CIRCLING THE WAGONS
UPDATED BELOW*
Back in February, I expressed some pessimism on the New York Times' decision to buy About.com for $410 million as a price of admission to learning about the power of Internet business models. Specifically, I said:
"I'm not optimistic that the Times will change their walled garden approach. Note that they charge long-time subscribers to the print edition like me $2.75 an article that I try to retrieve from their on-line archives a few weeks after I've received the physical newspaper, and thrown it away. I can more than likely get similar content on that subject on the web via Google, or even About.com for free (although possibly not as eruditely and eloquently written as it would be in the Times),
In a world where even the once mighty AOL is struggling while still trying to protect "valuable" and revenue producing content behind a walled garden, but losing the battle due to an increasing lack of differentiation with "free"content on the web, albeit internet advertising supported revenue, it's about time for the New York Times to give these issues a deep, hard think, and maybe $410 million is the price of admission."
Well, over half a year later, we see that things have not changed.
Yes, this is the umpteenth blog post criticizing the New York Times' recent decision to move its op-ed columnist content behind the subscription wall, and brand it NY TimesSelect. Jay Rosen, Associate Professor of Journalism at NYU has a particularly informed post on the decision.
Call it my mild-mannered version of Jeff Jarvis' Dell Hell campaign, which I posted on a few weeks ago.
The letter by Leonard Apcar, the editor-in-chief of the NY Times.com, explaining this move, is worth a gander (via a great post by Brian Storms). A highlighted benefit in the his letter to readers:
"TimesSelect subscribers can also engage with our columnists through video interviews and Web-only postings."
Yes, right...what a truly compelling benefit. I'll be sure to add it to my list of compelling things to do daily.
As a two decade plus subscriber and loyal fan of the company's print product, I was 
irked by the initial announcement, but understood it, given the financial difficulties the paper has been having on the circulation side. The accompanying two-year stock price chart from Yahoo! Finance tells part of the story.
So I didn't like it as a user, and didn't agree with it as an outsider, arm-chair strategist, but understood why they might have felt they had to do it. If a $50/year subscription is their price for their content, so be it.
Although I dare-say they might get equal or more from paid-search type of advertising on the web.
What bothers me is the utter lack of execution finesse in getting paying readers across the wall. As a subscriber who gets home delivery of the paper, I thought it'd be a simple matter to get "subscribed" to TimesSelect online.
Before we get there, here's a sub-rant. Why do I have to subscribe to TimeSelect in the first place if it's already supposed to be available to me as a home subscriber? They have all my information, my credit card data, my address, my log-ins...why can't they just make the TimeSelect section automatically available when I log in next?
The answer most likely are disparate internal IT systems that don't talk to each other.
So I did go online to subscribe, and the first thing it asks for is my NY Times account number, with a picture of where to find it on the address label.
Of course, since my paper is delivered in a plastic bag, it didn't have a label, so no account number. And since I've never gotten a statement from the company, I have no easy way to access it.
Putting in my credit card info didn't help either.
Next step was to revert to the 1-800 number customer service number, which took a few minutes to find on the obtusely designed web-site.
After waiting for almost 15 minutes, an operator comes on, and I tell her that I'm a subscriber and want to activate the TimeSelect feature. There's a pause on the line that makes it painfully clear that she hasn't the foggiest of what I'm talking about.
So I calmly explain the situation about how her company has announced this new "service" and I'm trying to get access to it. "Oh, it's an internet thing...you'd be best to activate that by going online sir", she says.
Don't you love talking to "customer service"?
So I ask her for my account number, which she gives me after a few more verification questions. I eagerly type in the dang thing into the form, submit, long spinning wheel, then a page comes up "sorry, our system is not available at this time, please try again later".
Maybe after I calm down after a few weeks I'll get around to doing it again.
Apparently, I'm not alone with this type of experience. As this piece by the Slate's Mickey Kaus describes it:
"I'm getting lots of complaints from paid Times subscribers along these lines:
[O]nce you do register, a laborious process, there's no log in to get the columns. And you can't register twice. So I'm shut out. ...You'd think, after months and months of planning, they'd at least satisfy their readers who went through the proper channels. ...
It's not reading my cookie right! ...
As a Times home subscriber, I get free access to Times Select, right? Well yes, but it took me a couple of 15 minute head scratching sessions to figure out how. First, you have to validate your subscription by entering your account number (which I don't know) or the credit card you're having billed for the subscription, which I did.
Then, you are still in trouble if you're already a registered reader of the regular free Times online—because you have to harmonize that registration with whatever you put in for the Times Select—the latter sign up isn't geared to start the process with the information from the former."
Ditto.
In the meantime, I'm on a NY columnist strike, at least until I calm down (maybe this post will help). No Thomas Friedman for me for a while, along with the rest of his august peers.
I can't imagine they're too happy about this state of affairs also...their readership has likely plummeted, and they have to do far more work "engaging" with the company's subscribers than doing their jobs writing interesting columns. As Brian Storms puts it so well:
"Actually, I doubt the engaging with columnists will be useful or interesting. It almost never is. Columnists are busy. How are they suddenly going to have time to engage with readers? I'd rather engage with them through their blogs. Oh. You don't let them have blogs, do you, Leonard"?
You can already see it anecdotally from the company's "most emailed" daily list, which used to be chockful of their op-ed columns. Now the lists are as bare as trees in winter.
It'd almost be interesting to start a pool here...how long before TimesSelect is deselected by the company? A few weeks, months or years? I mean if the once-mighty AOL has to bring down its walled content gardens, how is the New York Times going to be able to hold out?
UPDATE*
After finishing the above post, I decided to give NYTimes' customer service department another opportunity and called them again on the toll-free number. Guess the process of writing the post was therapeutic and calmed me down a bit from my rant stage.
Again, after a six minute wait, an operator came on...I explained the problem...she asked me for my user name and password for the online site...I gave them to her...she said she'd put me on hold briefly while she attended to my request...hold music comes on...stays on...goes on to the next track...and the next...17 minutes later, the music abruptly stops...no one comes on the line...I check...no voice, and no music...next second the line disconnects.
Leaving of course to dial again and go through the whole thing over again...
My frustration level goes up again...and my boycott of TimesSelect continues...
Comments