Comment is Free

I'm glad to see the TimesSelect paywall coming down, but I think I've got to disagree with Tim Lee's view that the failure of this gambit heralds the imminent demise of the subscription-only model for The Wall Street Journal. Rather, like Megan I think the basic problem was that The New York Times opinion pages just weren't worth paying for. I don't even think this is especially because of any failings on the part of the Times' columnists. Rather, it's just that unless your political commentators are adhering to completely marginal viewpoints there are always going to be plenty of close substitutes available for free.

To charge money for something on the web, you need to be providing content that's not only good, but also reasonably unique.

Comments

I will say that times select convinced me to get off my duff and by a subscription to the Sunday print edition. I wasn't willing to pay $3.50/week for it, but $3.50/week for the Sunday magazine and the columnists struck me as a good deal.

But, they never really marketed it as "subscribe to the NYT, get select for free", so it was all just sorta silly, especially once they added the .edu freebie.

Posted by Nicholas Beaudrot | September 18, 2007 7:10 PM

Though "rather unique" is sometimes considered acceptable usage, can the same be said for "reasonably unique"? Something that's unique is just...well, unique. Sui generis.

Posted by Traven | September 18, 2007 7:42 PM

I don't think it's the viewpoint alone that needed to be unique. For a long time, you read the NYT in part because that's what a certain set of people did--that's where you got your well-regarded, or at least defensible, views on what was happening in the world and what ought to be done with it. Unfortunately for the NYT, the two best known columnists of at the start of the war (I'm guessing Air Miles and Brooks) bet big and bet wrong. Which tarnished "well-regarded" and then "defensible." Or basically what happened to TNR.

Posted by SomeCallMeTim | September 18, 2007 8:01 PM

. . . but facts are sacred.

Posted by C. P. Snow | September 18, 2007 8:09 PM

>>you need to be providing content that's not only good, but also reasonably unique.

So you are saying that the WSJ provides that? Hmmmm.

Also, what is "reasonably unique?" Is that like "reasonably pregnant?"

Posted by jim | September 18, 2007 8:15 PM

Also, it is kind of odd that at the same time the NYT announces the death of the pay-wall, the editor of the South China Morning Post quits because higher management refuses to drop their pay-wall...

Posted by jim | September 18, 2007 8:21 PM

The Wall Street Journal opinion pages are available online for free. Rupert just charges for the news.

NYT for some reason thought the opinion section could be a revenue generator but their news isn't special enough to charge for.

The WSJ folks simply thought this out much better than the NYT people.

Posted by Adult | September 18, 2007 8:27 PM

Who wants to pay anything to read the blatherings of morons like Tom Friedman and Maureen Dowd?

Posted by SLC | September 18, 2007 8:28 PM

I always thought the reason the NYT wanted people to pay for reading their columnists was to be able to judge what they are worth. If they are now taking down the subscription wall I wonder if some of them will be dismissed.

Posted by CarlP | September 18, 2007 8:52 PM

Well, the times got my subscription because I thought Paul Krugman was sufficiently unique to warrant the $$. It would be shortly afterward I discovered one could find Krugman's columns whole-cloth for free all over the web because folks replicated the column on their blogs. I also noticed his column made the list of those most often emailed. Seems somewhere along the line the consensus was Krugman's columns were a public good, which I think they ought to be. I'm glad the paywall is coming down, but I became *very* stingy with my mouse clicks when I discovered they were being 'counted' by the news organizations and decisions were being made based on the numbers. I wouldn't be one bit sorry to see Dowd, Brooks, Broder, and an array of others disappear. So, I make sure not to "vote" for them.

Posted by mk | September 18, 2007 9:03 PM

[...]there are always going to be plenty of close substitutes available for free.

And in this case there were generally adequate summarizations, excerpts, and sometimes wholesale reproductions of the content in question, available for free. I certainly was always able to satisfy whatever curiosity (admittedly limited) I had about what was behind the wall on a particular day.

Posted by live | September 18, 2007 9:18 PM

The trick is "unique." That's practically impossible nowadays.

As a local, I subscribe to the Times on the weekend, and yes, for me, too, the free "Times Select" was an added reason to do so. With each year that goes by, I have less need for the print paper, and I'll probably let it go a little sooner now. So the Times will probably ultimately lose subscription revenue from this customer. Will the extra ads make up for it? I doubt it, but who knows?

So much content these days is fungible, utterly replaceable with more or less equivalent content. That's especially true of the Times' columnists. I would've once said that Friedman was special, but of course he has ruined his credibility. Krugman's great, but I can get that political commentary elsewhere. Drum, Digby, Greenwald, Scott Horton at Harper's, Clemons, Rozen, Cole, DeLong, Klein, and you serve up stuff that keeps me plenty busy, and is often just plain better than The Times' op-ed columnists.

