ShortFormBlog | paywalls

We’ve never had The Boston Globe have its own front door in the digital space. It’s always been integrated with Boston.com. This was an opportunity to build something brand-new and to have it front and center and really do justice to the brand promise The Boston Globe offers to its readers.
Boston Globe publisher Christopher M. Mayer • On the paper’s launch of its own Web site this morning — a paywall-laden one that smartly separates the company’s newspaper content from Boston.com content that might work better on the Web. Boston.com is paywall-free and still serves breaking news, blogs and the whole bit. Bostonglobe.com focuses on the newspaper itself. It’s an interesting separation and we’re curious to see how it works out for them. The Boston Globe’s parent, the New York Times Company, famously started up a successful paywall experiment for the mothership paper. (Quote from a paywall-laden article, but there’s free registration for the next couple weeks; the source article links to the free Boston.com piece.) source

Posted by Ernie Smith • 0 Comments • Permalink

The fine print in the NYT’s paywall: Have you been wondering to yourself, “Who the heck would pay $260 extra to subscribe to the iPad version of the New York Times?” So have a lot of people. From a distance, the price plan makes little sense and makes the paper nearly as expensive as the dead-tree version (which costs $770 a year for the seven-days-a-week edition outside of NYC). But Poynter’s Damon Kiesow has a really interesting take on the matter which a lot of people haven’t considered: What if the Times wants to discourage mobile app use by pricing them at a premium, specifically with the iPad version? (above pic taken by Robert Scoble — yes, that’s the man’s hand)

» What this all means to you: Now, if you’ve ever used an iPad, it’s pretty clear that the New York Times Web site is as good, if not better than, the NYT iPad app, at least for now. And if they want to further emphasize the tablet-y nature of the iPad, they already have that in the form of Times Skimmer. Furthermore, Apple doesn’t take a 30 percent cut out of Web-based subscriptions. Damon Kiesow’s perfectly apt reasoning, then, is that the NYT is trying to de-emphasize the App Store by pricing people out of that direction. And you know what? He’s right. The NYT Web site will work fine on the iPad. There is an advantage to using NYT’s app on your cell phone, so that’s kept at a more reasonable cost, but the NYT’s plan to focus on the Web over the app? Sneaky.

Posted by Ernie Smith • 0 Comments • Permalink

Some of them even send us checks unsolicited. I have this woman in Canada who’s sent me two $50 checks because she doesn’t understand why she can get our journalism for free. Each time I have to tell her I can’t accept the check.
New York Times Corp. Chief Advertising Officer Denise Warren • Discussing the NYT’s paywall plan, which hits around the end of the month. Hey, Denise, if you guys won’t take the money, we’ll put it straight in our pockets! In all seriousness, though, read the piece — it does a great job explaining the mindset of the NYT as they decided to try the paywall model once again. Key thing? Ad money in print is falling, and online isn’t keeping up. source

Posted by Ernie Smith • 0 Comments • Permalink

The problem with the apps is that they are much more directly cannibalistic of the print products than the website. People interact with it much more like they do with the traditional product.
News Corp. Europe and Asia head (and Rupert’s kid) James Murdoch • Explaining why mobile apps are a danger to his company’s business model. Sorry James, but if you don’t like it, deal with it. The two papers that you’ve put behind paywalls so far have lost most of their readership, so clearly you understand your market. Oh, who are we kidding? You have no clue about the online or mobile spaces. source

Posted by Ernie Smith • 0 Comments • Permalink

105k number of subscribers the Times of London has for its paywall-enforced Web sites
100k number of print subscribers who also get online subscriptions as part of the deal
42% the decline in the paper’s online traffic, which is much less than the 90 percent estimated source

» So is it a success? Depends on your definition of success. While the paper certainly is doing better than other strict paywall models (looking at you Newsday, which we did a whole tongue-in-cheek series on a while back), it isn’t exactly killing it. What the 105,000 number doesn’t tell you is that only half of those subscribers are regular readers – which, for a paper of its size, is kinda low. It’ll be interesting to see what happens when the New York Times goes paywall starting next year.

Posted by Ernie Smith • 0 Comments • Permalink

» The first two months are free: If nothing else, Rupert Murdoch’s charges for the Times and the Sunday times won’t hit users right away. This mirrors our experience with Newsday to some degree. The major difference? It costs around half as much. It’s $2.88 versus $5 per week.

Posted by Ernie Smith • 0 Comments • Permalink

£1 for a day of Times or Sunday Times of London; thank Rupert Murdoch
£2 for a week of the same thing; oh yeah, you can try them out first for free or something source

Posted by Ernie Smith • 0 Comments • Permalink

12 Sep 2011 08:26