Free-access websites make sense for most general-interest newspapers. So does the idea of newspaper websites offering mostly free content but saving some for premium paid services. That's what the
New York Times is doing with its "
TimesSelect" offering, announced today.
Starting in September, with TimesSelect's $49.95 annual fee (but free for print-subscription customers), paying subscribers will get a bunch of special content and service features. The most significant is access to the
Times Web archive. And TimesSelect subscribers will get an "early look" at articles that will appear in sections such as Real Estate, the
New York Times Magazine, Travel, and Sunday Arts.
That's a sound strategy. But I beg to differ on the wisdom of including
Times columnists' work in the TimesSelect paid service. This move will effectively make the likes of
Tom Friedman,
Maureen Dowd,
Frank Rich, and
Paul Krugman invisible to the larger Web community, as discussion of their work will dwindle. Dramatically fewer blog, news-aggregator, or search-engine links. That can't be good.
I'm reminded of the
Los Angeles Times' website putting a paid subscription wall in front of
Calendar Live, the entertainment area of LATimes.com, in 2003. That site just
went free a week ago. I'll go out on a limb and predict a similar path for
NYT columnists within the next year or two.
I can't seem to grasp why users will not pay...
