David has blogged with a reference to a site that (re)publishes the NZ Herald premium content. The new site is probably a breach of copyright.
Notwithstanding the copyright issues identified I have been thinking about blogging on the Herald's premium subscription plan from the market perspective. In short I think it is doomed to failure and will be up there with more illustrious Dailies - choosing the same folly.
If I am left having to find local source, I actively seek to link with scoop or stuff rather than NZ Herald articles following the Herald's decision. My little protest. I always attribute so cannot see why the beef - it will not be a revenue spinner for the Herald. Note - use the inFocus links if you have to as they will last longer...
I think I have seen a greater use of Stuff among fellow bloggers since the Herald's decision.
Back to my point on failure along with other Dailies - Go look at Spartacus where the blogger predicts the failure of the NY Times' premium subscription program within six months. He has a "Death Watch" banner running counting the days. His comments are apposite and resonate nicely with those made on David Farrar's post. Namely who will pay $49.95 to read OpEd pieces they can read for free elsewhere.
I think there is a similar consensus with the Herald columnists (witness their palace revolt elsewhere in the blogosphere - forming a collective sugested Bwown) - and the rest of us are thinking I'll read the hard copy at home or in the cafe.My bet is that there are relatively few folks who want to pay this sort of money for the type of opinion they can read for free elsewhere. I suspect that this move will prove to be very unpopular among the columnists themselves, as their readership (and therefore influence) declines, at least among the blogosphere.
I give it six months before they throw in the towel.
Finally - $49.95 in the US does not fit well with $99 here - NZ Herald have pitched it too high. A dollar is a dollar where ever you are.
Posts
No comments:
Post a Comment