“Mr. N.Y. Times, tear down this wall”

Posted on | January 21, 2010 | No Comments

I sympathize with the New York Times. They’re a venerable institution with a long history of being a respected source for news, but I think they’re making a big mistake by moving behind a “paywall” in 2011.

This is a case of an old media company not having the guts to stick to a new model. I have read that the drop off of “advertising revenue” was one such justification for the change. But that seems hollow: everyone lost money this year. There was a recession.

So though on the surface this seems like the justifiable and obvious answer; but is the answer really worth sacrificing the advantage in visitors the New York Times gains by being a respected voice? The New York times brand is strengthened and its reputation is strengthened due to its free nature. Chris Anderson has explored how “reputation” is another kind of currency in his book Free.

Reputation can be used to bring about a new business model: news as a service, rather than news as a commodity. The News is public and is out there- and unless the New York Times paywall comes with a compelling argument for why their news is better than the news I’ll find for free on Cnn.com the traffic will not follow.

The Times is not the Wall Street Journal. The Wall Street Journal is more niche and does take a different approach by covering something very specific in depth and providing it in way people want to see it. The Times is a jack of all trades with opinions, world news, a little bit local- but does nothing that no one else doesn’t do (for free!) .

So News as a Service?

This proposal may sound a bit extreme, but here me out. The New York Times should be a service provider for its news, and it should start by subsidizing E-readers. I’m not kidding. How about offering an incredible deal (or free) Kindle or Nook if you buy a 2 year subscription to have the times downloaded onto your E-reader. Subsidize a new means of reading the news and create a demand for your product. This worked so well for Gilette, why not the New York Times?

The reason why the Times should remain free online is because it will build a demand for the premium product and maintain the reputation as a world leader in all around news, but by providing a value add- something more than just news which will make the Times a leader in the new wave of media.

*I don’t work for the Times, and I know this is completely unsolicited advice for a major Newspaper. But, I think this plan would work.

Comments