« Videoblogging | Main | Belle and Sebastian Tonite »
Times Select and Anti-Viral Marketing
How do you elminate viral marketing? Put a wall around your content. Times Select shows how its done.
I get a monthly email from the New York Times with the ten most emailed articles. It's a very interesting list and is telling in many ways about what news is most important to readers.
It used to be at least half columns penned by their top columnists like Maureen Dowd, Frank Rich, Thomas Friedman, etc. Here is a list of all of their op-ed columnists.
Well guess what? Not one of them is on the top ten list anymore. Of course. Because they are barely read online anymore because of the crazy Times Select idea.
Here is the list of the top ten list for February:
| |||||||||||
Read it and weep Thomas, Maureen, Frank, and the rest of the gang. Because your opinions aren't flying around the web anymore.
Comments (5) | | TrackBack (0)
TrackBack
TrackBack URL for this entry:
http://www.typepad.com/services/trackback/6a00d83451b2c969e200e55022342f8833
Listed below are links to weblogs that reference Times Select and Anti-Viral Marketing:
Posted March 2, 2006 in Venture Capital and TechnologyComments
"I get a monthly email from the New York Times with the ten most emailed articles. It's a very interesting list and is telling in many ways about what news is most important to readers."
The New York Times having interesting reporting?
Sorry, in this day and age, I just don't see it. To put it somewhat blithely, I see the Times having as much relevance in our digital world as the Catholic Chirch has relevance in sexual mores: it may be an authority to a select few, but it hardly captures the zeitgeist.
This, of course, may be a function of their (mis)management. Or it may just be a function of the fact that the internet does a better job of disseminating the news than a newspaper (or TV studio) ever could.
Posted by: Dave | Mar 2, 2006 8:48:41 AM
Couldn't agree with you more. Times Select is a dumb idea and I haven't read a single op-ed piece since they implemented it.
Posted by: Vineet Buch | Mar 2, 2006 3:22:03 PM
What's ironic is I just copied a link from this list on your blog and emailed it to a friend. They really don't get it.
Posted by: charlie crystle | Mar 3, 2006 6:44:59 AM
stipulated that, by definition, times select content cannot possible be in the top emailed list.
but isn't the real data point/issue, has the top emailed list itself become less popular? are less nytimes pieces being email by people to others due to times select? if so, ok, fred's point is made. but if not, then the overall point -- times select is bad for viral marketing of nytimes -- is invalid. and the only valid (and painfully obvious) point would be, times select-ed content is unavailable for free email/viral distribution...
Posted by: steve | Mar 3, 2006 2:16:04 PM
"Because they are barely read online anymore because of the crazy Times Select idea."
Any data or criteria to back that rhetoric up? Last I heard they had 410K subscribers, 38% paying for online only. Is that subscription rate rising or falling? How is it affecting the overall reach of NYTimes.com?
As much as I take Alexa ranks with a grain of salt,
http://www.alexa.com/data/details/traffic_details?&compare_sites=&y=p&q=&url=nytimes.com
Doesn't appear people are abandoning the site due to walled content...
For me, this is an interesting experiment. You're correct, these columnists are nowhere close to as much a part of the online conversation anymore, although still read widely in print. But I can't recall 'Conversation' being on the balance sheet, so I'm curious to know what the success/failure metric is.
Posted by: Sebastian | Mar 4, 2006 2:38:25 PM
A VC