Asks Mickey Kaus about TimesSelect, which we're all assuming has failed to bring in much money, while disastrously cutting the readership of the NYT's top columnists. What do you do about all the people who paid $49.95 for the service?
It makes me think of Woodstock, where a lot of folks paid $17 for tickets and then had to endure hearing the concert declared free. They just got stuck having paid $17 extra dollars. Me, I didn't go with my friends to Woodstock, because I didn't have $17 to buy tickets, and I had to endure hearing that I could have gotten in free. But those are the breaks. The kids who went ahead and showed up without tickets made the right call. Deal with it!
So what can the Times do? Just restructure what the $49.95 bought. Make the website free again and turn the $49.95 into a different offer: more or longer access to the archives, or a $50 credit at the NYT Store, or a discount on home delivery. Give the chumps who fell for the deal a choice of something good enough that they won't opt for a refund.
२८ सप्टेंबर, २००५
याची सदस्यत्व घ्या:
टिप्पणी पोस्ट करा (Atom)
पोस्ट्स
१० टिप्पण्या:
Hear is an excellent opportunity to test whether, when the NYTimes criticizes Bush's inability to admit mistakes and change course, this criticism is something to preach or something to practise.
What's bad for the Times is good for America.
Lindsey is the closest to being right I think. If they follow the model of ESPN.com they'll start with a couple writers being pay only and slowly move to everything but the wire reports being subscriber only (of course ESPN.com doesn't have a print readership like the NYT does so maybe that model won't apply). I'd say it's far more likely that more and more becomes pay only than it is that they go back in the other direction.
But of course those unused Woodstock tickets are probably worth a pretty penny on e-bay.
It ususally takes Althous a while to post on current stuff such as the Tom Delay Indictment. However, after reading and rereading the indictment many times I am still at a loss as to what Tom delay did exactly to get indicted. It says at the beginning of the statement that Delay conspired with two other individuals to make an "illegal" campaign contribution, and then goes on to explain the facts about the other two individuals making the contribution. Delay is not mentioned in the facts. The facts don't assert that Delay knew about the contribution or aided in making the contribution. It is a very strange legal document....
The link is below. It would be interesting to hear what everyone else thinks about it.
http://www.thesmokinggun.com/archive/0928051delay1.html
I honestly haven't followed this very closely, but I don't see either cataclysm or great triumph for The Times here. Publishers tinker with new models all the time, and predicting how readers will respond to a given offering is not all that scientific.
Sloan: Don't hold your breath. I only post breaking news when I have something to add. I just have nothing to say right now.
I guess you could argue that the Delay indictment asserts that he entered into an "agreement" with one of the others to commit a felony. This must be enough to allege a conspiracy, even though no facts are asserted as to how an agreement was made.
So, let me get this straight: there are in fact actual people who paid for Times Select? And they deserve... consideration? Really?
Is Mo Dowd standing on the corner yet with a sign that reads:
"Will Hate George Bush for Food"?
टिप्पणी पोस्ट करा