Extra! The New York Times Listens to Data and Survives!

5 Comments

Apr

01

2010

by MrOptimization in News

Brilliance Wins over Stupidity at New York Times and others - Optimized Digital with Multivariate Testing and Targeting - MrOptimization.com

Bad Ideas Squashed for Good

The silly notion that "people pay for the paper version, so they'll pay on line" has finally been put to rest by a clear-thinking but vocal minority at several major newspapers.

The even sillier notion that "people pay to access the Wall Street Journal, so they'll pay for ours"—sillier since the Wall Street Journal is read by, you know, Wall Street, people who make money from that information—has also been squashed for good.

Despite a mountain of evidence that people won't pay for on line news combined with the fact that ad revenue is declining even while the sites are free, several newspapers, most notably the New York Times, came very close to committing digital suicide by erecting "paywalls" between their sites and their readers.

Suicide Shirked

Reversing previous decisions to kill themselves, many prominent news publishers now say they were sorry for even considering putting up paywalls and they won't bring up the doofy idea ever again.

Instead of throwing it all away, the publishers now say they will redouble their efforts to generate revenue in innovative ways, starting with making their product relevant in the digital age.

Now there's some clear thinking.

April Fools!

We're sad to say that The New York Times and several other high-profile newspapers have firmly decided the voices of their audiences don't matter.

Somehow the idea of being digitally doomed appeals to these publishers.

You're probably not doomed because you're listening to the voice of your audience. Multivariate Testing and Targeting is one of the smartest ways to do that.

5 comments

Eric Stephens
Too bad it's a joke
Mon April 05, 2010   11:35:08
I'm actually pretty disappointed that this is simply a joke.

Every high-profile blog across the world can afford to hire top-class writers simply on the revenue they make from advertising, why can't newspapers?
Francis Swan
Disappointing
Mon April 05, 2010   11:41:12
It seems clear to me and you how silly these notions are, I don't really understand why these newspapers have their heads up their arses..

To me, web 2.0 was founded on the idea of free content in exchange for dealing with advertisements. Google, yahoo, and all the other top sites offer this trade-off, I guess newspapers are just stuck in the stone age.

I am of the opinion that if "traditional" newspapers don't accept this, they will fall by the wayside similar to how many current "traditional" mediums of accessing information are. I guess that's just technological evolution.
Gary Bazan
Re: Extra! The New York Times Listens to Data and Survives!
Sat April 17, 2010   13:38:53
I really love reading newspapers such as the NYT, WSJ, and CSM; they are really expensive in print versions though. I routinely view these papers online and don't really mind the advertisements. Occasionally I even click on one! Most sites I go to don't make me pay simply for content, why would I pay for newspapers? It's really quite ridiculous..
Angela
Re: Extra! The New York Times Listens to Data and Survives!
Mon May 31, 2010   08:56:19
I don't mind having the ads on the side as long it's not too intrusive or it's one of those annoying sound/video ones that start as soon as you hop onto the page. Some Bloggers and other internet wizards can make bucket loads of money from free content on the web, so newspapers should move along with the flow
Chris
Re: Extra! The New York Times Listens to Data and Survives!
Sun June 06, 2010   07:27:02
I agree with Eric. A lot of websites profit solely on advertisements, which when done right can be a very effective way to make money. I'm all for newspapers (or any type of website) charging a fee for "special" content, but basic news bits are not worth the money when I can access them somewhere else for free.

Add your comment