—Ta-Nehisi Coates has the line of the day (my emphasis), referring to the NYT’s failed attempt to put its columnists behind a wall in mid-’00s:
I read the Post online enough to say that I would pay for this. Plus I’ve basically come around to the idea that content-providers will have to charge something. But putting yourself on the market cuts both ways, in that it rather quickly reveals what, precisely, consumers will pay for and what they won’t. The Times found that opinions were as numerous as middle fingers, and thus couldn’t really monetize it’s columnists. It’s reporting turned out to be another story.
—David Carr hops on the paywall bandwagon:
It’s been a weird evolution to watch. Pay walls, long the bête noir of evangelists of a free and open Internet, are almost sexy right now.
Welcome aboard, David! A serious suggestion: It may be time to revisit the Advance story.
(Update: To give credit where it’s due, David *did* write a nifty defense of the Times own paywall against some familiar critics.)
The Ta-Nehisi Coates comment about middle fingers and opinions is interesting, but might be a partial answer. An alternate view is that columnists, more than beat reporters, are dependent on personal branding which can lead to their own "long-tail" revenue streams such as books and the lecture circuit. Because paywalls can act as a constraint to that process, they're seen by some columnists as a bad thing.
Although Steve Buttry's annoyance at comparing the current paywall debate with a religious war is understandable, it might be pointed out that a lot of the origin for the conflict dates back to the time of the Stewart Brand quote that "information wants to be free." An idea which has since become an article of faith among factions involved in the fight against the RIAA and MPAA, for example. Such factions may not have built any cathedrals yet, but if it waddles like a duck and quacks...
On the other hand, there are some good arguments in terms of why people such as Howard Owens at The Batavian are opposed to paywalls as a matter of business model. Owens has indicated in the past, for example, that the online pureplay Batavian is based on a flat-fee and not CPM advertising rate structure which evidently works in its market.
#1 Posted by Perry Gaskill, CJR on Sat 8 Dec 2012 at 09:40 AM
Why the heck doesn't anyone ever give the WHOLE quote by Brand? Here it is-
"On the one hand information wants to be expensive, because it's so valuable. The right information in the right place just changes your life. On the other hand, information wants to be free, because the cost of getting it out is getting lower and lower all the time. So you have these two fighting against each other."
There it is- "Information wants to be expensive...Information wants to be free". How is it that all people remember is what Brand said second? Someone needs to publicize that fact a bit more.
#2 Posted by Stephen, CJR on Sat 8 Dec 2012 at 09:04 PM