... about how much they are willing to pay for accessing the newspaper's online archives. Note that it wasn't IF they want to pay, but a choice between two paid models. This comes at a time when BBC widely opened their video/audio archives for a while already. Charging for online information when the switching costs are close to zero -- I am thinking that the type of info one can find in archives must be really-really valuable if anyone's willing to pay for it. Or it's simply just a model that speculates the ignorance/inability of the people to get informed --- such a model will never be sustainable a la long.
Comments
Do you have anything to say? Fill in the below
It would be cool not to pay for online content, but let's not forget the FT and the WSJ (two of the leading financial newspapers) and their subscription prices for the online version. True, the NYT does not have the same target group, but old habits die hard...
as far as I know FT's online venture was not profitable. Besides, both FT and WSJ have specific type of info, that is (or used to be) hard to get from some place else. But it won't be for long, I am quite sure about that. the reason: citizen media, or the blog-type of publishing.