They don’t listen to me, either. My vote still would have been for the premium-membership program option (done right and done big). But given their choice, I think some modifications and nuance might work.

If you look at the hugely successful Internet companies (many of which are partly media companies), they amassed their billions by experimenting and changing and improving their services regularly and quickly, without taking a year to make and implement a single decision.

E.g., Facebook frequently makes major changes; sometimes they go over well and sometimes they flop spectacularly. When the latter happens they retreat and try something new. Yet Facebook’s growth has continued unabated.

Yes, NYT and other newspapers should proceed cautiously with revising/reinventing their print product, because that format’s older audience is more sensitive to change. But online (and with mobile), my position is that it’s an easy environment to make changes and try new things, and if they don’t work out then turn on a dime and try something else.

NYT has taken, I believe, a year to get to this point of “decision.” Now it needs another year to properly design and implement. And if it debuts the metered paywall in 2011 and it’s a disaster, how long will it take to try something else if tweaking the dials on the meter fails to right the ship?

I just don’t see how any corporation that’s future is tied so closely to the Internet and mobile can succeed playing by the old rules of take-your-time-and-get-it-just-right.

But we do disagree on the timing. As I said in my post yesterday, taking a year to figure out the details strikes me as smart: http://www.poynter.org/column.asp?id=131&aid=176180.

2010 is going to be a year of big change — mobile, tablets — not to mention the uncertain recovery/evolution of advertising. Seems to me the Times has lots much more to gain than lose by making sure their pay plan fits the landscape.

Plus, they say they lack the technology to integrate a metered system with print subscriber database. Among other things, the paper needs to avoid the hassle that print subscribers encountered in Times Select days of multiple user names, etc.

Anyway, let’s meet here again on Jan 21, 2011 and see how things look.

– Bill

My question is: Will the quality of the NYTimes outweigh the cost to the reader?

And with the possibility of a major decline in readership, I expect further downward shifts in employee retention which translates to a lower quality of journalism. Are people planning on paying more…for less? I doubt it, especially if other news groups keep their current free-for-all, leaving the cheese standing alone.

Timing is everything and to the credit of the NYT it’s a decent business technique to hold out until more hands are warmed with e-readers. Maybe.

I guess we’ll all find out soon enough. Oh, more of my opinion on this matter can be found here and thanks for this forum. http://bit.ly/5wB97T

Regards,
Jenn F.