First Draft by Tim Porter

Tim,
Thanks for joining the debate. I never said the Times shouldn't make money off its journalism, and of course they have every right to try different online models to make it work. I just think TimesSelect was the wrong way to do it.

The basic idea for TimesSelect is to prop up dying print subscribership by giving them "great online value." But that's a losing proposition. You don't try to force people to keep their print subscriptions in order to get online value. That's an old way of thinking: "Keep buying print you don't want so you can get online acccess!"

As for the online-only subscriptions, it doesn't add up neatly to $49.95 per subscription and $9 million in your math because there are plenty of discounted rates, from education to intro trials.

The bottom line is should the Times restrict access to its strong editorial voices -- losing some readership and advertising along the way -- in order to make that up with subscription/print revenues? Or should it try to monetize those pages in another way that actually fits with the Internet's current open movement?

If paid content is so brilliant, why did the Boston Herald, LA Times, Fortune and others drop their paid walls? If you look at the most recent OPA report on paid content, the General News category was down 11% from 2004 to 2005, and even Business Content was up only 2%. Those are not numbers that bode well for charging for content at newspaper sites.

Full OPA report: http://www.online-publishers.org/pdf/opa_paid_content_report_fullyear05.pdf

Yes, I am worried about the state of current newspaper journalism and its difficult transition to newer platforms. Yes, I do want to be paid, and want others to be paid fairly for their work. I just think TimesSelect isn't the best way to do that.

I have to agree with Mark on this one, Tim -- even though the newspaper I work for also has a pay wall for columnists, similar to TimesSelect(and had it before the NYT came out with theirs, I should point out).

It's true that charging people for those columnists makes money -- although I think Mark is probably right, and $9-million is likely overstating the real figure by a substantial amount.

Still, it does make money. The question is, is it the right way to make money over the longer term? Or does it sacrifice the long-term value of having those columnists be part of the online conversation -- getting links and commentary and traffic and all those other things the Web is so good at -- in return for a short-term revenue boost? I would argue that it does.

But hey, I could be wrong. That's what makes all this so interesting -- no one really knows what the hell they're doing.

There are ways to circumvent TimesSelect. It's called your local newspaper. Why pay NYT for a column that will appear in syndication on the local opinion page one or two days afterward? A TimesSelect subscriber is really only paying for immediacy and unlimited access to content as far as I can tell. And again, a patient reader will get much of the same pay-for content for free -- eventually. So, in the end, how much sense does it make for a reader to pay for it at all? Perhaps, that's why NYT ties TimesSelect to its archives as well.

Mark, Mathew ... No doubt you're right on the amount of revenue the Times is generating off of TimesSelect. I didn't take into account discounting when the did back of envelope math. It's likely, though, as Mathew says, that even at the lesser rate, TimesSelect is a profitable venture.

The real point, of course, as you both mention, is whether installing a tollgate in front of the Times' most popular content is the best strategy for it -- or presumably any other newspaper trying to survive in a digital age.

First, we need to separate the Times (and the Wall Street Journal) from the realm of "other papers." Beyond USA Today, there are no newspapers of comparable reach or unique reputation (for better or worse) in the United States. The Times, and its columnists, have a singular, national value that may allow it to traverse business obstacles that would stymie other papers. Mark, I take your citation of the Boston Herald's retreat from paid readership as evidence of that. The columnists from the two papers simply don't have the same "value" to audience.

Next, I belied those columnists are still part of the national conversation to which Mathew refers. It is why, as Stephen Baker of the Business Week�s Blogspotting points out, their names routinely top the Technorati search queries.

Finally, as much as I and others enjoy the informational and connective benefits of the �Internet's current open movement� cited by Mark, I don�t believe openness negates the costs of production or necessarily devalues products or activities upon which some people bestow value. In other words, if some people are willing to pay and others aren't, then that's a business decision. In fact, I see TimesSelect as a part of an increasing model of tiered of Internet and media use -- a free baseline for all topped by a narrowing, pricier pyramid of options for those who want them.

Here are some personal examples of what I mean:

*I joined Flickr for free, but I wanted more storage space so I paid an annual fee.
*I can search the S.F. Chronicle�s archives for free, but if I want to research several Bay Area newspapers at once (including those that charge for archive retrieval) I pay Lexis-Nexis a fee.
*I listen to music on my laptop for free, but I pay Apple to download an I-Tune.
*I can read my old newspaper, the San Francisco Examiner, for free, but if I want some good journalism delivered to my house I pay the Chronicle and the Times a fee.

