There is no typo in the headline. Since Long Island newspaper Newsday put up its $5-a-week paywall three months ago, 35 people have signed up. That’s a gross of $9,100 per year for the site. Does Newsday see this as a failure? No. Its spin is that, since access to newsday.com is free for paid newspaper subscribers, “…it is no surprise that a relatively modest number have chosen the pay option.” Peter Kafka at All Things D writes:
That pay wall that Newsday put around its Web site last year? Crazily effective–at keeping people from buying an online subscription.
Meantime, paidContent notes the gaping paywall hole at mobile.newsday.com, and the $4 million price tag that went into the redesign. Staci Kramer writes that she believes the Newsday test should not be considered as a sign of what’s to come for the NY Times paywall, given how different the two papers are. I’m not so sure. I think this is exactly what happens when you try to create artificial scarcity. Nobody puts $4 million into a product that they plan only to be value-added.
No related posts.
You need emoticons (smilies) so we can do the ROTFLMAO one.
I so hope that the NY Times follows behind them.
I for one don't think they are failing fast enough.
Come on bad management, you just stand your ground and insist it's the people fault.