Who Actually Felt 'Guilty' That They Read The NYTimes Online For Free?

from the living-in-delusion-land dept

The latest news on the NY Times' bizarrely uncompelling paywall experiment is that the people at the NY Times appear to be delusional about it. Peter Kafka has an interview with NYT digital boss Martin Niesenholtz in which he defends the paywall with some strange reasoning... including claiming that people feel guilty reading the NY Times for free:
I think the majority of people are honest and care about great journalism and the New York Times. When you look at the research that we've done, tons of people actually say, "Jeez, we've felt sort of guilty getting this for free all these years. We actually want to step up and pay, because we know we're supporting a valuable institution."
A few thoughts on this: first, it's a load of crap. I can't see that passing the laugh test. If they have research that says that, I'm willing to bet the research methodology was done poorly. At best, perhaps they asked the question in a way that made people embarrassed so they felt compelled to answer that way. News is free online. I've never heard anyone feeling "guilty" about not paying for news that was offered up for free on purpose. I mean, it makes you wonder, does anyone feel guilty for paying the subscription fees for a paper copy of the NY Times? After all, the subscription price doesn't even cover the printing and distribution costs, so if people feel guilty for not paying for the reporting, then they ought to feel guilty for paying the paper subscription price. But that's crazy.

More importantly, though, if they really believed that people felt guilty about it, they would just offer them up a way to pay what they wanted, voluntarily. Setting up a paywall with specific (and, at times, nonsensical) rules makes very little sense if you believe the key reason why people will pay is guilt. If the reason to pay is guilt, then just make it easy for people to do a pay what you want offering. But the Times didn't do that because they know, deep down inside, that very few people "feel guilty" for reading the NY Times without paying for it. Thus, they know that just asking people to pay won't work.

So why not just be upfront about why they're putting up the paywall? My guess is that the folks putting this together know deep down inside that this is a disaster in the making. It's why there's no value proposition being added here. All you get is a negative value proposition ("we won't block you at some point"). I doubt that the paywall will be a "disaster," just because the NYT's has a big enough core and loyal audience to get some to pay. I just can't figure out any way that it'll actually serve to really make the company that much money.

Filed Under: buisness models, martin niesenholtz, ny times, paywall
Companies: ny times


Reader Comments

Subscribe: RSS

View by: Time | Thread


  1. identicon
    Anonymous Coward, 21 Mar 2011 @ 7:38am

    I'm so confused.
    With Murdoch's Times, I understood that part of the reason* he hated the extra eyeballs he got without a paywall, following links from external sources was because they didn't stay on the site long enough and browse through all the stories like a proper newspaper reader thereby being exposed to all the adverts that fund the whole thing but the NYT is okay with people coming for the odd story and only wants to charge them if they do stick around and read lots of stories while being presented with advertising.


    Back to Rupe
    *Other parts of course include his hatred of the BBC and everything he doesn't control.

    Delusional of course but there are reasons for his delusions, his biggest break (in the UK) was realising that sports fans who got lots of the sport they wanted on free to air television could easily be persuaded to pay vast sums to watch potentially more (but in reality about the same) amount of sport and they kindly financed him to remove most sport from free to air television.

    Actually this is the one point in his favour, for those of us who are not sports fans, as sky taking the sports opened up the possibility (not always fulfilled) of weekend television becoming considerably less dull.

    His trouble is that there really are no other groups that will behave quite so irrationally against their own best interests as the sports fans did, but how is he to know that, given the history with sport and the popularity in the states of Fox why would he think rationality would enter into anything in any meaningful way.

Add Your Comment

Have a Techdirt Account? Sign in now. Want one? Register here



Subscribe to the Techdirt Daily newsletter




Comment Options:

  • Use markdown. Use plain text.
  • Remember name/email/url (set a cookie)

Follow Techdirt
Techdirt Gear
Show Now: Takedown
Advertisement
Report this ad  |  Hide Techdirt ads
Essential Reading
Techdirt Deals
Report this ad  |  Hide Techdirt ads
Techdirt Insider Chat
Advertisement
Report this ad  |  Hide Techdirt ads
Recent Stories
Advertisement
Report this ad  |  Hide Techdirt ads

Close

Email This

This feature is only available to registered users. Register or sign in to use it.