The NYT now requires online readers to pay to get to the op-ed columnists, and the paper hasn't written any articles about the new program since last May. What indication do we have of how well it's doing? I notice that the new "Most Emailed Articles" list is nearly bereft of the columns. Only one, by Paul Krugman, makes the top 25 in the last 24 hours list, way down at #14.
The columnists in the past were usually prominent on the list. Check the last 7 days list, which at the moment covers the period before the program began. It's got 7 of the columnists you now have to pay for in the top 25, with only one being from the pay-to-read period, down at #14. And 3 of the top 5 are from the regular columnist, from back when they were free. And look at the last 30 days. The top 4 are all by the regular columnists. 16 of the top 20 are. None of these are pay-to-read articles.
Isn't this squandering their popularity?
२३ सप्टेंबर, २००५
याची सदस्यत्व घ्या:
टिप्पणी पोस्ट करा (Atom)
पोस्ट्स
५ टिप्पण्या:
The OpEd regulars for the NYT aren't read for what they say, but instead they are read for the legitimacy that their venue imparts upon them.
Making it difficult to access their opinions will only drive them to full irrelavency.
I think the world will continue to turn without MoDowd, Frank Rich, Paul Krugman or David Brooks telling people what to think.
I also think that these columnist are in no position to revolt since without their position on the NYT editorial page few would read them.
I could insert some colorful metaphor about aging prostitutes and doddering patrons to describe the situation at the grey lady, but why bother.
I don't know why the columnists themselves don't object (I don't know whether they have objected). Even if they get a cut of the revenue, as fewer people think it's worth paying to read them online, it wouldn't amount to much.
Maybe the Times makes more from people reading the paper, so they hope those who are addicted to the columnists will buy the paper or subscribe?
They sure are the wave of the past, though.
Their columnists have shell shock from the bloggers continually fact checking their work. They had to do something or face lifetime work comp bills from the looney farm to warehouse their employees.
This fee is designed to keep bloggers out, and to give their columnists free reign in spouting their insane rantings. After all this paper gets most of their income from a small group of people in Manhattan who enjoy the insane rantings.
I think it's interesting that the left ( that's how I regard the op ed page of the NYT) has decided to only talk among themselves. Air America, KOS, the network news, they all just talk among themselves. They visit every venue on the net, venting their spleen, but literally never even acknowledge there might be another view on the subject, or notice there's a very large red electoral patch between Boston and Los Angeles on the map.
That's a very undistinguished bunch of writers. I'd estimate 3/4 of their former readers, webwise anyway, only referenced them like a scientist looking into a petri dish.
They make a lot of money, by the way, and the old gray lady might be using this to put a site meter on the page, so to speak. It'll be a lot harder for MoDowd to harangue the times for addtional zeroes if the management can point to it and say: "All seven of your readers refuse to pony up six figure fees for your fishwrap. Bye."
Ross: Dowd used to regularly come in at #1. I say it's squandering when considered longterm.
टिप्पणी पोस्ट करा