Felix Salmon wrote up a blog post recently that details just how amazingly confused the NY Times appears to be about its new plan for a paywall. Apparently, the paywall will even include the NYTimes’ blog sites — which even the WSJ tends to keep outside of its paywall. As Salmon notes, this could drive some of the NYT’s more popular bloggers to go elsewhere. But where it gets really confusing is that the NYT’s execs seem to go back and forth over whether or not links into NYT articles from other sites (such as blogs) will count against the “quota” that leads to the paywall. Sometimes they say it won’t count, except when they say it will count. Basically, it sounds like they don’t know, but they’re so afraid of people sneaking in that there will be at least some limit.
But this leads to a rather fascinating question that one of Salmon’s readers asks in the comments (unfortunately, it looks like Reuters doesn’t let you link directly to comments): if a blog post drives traffic to the NY Times, and that counts against the quota of “free” articles, leading users to eventually sign up for the paywall, will the blogger get a cut of the paywall fee? After all, isn’t part of the argument from newspapers upset with aggregators that they’re getting some sort of “free ride”? Wouldn’t the same apply in reverse? If newspapers, such as the NY Times, are getting direct revenue from an action initiated by a blogger, then by the newspapers’ own convoluted logic, don’t those newspapers owe money to the bloggers?
Permalink | Comments | Email This Story
