The coolest place on the internet, according to this tagline.
AskArchiveFAQ

March 18, 2013
Unlike the New York Times or the Wall Street Journal, The Post has traditionally been a local business, pulling in large amounts of local advertising from merchants eager to reach the print audience. By contrast, 90 percent of The Post’s online audience is outside the Washington area.
Why The Washington Post is going to start charging frequent readers of its site. Meanwhile, their building’s still for sale.
14:32 // 1 year ago
December 26, 2012
More than a year and a half later, it’s clear the New York Times’ paywall is not only valuable, it’s helped turn the paper’s subscription dollars, which once might have been considered the equivalent of a generous tithing, into a significant revenue-generating business. As of this year, the company is expected to make more money from subscriptions than from advertising — the first time that’s happened.
Bloomberg’s Edmund Lee • Discussing the success of the New York Times paywall, which has done something very surprising — it’s allowed the New York Times to make more than half of its overall revenue from subscriptions, rather than the traditional 80 percent advertising/20 percent subscriptions balance that has traditionally defined newspapers. That’s good for a number of reasons, with the biggest being that the New York Times is no longer as overly reliant on ad dollars to sell its news. That’s an awesome spot for the Times to be, but the real question: Does that mean anything for papers that aren’t the Times, which may be a tougher sell than a paper of record?
19:12 // 1 year ago
August 26, 2012
The Missourian’s change to a pay model is consistent with industry trends; its method, with everything free for the first 24 hours of publication, is experimental and reflects a core mission of this newspaper to test innovative practices for the news industry.
Tom Warhover, executive editor of the Columbia, Mo. Missourian • Regarding the paper’s interesting take on paywalling its content — everything will be free for the first 24 hours, but after the one-day mark, you hit a paywall. (The model corresponds with a suite of new digital apps for the publication.) This is a relatively untried model — most outlets in recent years have preferred to, instead, follow the New York Times’ successful metered paywall model. But the Missourian, which is run by the University of Missouri and staffed by J-school students, is the perfect testbed for an experimental model. The paper was one of the first newspapers to go online, and has a long tradition of trying new things. So it’ll be interesting to see what they do.
15:03 // 2 years ago
March 20, 2012
NYT tightens the paywall vice: Make those 10 articles count. (Though we admit that it’s totally one of the few newspapers in the country worth subscribing to.)

NYT tightens the paywall vice: Make those 10 articles count. (Though we admit that it’s totally one of the few newspapers in the country worth subscribing to.)

10:45 // 2 years ago
February 23, 2012
10:40 // 2 years ago
September 12, 2011
We’ve never had The Boston Globe have its own front door in the digital space. It’s always been integrated with Boston.com. This was an opportunity to build something brand-new and to have it front and center and really do justice to the brand promise The Boston Globe offers to its readers.
Boston Globe publisher Christopher M. Mayer • On the paper’s launch of its own Web site this morning — a paywall-laden one that smartly separates the company’s newspaper content from Boston.com content that might work better on the Web. Boston.com is paywall-free and still serves breaking news, blogs and the whole bit. Bostonglobe.com focuses on the newspaper itself. It’s an interesting separation and we’re curious to see how it works out for them. The Boston Globe’s parent, the New York Times Company, famously started up a successful paywall experiment for the mothership paper. (Quote from a paywall-laden article, but there’s free registration for the next couple weeks; the source article links to the free Boston.com piece.) source (viafollow)
8:26 // 2 years ago
March 28, 2011
A Hulu for News?: Martin Nisenholtz, the senior vice president for digital operations at the Times, offered up this sentiment while speaking at Newspaper Association of America convention today. We must say that we find the idea utterly bizarre, because it already exists. It’s called Google News.

A Hulu for News?: Martin Nisenholtz, the senior vice president for digital operations at the Times, offered up this sentiment while speaking at Newspaper Association of America convention today. We must say that we find the idea utterly bizarre, because it already exists. It’s called Google News.

