put together.
“The object of life is not to be on the side of the majority but to escape finding oneself in the ranks of the insane"
The only reason Dowd earns
July 20, 2007 - 13:19 ET by PeskyDaneThe only reason Dowd earns more than 60K per year is because of inflation.
Dowd could be written by a computer
July 20, 2007 - 11:51 ET by GothampcThe NY Times should have me on their payroll as a consultant. I could have told them that they wouldn't turn a profit selling the opinions of the likes of Maureen Dowd and Frank Rich.
Dowd's writing could be done by a computer. Her content is: 1) bash Bush, 2) bash men, 3) complain that her life sucks because no man will treat her like a queen, 4) whine about her mother's generation and how great it is to be a feminist.
Dowd's template
July 20, 2007 - 11:54 ET by dagdaI really think that Dowd uses a template when she writes her opinion pieces. Same goes for Frank Rich. It is clear they are incapable of original thought. The template will change when the DNC sends them the new one.
Our real problem, then, is not our strength today; it is rather the vital necessity of action today to ensure our strength tomorrow. Dwight Eisenhower
Gee....people didn't flock
July 20, 2007 - 12:11 ET by motherbeltGee....people didn't flock to cough up money to read Dowd and Krugman et al?
It was a bust????
What a shocker.
Wonder if that means Dowd
July 20, 2007 - 12:12 ET by bigtimerWonder if that means Dowd will be listed on the Drudge list again?
LOL....
Anyway, at least that would guarantee more readers of her silly hate-filled man hating leftist Bush bashing tripe.
hmm, Dowd, freely
July 20, 2007 - 12:16 ET by dscotthmm, Dowd, freely available? Maybe we should not be celebrating the Select's demise afterall... shutter, shutter..
“The object of life is not to be on the side of the majority but to escape finding oneself in the ranks of the insane"
Protest! Protest! Protest!
July 20, 2007 - 12:24 ET by dagdaLet's protest this decision. We want the whole paper to be subscription only. Think of the restful nights we would have. If they drop the subscription we will have to double our storage capacity here. We might not be able to keep up with all the crap they dish out.
To the walls, then. Protest me hearties, protest! Do your duty as a conservative or libertarian. Don't let this filth back into the public for free. Make them pay, pay, pay!!!
Our real problem, then, is not our strength today; it is rather the vital necessity of action today to ensure our strength tomorrow. Dwight Eisenhower
Here is a good example of
July 20, 2007 - 13:27 ET by dscottHere is a good example of the lunacy from the Times Select, just the teaser sentence tells all: http://select.nytimes.com/gst/tsc.html?URI=http://select.nytimes.com/2007/07/20/opinion/20krugman.html&OQ=_rQ3D1&OP=499b6b20Q2FeQ3F-ieQ7Cs8Q60Q60Q7CeQ2Bdd2ed2eQ2BdeQ60lSQ3ASQ60Q3AeQ2Bdb8u0ghQ3AxQ3CQ7CgX
All the President’s Enablers
By PAUL KRUGMAN
Published: July 20, 2007
President Bush has plenty of enablers — people who understand the folly of his actions, but refuse to do anything to stop him.
Now last time I checked, the POTUS was the boss, and those in his administration servered at the leasure of the POTUS. Apparently in Krugman's reality, employees tell the boss what to do. Of course, lunatics like Krugman want us to forget that Bush was duly elected by the choice of the people. Oh that's right, Bush supposedly stole the 2000 and 2004 elections... So Mr. Krugman are you advocating a Coup?? Reid and Pelosi are not up to the task of deposing the POTUS?
“The object of life is not to be on the side of the majority but to escape finding oneself in the ranks of the insane"
Unfortunately for Krugs,
July 20, 2007 - 17:35 ET by Del DolemonteUnfortunately for Krugs, there is something called the "Krugman Truth Squad"
http://article.natio...
they opened up TimeSelect
July 20, 2007 - 14:25 ET by kimschthey opened up TimeSelect free to anyone with a dot edu address a while ago. I never read Dowd or Krugman either...
Times Select
July 20, 2007 - 18:57 ET by pbthinkerI've had the NY Times e-mailed to me for 6 or 7 years so, when they came up with Times Select, I figured I'd not subscribe and see what I was missing. WHen I found out I was missing Dowd and Paul Krugman that sort of clinched my decision not to pay. In fact, the only time I was ever annoyed that I hadn't subscribed was when one of these 2 were mentioned, and a link was put up for their comment, with a note attached that said, "Subscription Required." I certainly got enough out of the NB comments to get the drift. In reality, you don't have to read Krugman or Dowd to know what they're going to say since it's all a variation on the theme.
Never argue with an idiot. They'll drag you down to their level and beat you with experience.