I read the NY Times every morning online. There are many ads, which I occasionally glance at. There are also no printing presses, reams of paper, delivery trucks or paper boys. Sometime in the last year, the Times chose to make certain Op Ed and occasional column for pay only. "Times Select" is the option. I have not read John Teirney or Maureen Dowd in a year because of it. Frankly, I would rather sit through an ad every time i want to read their columns than subscribe to a small section of the paper.
I don't read Salon for the same reason. Occasionally, there is a link to something interesting, so I get the free sign up for one day or whatever. I'm married to a writer who's work is often on The Internets. I should understand that money out is really money in at our house. Except Steve doesn't write for the NY Times, and I'm guessing that Maureen Dowd is not getting a piece of the action every time someone clicks on her Special Column.
Nothing is free, I get that. That's why there are ads. If you don't want ads, you should pay for the service. Satellite radio, HBO, that sort of thing. I question where the line of profitability and how much more can we squeeze out of customers before they go somewhere else is.
I don't read Salon for the same reason. Occasionally, there is a link to something interesting, so I get the free sign up for one day or whatever. I'm married to a writer who's work is often on The Internets. I should understand that money out is really money in at our house. Except Steve doesn't write for the NY Times, and I'm guessing that Maureen Dowd is not getting a piece of the action every time someone clicks on her Special Column.
Nothing is free, I get that. That's why there are ads. If you don't want ads, you should pay for the service. Satellite radio, HBO, that sort of thing. I question where the line of profitability and how much more can we squeeze out of customers before they go somewhere else is.
