As you know, the New York Times started with its 20 articles maximum free readings, for the month, before charging a suscription. I do not see how to welcome the decision, even though I am a big fan and reader. They seem to be missing an important point, internet is getting revenue for adds, not suscribers, it is the new way media works, simple. I do not see the point of paying for information I will get anyway. Some videos or certaing bloggers, which are really excellent, I will not get, but in this fast pace information era, we tend to forget them fast.
Another thing call my attention this week, when I reached the articles limit for this month and clicked on publicity, I saw the Tiffany's add, the Marc Jacobs add, or whatever add I clicked on. There is obvious some inconsistency in this situation, I can see and add but can not read the NY Times!
The NYT should be more creative in getting revenue. How new companies are getting millions of users and revenue without having to charge subscribers: creativity.
Maybe it should be treated like and app and forget internet, either you buy the app or not. Think of a more affordable, better curated content, no publicity app. Or just leave it for free and get paid for content distribution, why not eliminating the printed version during the week, get deals like Living Social or Groupon, make a big online store, what ever idea comes to my mind seems more 2011 that charging online subscribers.
Next week, the NYT gives earnings for this quarter, we will see how the online readers are taking this.
