For a publication thata4ぎa4г supposed to set the gold standard for writing about the news, The New York Times has done a pretty poor job of explaining its new payment plan.
I mean, if you look at reader responses to The Times&' announcement, youa4ぎa4d think that most Times readers are about to be left outside the paywall. In fact, both Times representatives and other experts predict that the vast majority of readers will never hit the 20-articles-per-month limit.
The confusion increases once you start getting into the details. According to The Timesa4ぎa4 Frequently Asked Questions page, when readers follow links from search engines, blogs, social networking services like Facebook, and pretty much anything thata4ぎa4г not The New York Times website, those articles a4ぎAwill count toward your monthly limit of 20 free articles, but you will still be able to view it even if you&'ve already read your 20 free articles.a4ぎ Therea4ぎa4г an additional five-article-per-day limit to following links from Google.
I had to read that explanation a couple of times before I understood it, and it looks like I wasna4ぎa4д the only one. Judging from outside coverage, The Times has utterly failed to explain that aspect of the paywall to reporters and bloggers.
NPR reports that a4ぎAa page click through a Google search or a friend&'s referral via Facebook or Twitter won&'t count against you,a4ぎ which is wrong &8212' it still counts towards your quota, you just wona4ぎa4д get blocked. Over at BoingBoing, Cory Doctorow complains that this a4ぎAjust makes it harder to link to the Times,a4ぎ even though his readers should never be blocked when they follow one of his links. (Although the simple existence of the paywall and the quota might dissuade Doctorow from linking to The Times anyway.) And TechCruncha4ぎa4г MG Siegler writes about The Times&' new &''social loophole&'', even though the exemption includes any site, including TechCrunch itself.
To be clear, I&'m not trying to give these other writers a hard time &8212' these are mostly muddled explanations rather than flat-out inaccuracies (or hey, maybe I&'m the one who&'s gotten confused), and either way I think they stem from the fact that the plan itself is so convoluted.
To my mind, all of this confusion supports the argument &8212' voiced at VentureBeat and elsewhere &8212' that The Times&' plan is just too confusing. Heck, even The Times reporter covering the plan had to issue a correction.
And if the confusion continues, it could be catastrophic for the paywall. Casual readers might stay away from Times articles, thinking that theya4ぎa4вe about to get charged even though they arena4ぎa4д. Other publications will hesitate to link to Times articles because theya4ぎa4ll be worried their readers will get blocked. And loyal readers may become frustrated because they dona4ぎa4д understand what theya4ぎa4вe buying.
Next Story: Asus looks to Chrome OS/Android for $200 netbook Previous Story: StarCraft II game&'s next frontier is China
Print Email Twitter Facebook Google Buzz LinkedIn Digg StumbleUpon Reddit Delicious Google More&8230'
Companies: The New York Times
Companies: The New York Times
Anthony is a senior editor at VentureBeat, as well as its reporter on media, advertising, and social networks. Before joining the site in 2008, Anthony worked at the Hollister Free Lance, where he won awards from the California Newspaper Publishers Association for breaking news coverage and writing. He attended Stanford University and now lives in San Francisco. Reach him at anthony@venturebeat.com. (All story pitches should also be sent to tips@venturebeat.com) You can also follow Anthony on Twitter.
Have news to share Launching a startup Email: tips@venturebeat.com
VentureBeat has new weekly email newsletters. Stay on top of the news, and don't miss a beat.
Discuss Add this link to... Bury
Comments