Court of the Web Rules Against Times-Select

I recommend the obituary for Times-Select that Jeff Jarvis published. The thing died at midnight last night.

"With it goes any hope of charging for content online. Content is now and forever free." He thinks Murdoch will now tear down the pay wall at the once-mighty Wall Street Journal; and there are signs that Murdoch thinks he will too.

"TimesSelect represented the last gasp of the circulation mentality of news media," says Jarvis, "the belief that surely consumers would continue to pay for content even as the internet commodified news and -- more important -- even as the internet revealed that the real value in media is not owning and controlling content or distribution but enabling conversation."

I think real value is in weaving yourself into the Web. "Conversation" is blogger's shorthand for that larger idea.

Charging for columnists only made sense as a political action within the conflicted state of the Times, a compromise among contending factions and a show of support for certain ideas that spoke to parts of the base. "People will pay for Times journalism because Times journalism is much better than what those people can get for free..." spoke to the newsroom base. Times-Select made sense in that world.

The professional premium had to be established. The Wall Street Journal had done it by charging for its web edition. The Washington Post was comfortable staying free and finding more of the Web it could like. The New York Times was to have its own strategy; this became Times-Select.

Staci Kramer at PaidContent.org has the view from the Times, provided by Vivian Schiller, a Senior VP and General Manager of NYTimes.com. She sounds cool and collected.

Schiller insisted, as she and other NYT execs have said before that TimesSelect was on plan, was bringing in $10 million in subscription revenue and was successful: "This is what is really important--it did work. It's just a matter of as compared to what."

In this case the "what" is the result of traffic increases from search-engine optimization (SEO) and the NYT's belief that by opening millions of pages to search engines, that traffic growth will continue and with it, ad revenue growth.

That's the decision in Web court accepted by the New York Times. Consent decree with the open Web. Dismisses all courses of action against Google. Times agrees to drop Times-Select, which was a barrier to Google--and the blogosphere--working the right way.

The decision says you can try to charge, and some people will pay, but there is more money and a brighter future in the open flow of Web traffic, a lot of which is coming sideways into your content stack because Google sends you tons of users via that route, not through your pearly gates of news, also called a home page. Just as RSS sends stuff from the middle of the stack out.

When every barrier you create to their participation with your product weakens your revenue stream, which is tied to openness, you're in the world of the consent decree. Advertising tied to search means open gates for all users. It means link rot cut to zero, playing for the long haul in Web memory and more blogs because they are Web-sticky. (For other reactions see Scott Rosenberg here, Steve Johnson here, Doc Searls here and Mark Potts in dissent here, then again.)

Case watchers are advised to pay close attention to Times journalists blogging for the brand. John Markoff's snooty verdict in 2003 "...it's not clear yet whether blogging is anything more than CB radio..." has been overthrown. Paul Krugman has debuted his blog, Conscience of a Liberal, which will be far more effective on the open Web. Keep an eye on linking practices throughout the site: more Web-centric (good) or still Times-ified (bad.)

When I got word that the case was settled and the lights would go out on Times Select, I went back to my post from two years ago, Charging for Columnists. It held up pretty well. "If one faction wanted to go the Wall Street Journal's pay wall route, and another wanted to remain free like the Post, then Times-Select is not a hypothesis for how to succeed on the Web, but just a mid-point between competing theories."

The mid-point, a political compromise more than a publishing strategy, has collapsed.

That post usually makes the first page of results for a Google search of "times select." My blog, PressThink, has its own version of search optimization, and occasionally it works. Write a post that's a good guide to the broader discussion online because there are many voices and perspectives linked into it, as well as "the news." Give the post a title and subtitle that anticipate basic search terms. ("Charging for Columnists: Notes and Comment on the Launch of TimesSelect.") Over time it will weave itself into the Web, and become one of the reference points for debate. Multiple points like that add up to Web authority, and a second traffic source from search.

