36 ms·
NY Times To Stop Charging For Online Content
- danielha 19y agoAh, good for them. They've caught up with the times (terrible pun intended).
- dpapathanasiou 19y agoSign of the Times? ;) (sorry, couldn't resist)
- adamdoupe 19y agoThe Times they are a-changin'
- brlewis 19y agoQuote: What changed, The Times said, was that many more readers started coming to the site from search engines and links on other sites instead of coming directly to NYTimes.com. These indirect readers, unable to get access to articles behind the pay wall and less likely to pay subscription fees than the more loyal direct users, were seen as opportunities for more page views and increased advertising revenue. End Quote Good for them for paying attention. The growth they'll see next is more visitors coming in through blog posts. Bloggers will be more inclined to cite NYT articles now that the pay wall is gone. They'll still charge for articles 20-75 years old, but most citations will be for articles within the last 20 years.
- pg 19y agoFinally they get that their frontpage has been replaced by reddit and digg and Google News. People don't want to buy the album, just singles.
- bharath 19y agoAwesome. Now I can get back to reading Tom Friedman.