Reaction To TimesSelect

Gordon Crovitz, EVP-electronic publishing, Dow Jones: “This is an important step in showing that publishers with respected brands and strong content now recognize that subscription revenues are just as important online as they have always been in print. We’ve never understood why other publishers would give away valued brands and content in one medium, while charging in another medium. More than 730,000 subscribers now pay to access the Wall Street Journal Online, which should encourage other publishers to charge online just as they do in print.”

Lauren Rich Fine, analyst, Merrill Lynch: “I think it will appeal to a certain portion of their clientele (aka my mom) but I don’t see it as a really big deal. I doubt there will be a discernable bottom-line impact.”

Steve Outing, E-Media Tidbits: “I’m reminded of the Los Angeles Times’ website putting a paid subscription wall in front of Calendar Live, the entertainment area of LATimes.com, in 2003. That site just went free a week ago. I’ll go out on a limb and predict a similar path for NYT columnists within the next year or two.”

Alyce Lomax, The Motley Fool: “However, the Times may do well with this TimesSelect product — and at the very least, this model shouldn’t hurt its current robust traffic by limiting too much content available for free. … However, the Times may do well with this TimesSelect product — and at the very least, this model shouldn’t hurt its current robust traffic by limiting too much content available for free.”

Robert Niles, OJR: “Of all the editorial content a newspaper could put behind a paid wall, putting opinion behind that wall does the most to reduce a paper’s influence in national and global debate. Even as the Wall Street Journal put its reporting behind a paid wall, it has left its editorial pages freely available. One reader’s prediction? At least one Times columnist will leave the paper, in an effort to preserve his/her prominence on the ‘free’ Web.”

Comments have been disabled for this post