Scott Karp at Publishing 2.0 says NYTimes.com is ahead of other sites in "realizing the value of premium content by opening it up to the web's link-based economy." When the Times bought About.com it brought an open-to-search mentality into its organization, and it's paying off. (About 80 percent of About's traffic is from search.) Times-Select was always in conflict with that.

The reasons why were captured in Simon Waldman's guest post at PressThink, The Importance of Being Permanent. (Jan. 2005) As the director of digtial strategy and development for the Guardian Media Group (UK, but soon to launch in America), he had come to realize that the professional premium is better located there. Etch yourself into the Web as a record of key events. Waldman spoke lines the Times has accepted in its consent decree abandoning "Select."

Permanence is about ensuring you have a real presence on the Net. It is a critical part of having a distinctive identity in an increasingly homogenous landscape. It is about becoming an authority and a point of reference for debate. It is about everything we want and need to be.

Without permanence you slip off the search engines. Without permanence, bold ideas like "news as conversation" fall away, because you're shutting down the conversation before it has barely started. Without permanence, you might be on the web, but you're certainly not part of it.

Now they want to be a part of it. Not a good sign, then, that pay wall logic lives on in the archive policy the Times has adopted after Times-Select. Staci Kramer had this: "Much of the NYT's archives--the past 20 years and the public domain years of 1851-1922--will be opened... Some content from 1923-1986 also will be available for free but the primary use of those years will be for e-commerce."

From World War One to the end of the Cold War it makes sense for the Times to charge? Well, I guess they didn't consent to everything. There are still executives at the Times company holding out against the logic of the open Web. For these people it's truly midnight in the cathedral of news. The Times has decided it's better off in the bazaar.

And Dan Gillmor thinks they will do very well there:

Presumably, each article will have a perma-link. If so, watch what happens. The Times' stories -- many of which are definitive moments of journalism -- will become the de facto primary sources for people around the Web, and around the world. On topic after topic, the Times story (or stories) will move near or to the top of the search engine rankings. They will become more valuable for keyword and other advertising once people click through to the actual stories.

I just got a notice about Times Select in my email. "Dear Times subscriber..." It explains the change thusly... Since we launched TimesSelect, the Web has evolved into an increasingly open environment... That's the strategic direction to which the Times, an evolving newspaper, has now given its consent.

Follow Jay Rosen on Twitter: www.twitter.com/jayrosen_nyu

Comments

[StealthisBlog]

I used to go to the NYT site every day until their completely assinine decision to erect that barrier. I have not gone to their site since (i am still, I guess, a registered user). Nor did I complain to them as I figured it would fall on deaf ears, after all the revenue must flow. I always thought the court of web opinion would bring them around, now however I have gone without it so long that I can live without them- I won't be back even now that it is free again.
Plus that bitter taste of Judith Miller is still there in my mind- she should have been jailed sooner and longer!

[Irememberwhen]

Since we buy the paper edition every day, I paid for Times Select only for the archives. This wasn't for professional reasons - just for fun and out of curiosity. It answered such questions as "What happened in Lebanon during the Reagan administration?" and "What is the history of the neighborhood I lived in?" Now that will cost $3.99 for each article from most of the 20th century. Now the cost of one search would quickly exceed the $50 Select subscription price - too much for curiosity.

They've also forgotten all the meanings of "free". It's not just $$$$. Since they eliminated their public forums, there is no free speach on their site. Every post is screened and not just for vulgarities or personal attacks. If they don't like it, it doesn't get posted. Their most prominent "discussion" is their question of the day which is more likely to be like yesterday's "What's your favorite wine for $10 or under?" than like "Should US troops be withdrawn for Iraq?"

No, the Times doesn't get it. I hope they do before they become part of Murdoch's empire.

[larry278]

Mr Murdoch may not want to own the NYT. It looks like he wants to destroy the NYT & that he will destroy the NYT. Mr Murdoch acts like he will enjoy seeing the NYT die a slow & painful death.

