IBJOpinion

ALTOM: The New York Times reinvents the 'paywall'

Back to TopCommentsE-mailPrintBookmark and Share
Tim Altom

Everything old is new again, even on the Web. The New York Times, the Gray Lady of journalism, has decided to once again huddle behind a “paywall,” a decision that’s galvanized the Web world. But this paywall is different from ones the paper has tried in the past.

Let me explain paywalls. When the Internet first expanded beyond academia and became available commercially, companies rushed to figure out how to make a buck on it, besides just providing access to the network.

Merchants who migrated to the Web found the transition relatively easy, if quite different in concept from stocking shelves and training salespeople. At least nobody could pilfer their goods without plunking down some kind of payment first.

The same couldn’t be said for publishers like newspapers and magazines, which also quickly moved to put their wares online. Content is just words and pictures, so they’re easy to grab without payment. When publishers’ words and pictures were downloaded, they had nothing else to sell, and they just as quickly moved to make the downloads pay-for-play, too, just as the merchants did. Everyone from pornography vendors to the Gray Lady herself set up what came to be known as “paywalls,” restrictions on access that relaxed only when payment was rendered.

Paywalls proved all but useless. The Web is the world’s fastest gossip-monger. It can flash news around the world almost before it happens, and then perhaps thousands of bloggers dive in and pass it on, often simply reproducing the actual text from the publisher. Even if you wanted your news straight from the source, it wasn’t hard to circumvent most paywalls.

For many years, a site called BugMeNot (www.bugmenot.com) allowed readers to share their paywall IDs and passwords. A search for “www.newyorktimes.com” on BugMeNot might return dozens or hundreds of various IDs, most of them current and capable of being used by anyone. Eventually, the paywalls became a bit more sophisticated and difficult to get past, but they were still about as secure as a papier-maché bank vault. Many publishers eventually gave up and dropped their paywalls as being too expensive to bother with.

Now the venerable Times has resurrected the paywall idea, and the Web is abuzz about it. Unlike the old days, it’s not a fortress, but more like an enforced rationing system. Anybody can access up to 20 articles per month without paying a fee. In addition, you can get a maximum of five additional articles per day if you click through to the New York Times site from one of five search engines: Ask, AOL, Bing, Google or Yahoo. After that, you’re cut off until you pay the subscription fee. If you already have a subscription to the Times, it automatically includes your online fee.

True to its nature, the Web is already bulging with ways to get around the Times paywall.

It should be said that the Times isn’t reverting to the days of the moat-and-castle protection schemes of the past, so circumvention may be more an idle challenge than a need. Rather, the paper is allowing the casual, occasional visitor to read its material while trying to control the server-poundings it gets from Times addicts.

This is what sets the Times’ paywall apart: The company is trying to accommodate the Web culture while still getting value out of its work. As the Times itself notes, most visitors won’t notice any difference. It’s only that small number of voracious readers who will have to pony up. The Web is watching to see how this works out.

I imagine that other publishers, like The Wall Street Journal and Newsday, both of which have notorious paywalls, are also watching closely. The Web is a place of constant experimentation, and the Times may have just come up with a winning solution to a vexing problem.•

__________

Altom is an independent local technology consultant. His column appears every other week. He can be reached at taltom@ibj.com.

ADVERTISEMENT

Post a comment to this story

COMMENTS POLICY
We reserve the right to remove any post that we feel is obscene, profane, vulgar, racist, sexually explicit, abusive, or hateful.
 
You are legally responsible for what you post and your anonymity is not guaranteed.
 
Posts that insult, defame, threaten, harass or abuse other readers or people mentioned in IBJ editorial content are also subject to removal. Please respect the privacy of individuals and refrain from posting personal information.
 
No solicitations, spamming or advertisements are allowed. Readers may post links to other informational websites that are relevant to the topic at hand, but please do not link to objectionable material.
 
We may remove messages that are unrelated to the topic, encourage illegal activity, use all capital letters or are unreadable.
 

Messages that are flagged by readers as objectionable will be reviewed and may or may not be removed. Please do not flag a post simply because you disagree with it.

Sponsored by
ADVERTISEMENT

facebook - twitter on Facebook & Twitter

Follow on TwitterFollow IBJ on Facebook:
Follow on TwitterFollow IBJ's Tweets on these topics:
 
Subscribe to IBJ
  1. How can any company that has the cash and other assets be allowed to simply foreclose and not pay the debt? Simon, pay the debt and sell the property yourself. Don't just stiff the bank with the loan and require them to find a buyer.

  2. If you only knew....

  3. The proposal is structured in such a way that a private company (who has competitors in the marketplace) has struck a deal to get "financing" through utility ratepayers via IPL. Competitors to BlueIndy are at disadvantage now. The story isn't "how green can we be" but how creative "financing" through captive ratepayers benefits a company whose proposal should sink or float in the competitive marketplace without customer funding. If it was a great idea there would be financing available. IBJ needs to be doing a story on the utility ratemaking piece of this (which is pretty complicated) but instead it suggests that folks are whining about paying for being green.

  4. The facts contained in your post make your position so much more credible than those based on sheer emotion. Thanks for enlightening us.

  5. Please consider a couple of economic realities: First, retail is more consolidated now than it was when malls like this were built. There used to be many department stores. Now, in essence, there is one--Macy's. Right off, you've eliminated the need for multiple anchor stores in malls. And in-line retailers have consolidated or folded or have stopped building new stores because so much of their business is now online. The Limited, for example, Next, malls are closing all over the country, even some of the former gems are now derelict.Times change. And finally, as the income level of any particular area declines, so do the retail offerings. Sad, but true.

ADVERTISEMENT