4 ms·

Rules of the Web: SEO and eyeballs. Not ad rates. Ad rates have nothing to do with the rules of the Web. If it makes them money, fine, but they're gonna lose in

Rules of the Web: SEO and eyeballs. Not ad rates. Ad rates have nothing to do with the rules of the Web. If it makes them money, fine, but they're gonna lose influence no matter what way they go about it. Michael Wolff of Newser had an informant quote an powerful entertainment publicist who said he wouldn't have his clients talk to The Times anymore because nobody was going to see what they said. http://www.newser.com/off-the-grid/post/502/whats-really-going-on-behind-murdochs-paywall.html http://www.newser.com/off-the-grid/post/502/whats-really-goi... "Why would I get any of my clients to talk to the Times or the Sunday Times if they are behind a paywall? Who can see it? I can't even share a link and they aren't on search. It’s as though their writers don't exist anymore." Doesn't matter how much money Rupert's making if his journalists are getting scooped. It has a much worse long-term effect for him. The only way this model is going to work is if the holy grail of SEO and the social Web get combined with the paywall model. The New York Times gets this, and they're going to try to mix the two. As for this, you can't even click on an article without running into that screen. That, to me, is a total failure to understand the "Rules of the Web." Try again.

hga 16y ago
Exactly; to quote blogress Ann Althouse about the proposed NYT paywall (http://althouse.blogspot.com/2010/01/were-going-to-have-to-pay-to-read-nyt.html http://althouse.blogspot.com/2010/01/were-going-to-have-to-p...): "For me, reading on line is tied to blogging. I'm not going to spend my time reading sites that I can't blog, and I'm not going to blog and link to sites that you can't read without paying...."
- lwhi 16y ago
  I agree .. treating online media in exactly the same way as its traditional counterpart is really short-sighted. For instance - I buy a newspaper when I need to get from A to B and need something to read. I'll choose one paper over all others, simply because I'm _forced_ to make a choice. When I'm at a computer, I want to be able to compare coverage between publications .. I won't go to one source and take one reporters account as gospel. I'll consider what the traditional media has to say, and also what bloggers and commenters have to say as well. I no longer need to invest in one publication only. Everything can - and is - linked. Placing an artificial break in that chain seems ridiculous.

hga 16y ago

Exactly; to quote blogress Ann Althouse about the proposed NYT paywall (http://althouse.blogspot.com/2010/01/were-going-to-have-to-pay-to-read-nyt.html http://althouse.blogspot.com/2010/01/were-going-to-have-to-p...): "For me, reading on line is tied to blogging. I'm not going to spend my time reading sites that I can't blog, and I'm not going to blog and link to sites that you can't read without paying...."

lwhi 16y ago
I agree .. treating online media in exactly the same way as its traditional counterpart is really short-sighted. For instance - I buy a newspaper when I need to get from A to B and need something to read. I'll choose one paper over all others, simply because I'm _forced_ to make a choice. When I'm at a computer, I want to be able to compare coverage between publications .. I won't go to one source and take one reporters account as gospel. I'll consider what the traditional media has to say, and also what bloggers and commenters have to say as well. I no longer need to invest in one publication only. Everything can - and is - linked. Placing an artificial break in that chain seems ridiculous.