Comments on: On sharing http://www.aquick.org/blog/2005/11/10/on-sharing/ entertaining hundreds of millions of eyeball atoms every day Sun, 12 Aug 2012 17:06:22 -0400 http://wordpress.org/?v=2.8.4 hourly 1 By: adam http://www.aquick.org/blog/2005/11/10/on-sharing/comment-page-1/#comment-624 adam Sat, 12 Nov 2005 04:31:38 +0000 http://www.aquick.org/blog/2005/11/10/on-sharing/#comment-624 Oh - it gets even better. Instead of a paid membership, you could have an auction where you can bid on opportunities to argue with each of the columnists. Oh – it gets even better. Instead of a paid membership, you could have an auction where you can bid on opportunities to argue with each of the columnists.

]]> By: Anne http://www.aquick.org/blog/2005/11/10/on-sharing/comment-page-1/#comment-622 Anne Fri, 11 Nov 2005 11:38:09 +0000 http://www.aquick.org/blog/2005/11/10/on-sharing/#comment-622 Great idea. I hate Maureen Dowd. I have always wanted to take that specious Bitch down. Great idea.
I hate Maureen Dowd.
I have always wanted to take that specious Bitch down.

]]> By: adam http://www.aquick.org/blog/2005/11/10/on-sharing/comment-page-1/#comment-621 adam Thu, 10 Nov 2005 20:53:32 +0000 http://www.aquick.org/blog/2005/11/10/on-sharing/#comment-621 I picked on TimesSelect because that's an easy target, and it's already showing the signs of suffering behind the paid wall. If people are reading for opinions, it helps to have those opinions as widely disseminated as possible. More specifically, if you're trying to convince people of something, as opinion columnists often do, you want to target the people who aren't already so convinced that they'll pay up front to hear what you have to say. But of course - those are the people who pay. The trick is conversion - getting the unconvinced to become convinced enough to pay on a regular basis. Similarly, I'm not convinced that opinion pieces themselves are a viable business model for much longer - they're too static, and there are plenty of smart people offering commentary for free. But how about this - a paid membership site where it's free to read (and ad supported), but if you want to argue with a Times columnist, you have to pay to post. Kick it off each week with the standard opinion piece, and then let the columnist duke it out with the readers who want to argue. I think people would bite for this and it would get some great debate going. I picked on TimesSelect because that’s an easy target, and it’s already showing the signs of suffering behind the paid wall. If people are reading for opinions, it helps to have those opinions as widely disseminated as possible. More specifically, if you’re trying to convince people of something, as opinion columnists often do, you want to target the people who aren’t already so convinced that they’ll pay up front to hear what you have to say. But of course – those are the people who pay. The trick is conversion – getting the unconvinced to become convinced enough to pay on a regular basis.

Similarly, I’m not convinced that opinion pieces themselves are a viable business model for much longer – they’re too static, and there are plenty of smart people offering commentary for free. But how about this – a paid membership site where it’s free to read (and ad supported), but if you want to argue with a Times columnist, you have to pay to post. Kick it off each week with the standard opinion piece, and then let the columnist duke it out with the readers who want to argue. I think people would bite for this and it would get some great debate going.

]]> By: gordon krefting http://www.aquick.org/blog/2005/11/10/on-sharing/comment-page-1/#comment-620 gordon krefting Thu, 10 Nov 2005 20:15:21 +0000 http://www.aquick.org/blog/2005/11/10/on-sharing/#comment-620 I agree with most of what you're saying... certainly letting people read your stuff is a much better way of promoting yourself that not letting them read it. Most legacy content providers (traditional media types) today are concentrating on monetizing their content, not on marketing it. "Maybe they’ll even pay for the privilege" isn't a business model that is getting much attention in an industry that demands high profit margins. So far, I haven’t hated TimesSelect, I feel that the amount of stuff I’m reading every month is pretty easily worth my 8 bucks. (Actually, I pay for the crossword too, which is also worth the money.) I doubt that it’s doing much to improve the Times’ bottom line though; I’m the only subscriber I know. So, I’m curious. How do you think the Times can make money online? (Ad revenue is getting better, but I doubt it even covers their costs.) I agree with most of what you’re saying… certainly letting people read your stuff is a much better way of promoting yourself that not letting them read it.

Most legacy content providers (traditional media types) today are concentrating on monetizing their content, not on marketing it. “Maybe they’ll even pay for the privilege” isn’t a business model that is getting much attention in an industry that demands high profit margins.

So far, I haven’t hated TimesSelect, I feel that the amount of stuff I’m reading every month is pretty easily worth my 8 bucks. (Actually, I pay for the crossword too, which is also worth the money.) I doubt that it’s doing much to improve the Times’ bottom line though; I’m the only subscriber I know.

So, I’m curious. How do you think the Times can make money online? (Ad revenue is getting better, but I doubt it even covers their costs.)

]]>