Comments on: NYTimes: http://www.mikel.org/arch/2005/03/nytimes.html Michael Boyle's weblog Wed, 06 Jan 2010 22:43:33 +0000 http://wordpress.org/?v=2.9.2 hourly 1 By: Michael http://www.mikel.org/arch/2005/03/nytimes.html/comment-page-1#comment-404 Michael Tue, 15 Mar 2005 14:52:07 +0000 http://www.mikel.org/?p=2325#comment-404 I think they have it exactly backwards. as one of the analysts seemed to indicate. I think they should charge for stuff published in the last couple of days, but older stuff (fishwrap) should be free. I think there is a "public utility" mission of newspapers that is entirely compatible with the best commercial decisionmaking - it's just going to take a visionary to make it happen. I think they have it exactly backwards. as one of the analysts seemed to indicate. I think they should charge for stuff published in the last couple of days, but older stuff (fishwrap) should be free.

I think there is a “public utility” mission of newspapers that is entirely compatible with the best commercial decisionmaking – it’s just going to take a visionary to make it happen.

]]> By: Zeke http://www.mikel.org/arch/2005/03/nytimes.html/comment-page-1#comment-403 Zeke Tue, 15 Mar 2005 14:28:45 +0000 http://www.mikel.org/?p=2325#comment-403 Howdy! Each newspaper has been losing readership in its own way. As stated in the article, the NYTimes high was in 1993. In the suceeding 12 years they've only lost 5% of that readership, while adding another (approx) 100% on line. From my seat, I don't mind charging for archives. I don't like the news of that day being behind a wall. Archives have never been "free." Before the internet you had to have a library card, etc. While it might not have cost cash, it did cost, time, energy, etc. This is the line that worries me most: "The New York Times on the Web... has been considering charging for years and is expected to make an announcement soon about its plans." Howdy!

Each newspaper has been losing readership in its own way. As stated in the article, the NYTimes high was in 1993. In the suceeding 12 years they’ve only lost 5% of that readership, while adding another (approx) 100% on line.

From my seat, I don’t mind charging for archives. I don’t like the news of that day being behind a wall. Archives have never been “free.” Before the internet you had to have a library card, etc. While it might not have cost cash, it did cost, time, energy, etc.

This is the line that worries me most: “The New York Times on the Web… has been considering charging for years and is expected to make an announcement soon about its plans.”

]]>