Bravo

… to the New York Times, which has stopped charging for parts of its site:

The Times said the project had met expectations, drawing 227,000 paying subscribers — out of 787,000 over all — and generating about $10 million a year in revenue.

“But our projections for growth on that paid subscriber base were low, compared to the growth of online advertising,” said Vivian L. Schiller, senior vice president and general manager of the site, NYTimes.com.

What changed, The Times said, was that many more readers started coming to the site from search engines and links on other sites instead of coming directly to NYTimes.com. These indirect readers, unable to get access to articles behind the pay wall and less likely to pay subscription fees than the more loyal direct users, were seen as opportunities for more page views and increased advertising revenue.

“What wasn’t anticipated was the explosion in how much of our traffic would be generated by Google, by Yahoo and some others,” Ms. Schiller said.

The Times’s site has about 13 million unique visitors each month, according to Nielsen/NetRatings, far more than any other newspaper site. Ms. Schiller would not say how much increased Web traffic the paper expects by eliminating the charges, or how much additional ad revenue the move was expected to generate.

I will actually be reading the Times a lot more now (and must remember to click on some ads from time to time, to justify their largesse).

Now if only the Singapore Straits Times would follow the Times’ example…

In other news, Podcamp is coming to Perth! (This is the first time I feel like my vote actually made a difference 🙂 )

One Comment

genevieve 19 September 2007

Ooh, that is good news and I will try read it more often as well.
About time some of the bigger papers realised that the Guardian has an overseas readership of about 4 million (and a UK one of 3 mill.) That was end of last year, so it’s probably even bigger now.