It's kind of like music: I can find so much great stuff I haven't heard at yard sales for a buck a CD. Except for the occasional new Bruce album, it's hard to see when it'll be worth to spend $16.98 on a new major-label album.

How paid media sources will survive, I do not know -- and I do know that will be a big problem. Relying solely on advertising will have plenty of disadvantages, financial and otherwise.

Posted by Bill Camarda | September 18, 2007 9:22 PM

In most cases perfect substitutes were available. Lots of papers outside of New York carry Times columnists.

Posted by Rob | September 18, 2007 9:35 PM

Now that the Times Select thing is over, will MY bring back his pithy Monday morning synopses of the weekend op-eds with the recommendation of the one actually worth reading?

Posted by Jim E. | September 18, 2007 9:46 PM

Where in the hell is the Content in the NYTimes?

I need facts -- and an assurance that all the major important facts are being presented in an honest , objective way that is close to reality.
I need to trust the newspaper I read.

Why should I expect to find this in the Newspaper that published Judith Miller?

Why should I expect to find this in the Newspaper that told me on Sept 23, 2001 that our support for Israel was not a factor in the Sept 11 attack -- when the Times own archives show Bin Laden citing it as one of the 3 major reasons for jihad against the USA?

Why should I expect to find truth in the newspaper that has published Bush's bullshit for the past 6 years ("they hate us for our freedom" ) without ever making a serious attempt to expose it for bullshit until it was already obvious to the world.

I hate and loathe the Times because, in my opinion, it tries to screw our perceptions the same way as Fox News -- but conceals its purpose behind a facade of being a leftist newspaper. The Times exists to ensure that a real leftist paper doesn't arise. In the same way an agent provocateur always voices loud support for the cause he betrays at opportune moments.

Posted by Don Williams | September 18, 2007 10:21 PM

They mostly seem pretty weak to me. Krugman's the only one I'd ever read. I doubt that the rest of them will ever get their readership back.

Posted by John Emerson | September 18, 2007 10:37 PM

The abominable presence on the NYT editorial page of Brooks, Friedman, and Dowd is an embarrassment for a paper that used to have Scotty Reston, Tom Wicker, and Russell Baker.

Posted by Harold | September 18, 2007 10:52 PM

Like many others, I subscribed solely for Krugman. Unfortunately, between 2000 to (say) 2004 or 2005, he was probably absolutely unique among MSM commentators. Unfotunately, even in 2007, the shrill one is still pretty unique among MSM commentators. Rich has gotten better, but still too often reverts to punditocracy group think (especially any time Al Gore or Hillary is mentioned, and was awful on Moveon this weekend) and Herbert is just boring, though right. Compare Kurgman to the supposed liberals on the WaPo: Dionne is so exquisitely polite and muted that it hurts my head, though Robinson is coming around a little. And Cohen, as he proved emphatically today, is just batshit crazy. Krugman is a national treasure IMO--and I have no doubt the NYT would've killed the column in the early 2000s if it dared.

Posted by Marlowe | September 18, 2007 10:57 PM

Well said by Marlowe.

What I can't figure out is *why* there aren't at least a few more Krugmans writing out there. He's certainly very smart, but in a country of 300M there must be a whole bunch of other smart people around, including some with strong credentials who also write well.

Isn't a little ridiculous that the best/only good major political columnist in the MSM is actually a moderate/liberal economist most prominent in the 1990s?

Some people have suggested it's because he lives outside the DC/NYC Imperial Court/cocktail party circuit...

Posted by RKU | September 18, 2007 11:40 PM

I always considered it ironic that the NYTimes believed that people would pay to read their opinion pages, but that they would give their news content away for free. I guess that they believed that their news content wasn't worth much if anything.

Posted by raj | September 18, 2007 11:41 PM

IraqSlogger, which just went behind a $59.95 per month paywall, is another point against Tim Lee. I think IraqSlogger will do well and deserve all the success they can handle - nobody does a better job of daily summaries and reporting out of Iraq. It's one stop shopping for anyone doing policy, NGO, or business work in Iraq so they can charge a premium. $59.95 per month isn't much in an environment where information can save your life.

I can live without Tom Friedman.

Posted by joejoejoe | September 19, 2007 12:46 AM

I paid for the Sunday Times in part to get the free access to the columnists. However, I will admit, that except for Krugman and Kristoff I eventually stopped reading any of the other columnists.

I think the problem with the NY Times columnists is that except for Krugman and Kristoff, the rest of the bunch are essentially one-trick ponies.

