“In retrospect, [Managing Director of
FT.com Rob] Grimshaw said it was a ‘huge mistake’ for publishers to give away their product. So why did they?
“Grimshaw said newspaper publishers realized they did not understand the Internet, so they hired Internet experts and ‘let them do whatever they wanted and whatever they said was the right thing,’ he said.”
Posted via email from Bob Lalasz: Surplus to Requirements

Tagged as:
digital content,
Financial Times digital,
FT.com,
New York Times,
New York Times digital,
newspaper digital,
newspaper Internet,
paywall,
Washington Post
by Bob Lalasz on January 19, 2010
in Content
…as envisioned by
Forrester Research’s James McQuivey on PaidContent.org:
Make free content sell the value of paid content. But even in these free pages, find a way to let free readers know there’s more to be had, not just elsewhere, but even on those free pages. For example, at WSJ.com, comments can be organized to show only those by paid subscribers, thus eliminating a lot of the idiots who post annoyingly partisan comments or intentionally confrontational stuff. Some people would pay to become a commenter whose comments aren’t automatically marginalized. Others would pay to read only those who are willing to pay that price. Too elitist for you? Um. You’re The New York Times.
To sum up: People who pay to leave comments leave better comments than the rest of us.
It depends on how much one is required to pay, I suppose. But, confession: I’m eager to buy this idea for a dollar. Or whatever it takes to reclaim comments as a real contribution to discourse again, instead of just a 5mph crawl on the Wingnut Memorial Expressway.
Posted via email from Bob Lalasz: Surplus to Requirements

Tagged as:
Forrester Research,
free content,
James McQuivey,
New York Times,
New York Times digital,
paid content,
PaidContent.org,
pay for content