Not that I can extract myself from the cost of being advertised upon/to/at, the idea that the New York Times has “got it” and is giving away its subscription content misses the point:
“I was surprised by the New York Times’ decision,” Globe and Mail publisher Phillip Crawley said. He would have reservations about converting the Globe’s archives to a free database given the revenue it generates, turning a profit for the paper. “The Globe’s archive, with its long history, is a treasure house of information which remains a valuable asset,” he said.
The Times is hoping to use its new free archive to draw traffic into other parts of the website, Ms. Schiller said. “A certain portion of the people that come in through the archive … are going to get diverted,” Ms. Schiller said. “They’re going to find other portions of our site such as business, technology, health, entertainment – key verticals that you can really monetize.”
Yowch! I just got my key verticles monetized! I wish they would apply a cream before doing that. But by figuring out they can extract more money, by slapping on more ads, your soda pop goes up in price, you car, your whatever you buy. Big deal, you say – but then say big deal to the long tail, the many people making small choices to control the direction of culture. Nope, this is another step in the internet becoming more and more like TV as opposed to whatever what people were wishing for in 2004. Remember 2004? That was so cool.