Thanks for the reply. The main issue is that references to Newsday's 35 subscribers are often included alongside references to the Times or elsewhere. It seems to be a convenient headline people use to shore up their arguments against paywalls. But it's a poor illustration of the point.
You have done deeper analysis which is to your credit, but it's easy to insert the headline shorn of context, even if linked. You're not the only one who does it. It's a tactic that, to me, weakens rather than strengthens what can otherwise be a sound argument.
Consider it a minor criticism! For what it's worth, I think you maintain a pretty high standard in your overall body of work and I always enjoy reading your take on things.
I enjoy your insights but I agree with Frankie on this one.
I worked at Newsday (many years ago now) and helped launch some of their first online efforts. I still know people there. I grew up in that market and know it well.
This constant refrain of "only 35 subscribers" by you and others is either misinformed or disingenuous. It's not merely (as Frankie points out) that it costs less to subscribe to the newspaper. It's also that all Cablevision subscribers (Cablevision owns Newsday) also get free access to Newsday's web site.
Seventy-five percent of the 2.87 million Long Islanders already subscribe to either Newsday or Cablevision, or both. They get free access already. So it's not such a big deal nor particularly surprising that only 35 out of the remainder have paid separately for a subscription to the website alone.
It's kind of like saying I can get a Happy Meal at McDonald's for £1.99 (here in the UK) or I can buy the toy alone for £2.99. Who would?
For a much more thoughtful analysis of Newsday's approach see this good post by Mark Potts: http://recoveringjournalist.typepad.com/recovering_journalist/2010/01/newsdays-unconventional-subscription-model.html
I happen to agree with you that Murdoch's approach for The Times is a bad idea, but I don't think the Newsday example has any value in illustrating the point.
I think so highly of your work, Mike, that I really wish you would avoid dredging up Newsday as an example as I think it only serves to undermine your credibility on this issue. If it's not disingenuous (and I don't think you would be), then at best it's intellectual laziness.
Best wishes,
Evan
Techdirt has not posted any stories submitted by Evan Rudowski.
Re: Re: Re: Re: Michael Wolff is a competitor to Murdoch
Hi Mike,
Thanks for the reply. The main issue is that references to Newsday's 35 subscribers are often included alongside references to the Times or elsewhere. It seems to be a convenient headline people use to shore up their arguments against paywalls. But it's a poor illustration of the point.
You have done deeper analysis which is to your credit, but it's easy to insert the headline shorn of context, even if linked. You're not the only one who does it. It's a tactic that, to me, weakens rather than strengthens what can otherwise be a sound argument.
Consider it a minor criticism! For what it's worth, I think you maintain a pretty high standard in your overall body of work and I always enjoy reading your take on things.
Kind regards,
Evan
Re: Re: Michael Wolff is a competitor to Murdoch
Mike,
I enjoy your insights but I agree with Frankie on this one.
I worked at Newsday (many years ago now) and helped launch some of their first online efforts. I still know people there. I grew up in that market and know it well.
This constant refrain of "only 35 subscribers" by you and others is either misinformed or disingenuous. It's not merely (as Frankie points out) that it costs less to subscribe to the newspaper. It's also that all Cablevision subscribers (Cablevision owns Newsday) also get free access to Newsday's web site.
Seventy-five percent of the 2.87 million Long Islanders already subscribe to either Newsday or Cablevision, or both. They get free access already. So it's not such a big deal nor particularly surprising that only 35 out of the remainder have paid separately for a subscription to the website alone.
It's kind of like saying I can get a Happy Meal at McDonald's for £1.99 (here in the UK) or I can buy the toy alone for £2.99. Who would?
For a much more thoughtful analysis of Newsday's approach see this good post by Mark Potts: http://recoveringjournalist.typepad.com/recovering_journalist/2010/01/newsdays-unconventional-subscription-model.html
I happen to agree with you that Murdoch's approach for The Times is a bad idea, but I don't think the Newsday example has any value in illustrating the point.
I think so highly of your work, Mike, that I really wish you would avoid dredging up Newsday as an example as I think it only serves to undermine your credibility on this issue. If it's not disingenuous (and I don't think you would be), then at best it's intellectual laziness.
Best wishes,
Evan