Times Select was never about maximizing profits it was about maximizing control over a perceived competitor. The Times was willing to risk its online growth and alienate loyal web readers to force a price on NYTimes.com.

The price, any price was the key. Because once NYT had a price on the web site it could raise print subscriptions and add Times Select on as added value. It was never about online subscription revenue.

But desperate Times call for desperate measures.

The business folks at NYT lost the Times Select battle but won the ultimate war to control the digital future of the brand. Just like GM, NYT is building the future by going backwards.

Perhaps you, too, are using a term “broadly and indiscriminately.” Could you be more specific about what you are referring to when you use the term “content provider”?

I agree with your argument if you confine “content” to the non-journalistic sphere. Obviously there are many forms of “content” that providers can and should charge for: customized consultancy, proprietory market research, copyrightable creative writing and so on…

…in the sphere of journalism, however, true value derives from its contribution to the body politic, shared information, flowing freely, improving the discourse of civil society. This civic value is greater than any economic value to be derived from collecting a rent that can be levied by, antidemocratically, treating news as intellectual property to be closely held.

The more citizens have access to news, the more social value it has. Treating the product of the press as sellable property, rather than free speech, undermines the republic.

This worries me, because people like Jeff have amassed substantial influence, and other people listen. The “content is free/paid content is dead” meme is gaining momentum, led by Jeff among others, and I think it’s incorrect when applied so broadly and indiscriminately. I would hate to see individual content creators, or publishers, be influenced by this meme to the point that they fail to consider paid content as a legitimate revenue option.

If Jeff meant to say “opinion columns are free,” or “grumbly personal blogs are free,” I wish he’d clarify. But until/unless he does, I just hear him saying “content is free.” Jeff is an intelligent and forthright person, so I can only assume he means what he says. If that’s so I think he’s incorrect on this point — although typically I enjoy and agree with much of what he says.

Best wishes,
Evan Rudowski

SOME content – e.g., blogs written by people like me whose motive is as grumbling outlet rather than soures of cash – IS, unquestionably, free.

If you choose to charge for content of a type well-covered by the blogosphere, then you’re trying to charge for something that people can easily get free.

Political opinion happens to be one of the better-covered blogosphere topics – I feel I can do tons better, opinionwise, than any newspaper I’ve ever read by looking at my favorite blogs. The opinion there is often more factual, better-considered, and certainly more diverse in opinion than any newspaper opinion page in history.

So, let’s say, just hypothetically, you’re a major newspaper and you want to charge for your editorial page? Why should I want to pay for that? I think that’s all he’s saying.

I do subscribe to my local paper, by the way, for a great local humorist, local news, and real estate listings. And I shuck for The Economist, because it has great, worldwide, factual NEWS coverage. Get the pattern? These are things blogs are so far weak at.

1. the dates: charging was “probably” more profitable in 2001 or 2002, but “doubtful” by 2004.

2. the study covered charging for the whole site not just a few select columnists

I am not sure this University of Chicago study is looking at things the right way, but I don’t think you are either.

You are right that newspapers, in possession largely of commoditized news and opinion content, are not in a good position to profit from a subscription model when there are so many free alternatives. You are correct in saying they’d typically be better off opening up to free web traffic and monetizing via advertising.

However I continue to be perplexed by the manner in which you have leapt to the conclusion that this must also apply to individual journalists and other content creators.

It is true that you could not charge for access to your blog because it is pure opinion and, while valuable and interesting, it must compete in the crowded universe of free opinion. If BuzzMachine were to end tomorrow, it would surely be missed by many of us but it also would not cause us much financial loss if we were to be without it.

However there are many journalists and content creators who specialize in creating highly actionable, valuable content targeted at niches, and for which there are few substitutes — and these individuals and publishers are doing very well charging for their content. Plenty of readers are willing to pay for content that is unique and which gives them a perceived edge in their personal or professional lives.

It is a shame if you are telling your students that paid content is a broken model, because it is not, and if they are listening to you they are missing out on one potential way to make real money for themselves — thus ironically perpetuating their likely serfdom to those Big Media entities which will continue to control the mass traffic and advertising dollars on the web (the names will have changed but the game will be the same).

By insisting so absolutely that “content is free” — without any acknowledgment that a robust paid content marketplace continues to thrive — you ironically seem to be helping to devalue content and the work of content creators.

I can’t imagine this is an outcome you would desire. Therefore may I encourage you to ratchet down the undifferentiated “content is free” rhetoric and perhaps consider a more nuanced approach to the subject which at least recognizes that paid content can and does work in a considerable number of specialized contexts?

Kind regards,
Evan Rudowski

P.S. The Guardian, for which you write and consult, recently announced that they will charge for access to their 200-year archives. How do you feel about that?