You really think that NYT subscription users won't notice the fact that they are paying at all times, whether they are a seldom or frequent visitor?
The truth is that people would much rather pay by viewing ads only on the articles they actually read than by subscribing and paying at all times regardless of the value they are getting for their money.
Why would any reader of the NYT want to pay for/subsidize all of the hundreds of articles that they don't have the time or inclination to read?
The NYT salespeople will change tactics, and claim to advertisers that the enw traffic coming in via the paywall will be more 'targeted' and 'qualified' compared to random internet strangers.
This will only work for a month or two. The great thing about online marketing is that everything is trackable. Advertisers will know if their revenue from NYT ads is going up or down, and react accordingly.
At the same time, the NYT will 'secretly' encourage or permit loophole access because they know that their advertising revenue will depend heavily on loophole visitors.
The whole thing will fail in the end, because the paywall will cut out a lot of page views and their ad revenue will drop. Shareholders will get angry.
The cool thing about digital distribution is how you can create online 'record stores', or communities, and talk about music with people from all over the globe.
Yes, plenty of people just skip straight to the music, but those aren't the sort of people who would have spent time in record shops either.
The internet is enthusiast heaven, for music and a million other hobbies.
This is all over the news in Australia today. His latest comment is ridiculous and makes him sound even more ill-informed:
"(If) you were doing a banking transaction, or transmitting personal information, they could have hoovered it up, sucked it up into their machine," he told ABC TV yesterday."
Useless?
Why are farmers buying the seeds if they are "not useful"?
I;m not a fan of Monsanto's policies, but the 'not useful' claim seems a bit suspect.
Re:
You really think that NYT subscription users won't notice the fact that they are paying at all times, whether they are a seldom or frequent visitor?
The truth is that people would much rather pay by viewing ads only on the articles they actually read than by subscribing and paying at all times regardless of the value they are getting for their money.
Why would any reader of the NYT want to pay for/subsidize all of the hundreds of articles that they don't have the time or inclination to read?
Sales Will Try To Spin It
I can picture how this will play out:
The NYT salespeople will change tactics, and claim to advertisers that the enw traffic coming in via the paywall will be more 'targeted' and 'qualified' compared to random internet strangers.
This will only work for a month or two. The great thing about online marketing is that everything is trackable. Advertisers will know if their revenue from NYT ads is going up or down, and react accordingly.
At the same time, the NYT will 'secretly' encourage or permit loophole access because they know that their advertising revenue will depend heavily on loophole visitors.
The whole thing will fail in the end, because the paywall will cut out a lot of page views and their ad revenue will drop. Shareholders will get angry.
Re:
Really? Music discussion forums don't count?
The cool thing about digital distribution is how you can create online 'record stores', or communities, and talk about music with people from all over the globe.
Yes, plenty of people just skip straight to the music, but those aren't the sort of people who would have spent time in record shops either.
The internet is enthusiast heaven, for music and a million other hobbies.
Re:
Sadly, I only own 2.7% of Facebook. I'm very jealous of all the 50%+ owners out there.
Re:
Sure, that would be fair, but then you would be smart to test the ROI on that business model compared to free wi-fi with no strings attached.
Conroy claims Googlecould have 'hoovered' bank details
This is all over the news in Australia today. His latest comment is ridiculous and makes him sound even more ill-informed:
"(If) you were doing a banking transaction, or transmitting personal information, they could have hoovered it up, sucked it up into their machine," he told ABC TV yesterday."
http://www.theaustralian.com.au/politics/google-denies-capturing-banking-details/story-e6frgczf-1225876667684
Re: Re: Re: Welcome to the new globalism
Who is 'you'?