[1question]

When The New York Times chose to initiate Times - Select I cancelled my daily subscription...even though the online Times Select would be “free’’ to me.

I recognize their effort for what it really was - short sighted ‘capitalism’. The NYT was trying to make people pay for something that was readily available many places elsewhere i.e.

any newspaper in the world including The New York Times (every page, every photo...every column

http://www.pressdisplay.com/pressdisplay/viewer.aspx

http://www.ceoexpress.com/default.asp

plus...

http://www.hinessight.com/

http://www.truthout.org/


I came to the realization very quickly...who needs them [The New York Times ] and their subscriptions.

I could have my news when I needed it...without the like of Judith Miller or David brooks.

I could read everything online and then not be left with the issue of how best or not to recycle the ’newspaper’.

The main stream media is no longer that main stream.

I suspect I was not alone in this thinking and that now the real story is still probably being missed...the decline in The New York Times overall direct subscriptions and total ad page revenue.

Good Riddance.

[prairdog]

I am very happy that The NY Times-online has stopped charging readers for both certain news items and NYT columnists. I simply stopped reading the NYT, except occasionally at a coffee shop, when I was asked to pay for the opinions of David Brooks, Thomas Freidman, Maureen Dowd and....Judith Miller. [Paul Krugman I could find elsewhere on the web.]

For most of my life, the New York Times was where I went for the best-informed news and analysis, especially about economics and international poltics. But after 9/11 and the run-up to the US invasion of Iraq, I became increasingly skeptical of the NYT's facts, figures and political allegiances. I am still wary.

I am glad to have the NYT back in the global Commons' conversation, but the Executives should know that it is journalistic integrity that the NYT has to reclaim, not just market share of advertising revenue.

[Ani]

I wonder if Times Select failed because it asked a large dollar commitment from people who simply wanted to read their favorite commentor's opinion?

I decided not to pay the big bucks to play. I have mouths to feed. Maybe I missed out on some good comments, but also maybe I formed my own opinions from reading other sources.

I guess it boils down to my opinion that the Rupert Murdochs of the world don't really need my paltry dollars in order to take over the world. It's happening whether I pay to play or not.

[ssg13565]

I am glad that I contributed to this decision
in my own small way. I have boycotted the
NY Times on the web from the very beginning.

I even boycotted their free content that
required me to create an account on their web site.

I hope they counted each time I went to their
web site but did not read the article because
of the barrier they erected.

I didn't really think I was missing that much
anyway. Of late, the one thing that the NY Times
has proved not to be is "...one of the few
sources for original and accurate news...".

When I think of Judith Miller and all the NY Times
war mongering, I don't think of accurate and
original.

[duboisist]

The Times is one of the few sources for original and accurate news remaining. I agree that it's important for everyone to have access to it, but I also want a way to pay for it so it doesn't get bought my Rupert Murdoch.
I suggest a chain of "public newspapers" in the model of PBS and NPR.

[research]

PBS has ruined! the Neocons wrecked it. The BBC has a ten year charter, which means that the politics of the day can't sway them. good model.

[PapaJim]

I'm really pleased--NOT. I just paid my $49.95 last week.

[LIR]

That sucks...kind of like the people who paid alot more for I-Phones and still pay through the ass for Ipods...makes you feel like a chump to be so used.
The Times reporters who imagine themselves better than so many are living in a fishbowl. Countless papers around the nation scoop them repeatedly with far more incisive, excellent reporting. Hell, even the regional Newark Star-Ledger or Newsday kick their ass sometimes. However, its fellow NYC papers, the tabloid Post and News, are lousy rags appealing to the lowest common denominato­r...especi­ally the Murdoch bilge spewed by the vulgar Post...great for putting your pup's poop on!!! It was once a mighty liberal paper founded by Alexander Hamilton...I bet he is spinning in his grave!