The new titles expand digital, traditional accounts are with the Network Less than two months after the acquisition by America Online (AOL), the Huffington Post's Arianna Huffington has announced plans to launch a ' edition of the site for the UK, with the aim to reproduce in Europe as his formula for success.
While the "superblog" plans the conquest of the Old Continent, the New York Times is faced with the difficulty of monetizing its online visitors and collects critical to every part of the Network for the tariffs imposed by his new "paywall. Post and Times are two of the top news sites in the United States, with the New York newspaper that he can count on a million visits per month more than aggregator, according to Comscore, a difference that was reduced significantly than six million visitors a year ago.
Huffington in Europe. Bought for the sum of $ 315 million last February by the provider AOL, the site information and content aggregator Huffington Post will arrive in the summer in the United Kingdom. The statement came directly from Arianna Huffington at the MediaGuardian Changing Media Summit.
The formula that has made the success of the site will remain the same, with a group of journalists and a large number of paid staff and bloggers who populate the platform just to get exposure. No change of course short for Huffington, even following the controversy sparked by bloggers are tired of working for free and have not received one dollar of money AOL.
"Writing for the Post amounts to go on TV talk show in a great popularity. It means maximum visibility. And if someone decides to leave, many are ready to occupy those spaces," he told the Huffington responding to threats of strike its bloggers. New opportunities for visibility and then open in the UK, with funds now available to the Huffington.
Hard to say now if the experiment will succeed, given the profound difference between American and British markets, both in terms of audience and editorial. It is therefore not surprising that few hours after the announcement of several commentators have already bet on the flop of the initiative.
Walls to the news. If the new warheads laugh, comparing those emblazoned with the need to convert visitors to their sites in dollars (or euro) in revenues. The New York Times has just launched its paywall, the program fees for access articles online. So far the only ones to pay were Canadians, but from 28 March, the "wall" stands up for everyone.
For the newspaper of the Big Apple is a throwback, given that in 2005 had already been launched Times Select, its paid version, which closed in 2007 despite more than two hundred thousand subscribers. At the time of the cancellation paywall was justified with the argument that the sale of advertising on the pages accessible to all would earn more than the subscription.
It took a few years, and an economic crisis unprecedented in the American press, to review these decisions. A change compared to 2007 were, however, the rates and the weight of the mobile Internet and through consultation tablet and smartphone. If the old Times Select cost $ 50 a year, and full access to all platforms at the New York Times from March 28 will cost $ 455, more than nine times as much.
A figure that is unprecedented in the history of paywall, well above even the Wall Street Journal, which has sparked criticism from the network against the newspaper. The policy of the New York Times has revealed, however, much softer than other sites and will be granted a free consultation of 20 articles per month, or even more for those who follow links from Twitter and Facebook.
There are also several "cuts" of subscriptions available to anyone who reads the site only by iPad or by phone. The wall does not seem exactly insurmountable, and on the Web can already find several programs and browser extensions to consult the New York Times without paying. The suspicion arises that is not the fault of a bug but a deliberate decision to keep some open breach.
The choice of a soft paywall with free consultation of twenty articles a month, then indicates that the New York Times does not want to repeat the experience of the London Times. The English text of Murdoch has launched last June, even changing its paywall site visits and looking down about 90%.
The model of news fee discounts, however, a long history of failures. Apart from the example of successful economic newspapers such as Wall Street Journal and Financial Times, other experiments have proved to be failures over time or so. The arrival of the newspapers printed anywhere in the 90's was the first opportunity to see patterns in payment bypassed by free solutions, while the new wave of paywall is a recent phenomenon that already has been some disappointment.
The flop of the Long Island newspaper Newsday, able to collect only 35 subscribers in a year online, is perhaps the most obvious example of the difficulty to pay for news on new media, but has not prevented others from groped the way of news for a fee. 
While the "superblog" plans the conquest of the Old Continent, the New York Times is faced with the difficulty of monetizing its online visitors and collects critical to every part of the Network for the tariffs imposed by his new "paywall. Post and Times are two of the top news sites in the United States, with the New York newspaper that he can count on a million visits per month more than aggregator, according to Comscore, a difference that was reduced significantly than six million visitors a year ago.
Huffington in Europe. Bought for the sum of $ 315 million last February by the provider AOL, the site information and content aggregator Huffington Post will arrive in the summer in the United Kingdom. The statement came directly from Arianna Huffington at the MediaGuardian Changing Media Summit.
The formula that has made the success of the site will remain the same, with a group of journalists and a large number of paid staff and bloggers who populate the platform just to get exposure. No change of course short for Huffington, even following the controversy sparked by bloggers are tired of working for free and have not received one dollar of money AOL.
"Writing for the Post amounts to go on TV talk show in a great popularity. It means maximum visibility. And if someone decides to leave, many are ready to occupy those spaces," he told the Huffington responding to threats of strike its bloggers. New opportunities for visibility and then open in the UK, with funds now available to the Huffington.
Hard to say now if the experiment will succeed, given the profound difference between American and British markets, both in terms of audience and editorial. It is therefore not surprising that few hours after the announcement of several commentators have already bet on the flop of the initiative.
Walls to the news. If the new warheads laugh, comparing those emblazoned with the need to convert visitors to their sites in dollars (or euro) in revenues. The New York Times has just launched its paywall, the program fees for access articles online. So far the only ones to pay were Canadians, but from 28 March, the "wall" stands up for everyone.
For the newspaper of the Big Apple is a throwback, given that in 2005 had already been launched Times Select, its paid version, which closed in 2007 despite more than two hundred thousand subscribers. At the time of the cancellation paywall was justified with the argument that the sale of advertising on the pages accessible to all would earn more than the subscription.
It took a few years, and an economic crisis unprecedented in the American press, to review these decisions. A change compared to 2007 were, however, the rates and the weight of the mobile Internet and through consultation tablet and smartphone. If the old Times Select cost $ 50 a year, and full access to all platforms at the New York Times from March 28 will cost $ 455, more than nine times as much.
A figure that is unprecedented in the history of paywall, well above even the Wall Street Journal, which has sparked criticism from the network against the newspaper. The policy of the New York Times has revealed, however, much softer than other sites and will be granted a free consultation of 20 articles per month, or even more for those who follow links from Twitter and Facebook.
There are also several "cuts" of subscriptions available to anyone who reads the site only by iPad or by phone. The wall does not seem exactly insurmountable, and on the Web can already find several programs and browser extensions to consult the New York Times without paying. The suspicion arises that is not the fault of a bug but a deliberate decision to keep some open breach.
The choice of a soft paywall with free consultation of twenty articles a month, then indicates that the New York Times does not want to repeat the experience of the London Times. The English text of Murdoch has launched last June, even changing its paywall site visits and looking down about 90%.
The model of news fee discounts, however, a long history of failures. Apart from the example of successful economic newspapers such as Wall Street Journal and Financial Times, other experiments have proved to be failures over time or so. The arrival of the newspapers printed anywhere in the 90's was the first opportunity to see patterns in payment bypassed by free solutions, while the new wave of paywall is a recent phenomenon that already has been some disappointment.
The flop of the Long Island newspaper Newsday, able to collect only 35 subscribers in a year online, is perhaps the most obvious example of the difficulty to pay for news on new media, but has not prevented others from groped the way of news for a fee.
No comments:
Post a Comment