11:02 // 3 years ago
Protip: The NYT’s paywall hits today. Go here to save ca$h.
For the first four weeks, you too can get access to the NYT’s vast supply of Brooklyn-discovery stories and trend pieces about trends nobody knew existed — for just a dollar. And be quick about it. The NYT’s paywall hits us plebes at around 2 p.m. EST. source

For the first four weeks, you too can get access to the NYT’s vast supply of Brooklyn-discovery stories and trend pieces about trends nobody knew existed — for just a dollar. And be quick about it. The NYT’s paywall hits us plebes at around 2 p.m. EST. source

10:10 // 3 years ago
March 26, 2011
New York Times’ paywall: Favoring the mobile Web over apps?
The fine print in the NYT’s paywall: Have you been wondering to yourself, “Who the heck would pay $260 extra to subscribe to the iPad version of the New York Times?” So have a lot of people. From a distance, the price plan makes little sense and makes the paper nearly as expensive as the dead-tree version (which costs $770 a year for the seven-days-a-week edition outside of NYC). But Poynter’s Damon Kiesow has a really interesting take on the matter which a lot of people haven’t considered: What if the Times wants to discourage mobile app use by pricing them at a premium, specifically with the iPad version? (above pic taken by Robert Scoble — yes, that’s the man’s hand)
$385 yearly cost of a weekday subscription to the Times 
$195 yearly cost of a Web-only Times subscription
$260 yearly cost to add mobile to the Web
$455 yearly cost to add tablet use to the bunch source
» What this all means to you: Now, if you’ve ever used an iPad, it’s pretty clear that the New York Times Web site is as good, if not better than, the NYT iPad app, at least for now. And if they want to further emphasize the tablet-y nature of the iPad, they already have that in the form of Times Skimmer. Furthermore, Apple doesn’t take a 30 percent cut out of Web-based subscriptions. Damon Kiesow’s perfectly apt reasoning, then, is that the NYT is trying to de-emphasize the App Store by pricing people out of that direction. And you know what? He’s right. The NYT Web site will work fine on the iPad. There is an advantage to using NYT’s app on your cell phone, so that’s kept at a more reasonable cost, but the NYT’s plan to focus on the Web over the app? Sneaky.
Follow ShortFormBlog

The fine print in the NYT’s paywall: Have you been wondering to yourself, “Who the heck would pay $260 extra to subscribe to the iPad version of the New York Times?” So have a lot of people. From a distance, the price plan makes little sense and makes the paper nearly as expensive as the dead-tree version (which costs $770 a year for the seven-days-a-week edition outside of NYC). But Poynter’s Damon Kiesow has a really interesting take on the matter which a lot of people haven’t considered: What if the Times wants to discourage mobile app use by pricing them at a premium, specifically with the iPad version? (above pic taken by Robert Scoble — yes, that’s the man’s hand)

  • $385 yearly cost of a weekday subscription to the Times
  • $195 yearly cost of a Web-only Times subscription
  • $260 yearly cost to add mobile to the Web
  • $455 yearly cost to add tablet use to the bunch source

» What this all means to you: Now, if you’ve ever used an iPad, it’s pretty clear that the New York Times Web site is as good, if not better than, the NYT iPad app, at least for now. And if they want to further emphasize the tablet-y nature of the iPad, they already have that in the form of Times Skimmer. Furthermore, Apple doesn’t take a 30 percent cut out of Web-based subscriptions. Damon Kiesow’s perfectly apt reasoning, then, is that the NYT is trying to de-emphasize the App Store by pricing people out of that direction. And you know what? He’s right. The NYT Web site will work fine on the iPad. There is an advantage to using NYT’s app on your cell phone, so that’s kept at a more reasonable cost, but the NYT’s plan to focus on the Web over the app? Sneaky.

Follow ShortFormBlog

10:18 // 3 years ago