Freidman, Dowd and Brooks each have essentially a specific style or set of issues that they are known for. In summary:

Friedman Columns:

(a) Before Iraq: Bush and Rummy are yummy. Iraq is the best idea ever!!!
(b) 2004 – 2006: 6-more months; the world is flat
(c) 2007: Iraq is the worst policy blunder ever. Who could have supported this?
Note to Tom: hanging out with a bunch of rich middle-eastern intellectuals and business leaders makes you as knowledgeable about the Arab street as I gain knowledge of the New York ghetto by hanging out at a Park Avenue cocktail party.

Dowd: Hillary is mean, Gore is a bore; Kerry is effete, Bush is dumb, Cheney is evil, any candidate’s wife is game for her form of character assassination (except for Laura Bush) (Undercurrent of subconscious issues expressed in all columns: “I need to get laid”)

Brooks: Suburbs, sprawl, strip-malls and uninformed soccer moms rule!!!!

Kristoff: Darfur…anyone? Anyone? Fine, who wants to camp with me?

Fish: Hey, did you ever hear the one about ordering a latte at Starbucks?

Herbert: Let me rehash the same boring conventional wisdom about the plight of the poor.

Honestly, if I were the NY Times, I would look heavily into replacing most of the columnists. Krugman and Kristoff in my opinion are the only ones worth keeping. I would hedge with Herbert, if only because he does cover issues that need to be tackled. Unfortunately, his writing style is so unbelievably conventional and predictable (and non-revelatory) that he would be better off going back to reporting.

If I had to fire 1, just 1 it would be either Friedman or Dowd. I am leaning towards Friedman because he is so much more dangerous as the chattering classes and politicos seem to have assigned him some form of messiah status.

As for the NY Times vs. Wall Street Journal.
The WSJ (well currently) covers topics that no one else covers in expansive detail which extremely wealthy and powerful people are interested: business stories that no one else covers, including summaries of why the markets moved to such obscure items as the changing of a VP at a regional auto parts dealer. Now I happen to think that this information is becoming less valuable due to the influx of web-based information, Bloomberg terminals and competition from The Investor’s Business Daily and the Financial Times.

As for the NY Times, they should have taken into account the following lesson: opinions are like a-holes…everyone has one and they all stink. What I think the Times could have done is expanded its foreign coverage immensely as well as increased its investigative reporting function (and you KNOW with this administration there would have been quite a lot of opportunities for that). I think they could have charged for this with more success than their columnists.

Posted by Brad | September 19, 2007 12:58 AM

Brad, that's a fucking awesome comment.

Posted by Reality Man | September 19, 2007 1:22 AM

The Wall Street Journal opinion pages are available online for free. Rupert just charges for the news.

And one could easily draw a free-market conclusion from that state of affairs. On the one hand, the WSJ pays for opinion writers and thinks those opinions are (financially) worthless; on the other hand, having those nutjob opinions released into circulation like arsenic in the water supply is priceless.

$59.95 per month isn't much in an environment where information can save your life.

Also, like a WSJ sub, it's probably tax-deductible. This point ought to be emphasised: I assume that freelancers could presumably write off the cost of a Times Select sub, and that plenty of biz types write off their WSJ subs.

But there's really nothing in the NYT, even the archives, that fits a subscription model; an ad model, on the other hand, combined with the eyeballs of opening the entire digital archive, is pretty compelling.

Posted by pseudonymous in nc | September 19, 2007 2:53 AM

Matt -

You sly dog. Nice dig on Megan.

"Rather, like Megan I think the basic problem was that The New York Times opinion pages just weren't worth paying for."

Posted by FS | September 19, 2007 10:09 AM

"The Wall Street Journal opinion pages are available online for free. Rupert just charges for the news.

NYT for some reason thought the opinion section could be a revenue generator but their news isn't special enough to charge for.

The WSJ folks simply thought this out much better than the NYT people." Posted by Adult

Now if the WSJ were really on the ball, they would find a way to make people pay for the privilidge of not reading their opinion page.

Posted by Njorl | September 19, 2007 10:16 AM

Who wants to pay anything to read the blatherings of morons like Tom Friedman and Maureen Dowd?

Very rarely do I agree with SLC so completely.

Although I will say that Dowd and Friedman's writings offer some comedy value. Many a funny blog post has been inspired by spoofing one of their columns.

Brad: great comment, you win the thread.

Posted by mq | September 19, 2007 11:28 AM

Excellent Post. My compliments to the author.

--------------------------------SIG----------------------------------
Salvia
Salvia

Posted by TearIzUp | September 29, 2007 5:11 PM