What we do agree on is this: The future of newspaper-based journalism is mighty uncertain. What we disagree on is whether TimesSelect is a useful experiment to find out what might work. I think it is.

I always thought it would make more sense to sell the current news rather than the fishwrap (archives)... Although, I don't agree with charging for either.

Also, 'opinion' is very available online, so why would people pay for it. Maybe brand? That's the only place to get a writer they like to read?

Gary Goldhammer and others, though, have been talking about the disappearance of 'brand' - or the lack of importance of brand - to the up and coming generation of readers.

I think a lot of the innovation in coming up with new biz models online is going to come from all the independents out here slaving away. Might not happen overnight, but we're all learning a lot of valuable lessons.

I've been reading up some on The St. Pete Times - I really think they have a good model. They're doing quality journalism and bringing in money, but they're not overly concerned with profit margins and what-not.

In any case, at this point, TimesSelect may not work, but it might be a good experiment to see play out all the way. That is, I agree with Glaser in that it's not a good idea, but I also agree with Porter in that it's important to be trying these different things.

(Man, could I sit on the fence and brown nose any more than that? ;)

"The Times, and its columnists, have a singular, national value that may allow it to traverse business obstacles that would stymie other papers."

Oh, please! John Tierney? David Brooks? Even Dowd isn't worth reading any more than three times out of ten.

However much they make, it sure won't be from me. There are bloggers out there who I can read for nothing who are every bit as good as the Times columnists. Yes, even Krugman.

Whether or not the financial model works right now is an issue only for the short run. In the long run, the Internet has made possible the democratization of quality journalism and informed commentary. The mass media are dead men walking.

Another former journalist here, Tim. I also disagree with your position. I think that it reflects personal biases you may or may not be aware of. Most significant is your bias against people with low incomes or limited discretionary income. They are the ones being shut out by Times Select. The single mother or retiree who wants to read Dowd or Brooks has been told she is not welcome. We know that some of the shut-outs Google for reprints on blogs (which usually violate copyright), but I'm sure that as many or more have just thrown up their hands and walked away. The underprivileged get used to being insulted.

The other bias I notice is an aroma of the Right in your opinion. You are assuming that only the relatively affluent deserve to participate in discussion of political issues that matter to us all. That's the same kind of thinking that resulted in the poll tax.

I think that NY times is simply exploring a business model. There is nothing wrong with it. The only downside is the probable loss of new subscribers. When I first started reading Times, I was excited by reading Krugman, Kristoff, Dowd et al. But now I am already hooked up to Times and its language and the fact that I can rely on it. So I keep returning to it in spite of being frustrated at missing the columns I used to enjoy. I wonder whether Times will lose new readers because of this "pay wall". But there is risk in any business model and I am sure the Times must have thought about it.

Interesting point to a novice such as me. I would be interested to see comparisons between the Times and the Washington Post which has chosen the opposite approach and opened all their content as well as providing e-mail links to by-lined reporters. Surely it the Post's journalistic gravitas is in the same class as the Times.

The Wall Street Journal has the best of both worlds: its business-minded readers happily pay for access to news stories, while its free-to-view editorials and op-eds influence the national political conversation (to my mind, in ways that aren't necessarily healthy). One could also be a cynic and say that the WSJ is charging the market value for its content: which, for the opinion pieces, means 'nothing'.

But my gut feeling is that the Times is making a fundamentally wrong-headed decision to place its columnists behind the paywall. Opinions on the internet are like you-know-what: everyone's got one. And the Times's stable is, in varying degrees, dispensible: I miss access to Krugman and Herbert, but don't feel deprived of Dowd, Brooks and Tierney.

Does the Times want its op-ed crew to influence the nation's political conversation? One presumes so. Right now, Peggy Noonan and the other propaganda catapults of the WSJ get more eyeballs and more influence. And I don't consider that a good thing.

I'd like to point out, in line with the conversation about the "national political conversation," that I, along with millions of other English speakers in the PRC, live in a country with no access to online payment services, no network security to make those payments, and no desire to be recorded as a subscriber to a foreign newspaper. Anything that goes behind a pay wall immediately and persistantly disappears for us. We eagerly follow American news and politics (some of us are Americans!) and we only have the opportunity to read what you allow us to read. It's painful to be sandwiched between a firewall behind and a paywall before.

Future of Newspaper Journalism--by http://digitalartphotographyfordummies.blogspot.com

I run many features on my blog, some quite humorous, others provocative. Unfortunately few bloggers find me.

When and if the blogosphere organizes its content like a newspaper does (a site that lists the best news sites, the best feature pages and the best entertainment...), then real live print will really be in trouble.