Step 2, make some of that same content available for free somewhere else.
Well done, boneheads. If I took that plan to my bank manager he'd throw me into the fucking road.
Sunday, 20 June 2010
Paywall Fail.
I wonder if The Times is trying to get some award for the most insane business model. Step 1, erect paywall to make sure everyone has to pay to read your content.
Step 2, make some of that same content available for free somewhere else.
Well done, boneheads. If I took that plan to my bank manager he'd throw me into the fucking road.
Step 2, make some of that same content available for free somewhere else.
Well done, boneheads. If I took that plan to my bank manager he'd throw me into the fucking road.
It's almost like Rupert is an Aussie or something. ;-)
ReplyDeleteOr maybe he's just mad as a box of badgers.
ReplyDeleteDo you know if The Australian actually paid for it?
ReplyDeleteOf course it's possible that the Times hasn't realised that people who use the internet to read their paper can also "Surf" elsewhere....
The Australian is a part of News International and they often have Jeremy Clarkson's column from so I can't believe they don't know. I'd guess it's some sort of internal syndication thing. Still daft though.
ReplyDeletePeople still send thousands of whatever currency to Nigeria to receive 10% of the $25,000,00 (TWENTY-FIVE GUILLION USD) inheritance of B.A.OGOBUWU, so why wouldn't they pay for something that they don't know is free elsewhere?
ReplyDeleteAnon, fair point, though I wasn't going along the "nobody would fall for that" path. Just saying that it's a bit odd to make people pay for your product if they come to your main outlet but hand it out for free elsewhere in your company. It would be as if there really is a B. A. Ogobuwu offering 10% of 25 guillion US dollars to some people who approach him the right way but who stings everyone else, though that's a bit unfair because The Times does at least have something to sell. It's just odd that they also choose to give some of it away still.
ReplyDeleteOh, and while the content isn't exactly the same everybody _does_ know it's free elsewhere. The same news is reported all over and is free virtually everywhere (allowing for the argument that the Beeb is paid for by licence payers and if you're really picky you could assign a dollar value for all the ads your bandwidth has been spent on over a given period). Anyone charging subs isn't charging for news but for their reporting of the same news. Is that worth $150 a year? To some yes, if they really like the reporting there. To me, not even nearly, even though I do like the reporting there.
ReplyDelete