New York Times Opens Site, Who is Next? »
Early this week, the New York Times stopped charging for access to parts of the web site. Obviously part of this comes from the fact that online advertising is doing well. Just look at Google to see this - a huge amount of their profit is derived from advertising.
I've long maintained that access to online data should remain open, and it's really irritated me when it doesn't. I strive to keep the archives here available - a feat which isn't easy if I move things around. And I understand that it's not always easy to do if you have as much data as a newspaper or an online portal. But storage is cheap and advertising plentiful. Why shouldn't archives be free?
Long, long ago - we're talking years - I stopped providing links to Yahoo! because their news would expire after a time. I think it was 90 days, but I can't be sure because I stopped doing it so long ago. These days, I don't even go to Yahoo! any longer. Does this make Yahoo! inherently less useful than other sites? For some, I'm sure it does. I've seen some interesting thoughts about whether their mail product is catching up with the offering from Google. But for search, news, that sort of thing? I don't use it. Do you?
I read the Charlotte Observer every day - from my couch. I used to read it online, but it's just not the same experience. But I also stopped linking to them, for the same reason as Yahoo! - because the links expire, and quite frankly, I don't have the time to go looking about for dead links. If I link to something, I expect it to stay there. If I can keep something online, why in the world can these organizations not do so?
I can think of only two reasons.
One is that the news becomes irrelevant, and this argument makes a certain amount of sense - after a time, it does. But from an archival perspective, it still has value, so this position doesn't really have a leg to stand on. I'm sure many of the things I post don't have any use as I post them - but I still look back from time to time to see them, and so do articles in the newspaper, just because. Let's move on.
Two is that it costs too much. I'm sorry, but storage is cheap and it gets cheaper all the time. Even though you're talking about a lot of data, if that system is properly architected, it should be something that is doable. Not to mention that a larger organization should generally have a larger budget and an easier time selling advertising (not to mention better pageviews) than a smaller one. If I can afford it, so can you.
So, with that, who's next?
