14 comments

• 

  CyndyA

  1 year ago

  It's cool, but your commenter is on the money; is it to little too late? Some days I can't remember the hack to get around the WSJ pay wall and I look elsewhere for a source. It gets so you just work around them as a source at all.
  reply
• 

  StevenHodson

  1 year ago

  as nice as this is and done in the typical Canuck "follow the south of the border" fashion :) do you know if they will be opening the RSS feeds to full text as well or are they going to stick with the current headline fashion ala CNN?
  reply
• 

  mathewi

  1 year ago

  Well, as far as the following goes I guess we followed when it came
  down, but the NYT followed us in putting it up -- we had a
  subscription model first (if that's anything to be proud of). I'm
  afraid I can't say whether the full-text feed wall will be the next to
  fall or not, Steven :-)
  reply
• 

  Mark Evans

  1 year ago

  I'm going to miss the messages that if I want to pay to access a particular archived article....:)
  reply
• 

  Rahaf Harfoush

  1 year ago

  I was at a conference the other day where the NYT R&D guys were speaking. They said that while providing content for free increased users, they still saw that people were willing to pay for archival content. Even when they upped the price they saw no decline in users. So their model is evolving into Current=Free, Old=Pay.
  
  What do you think?
  reply
• 

  mathewi

  1 year ago

  That's interesting, Rahaf. I can't speak for the Globe on this point,
  but 'm not sure whether paying for archives makes much more sense than
  paying for the current news and commentary.
  
  I think if you want to re-use or re-publish the content in some way
  then maybe we should charge for that, but when it comes to just
  reading and/or linking to archives I don't know why we wouldn't make
  that free as well -- the assumption being that by making them freely
  available we increase the value to advertisers and benefit from the
  "long tail" effect.
  
  Of course, I have no way of knowing whether that would compensate for
  the money that we currently make from charging for access to the
  archives :-)
  reply
• 

  AGORACOM

  1 year ago

  Mathew, ironic that we were speaking about this at Mesh. Looks like your lobbying paid off.
  
  I personally never paid for the premium content and never intended to - but tell your G&M gang they count on one more eyeball now.
  
  George
  reply
• 

  mathewi

  1 year ago

  Thanks, George -- just one eyeball though? :-)
  reply
• 

  Tim Burden

  1 year ago

  I fail to see how the Globe will experience a "surge" in uniques when the archives are still blocked. I find it seriously unlikely that new readers will surge in for Blatch and Simpson. So, I find it unlikely that it was done for the same reasons that the NYT did it.
  
  Also, what the hell do senior editors know about the web? Not much, if they think that linking to stories that will be blocked after some period of time is something bloggers (or others) will want to do.
  
  The locks are most certainly NOT off.
  reply
• 

  mathewi

  1 year ago

  Tim, for what it's worth I think that unlocking the archives would be a great idea, and have promoted that idea as much as one human being possibly can :-)
  reply
• 

  Tim Burden

  1 year ago

  I know...and applaud...but that's why I was surprised to see you adding to your company's rhetoric. "The locks are off" - no they aren't. "Globe and Mail pay wall comes down" - no it doesn't. "Why did the paper decide to drop the wall?" It didn't.
  reply
• 

  mathewi

  1 year ago

  I'm not sure that's totally fair, Tim. The locks are off and the wall
  is down for the columnists and other content that was previously
  subscription only -- I don't think that's insignificant, especially
  for an organization like the Globe.
  reply
• 

  Tim Burden

  1 year ago

  Granted. I feel you may have increased the likelihood of conflation, though, by comparing what the G&M did with what the NYT did. Taking the pay wall off some current columns is a far cry from opening up the archives, with dramatically different business reasons behind each move and wildly different results to be expected.
  
  And anyway, you have to admit the headline is hyperbolic. "Some of the locks are off" would be accurate. "The locks are off (of some stuff we thought people would pay for but they wouldn't)" would also be accurate. "The locks are off" is quite plainly false. It's like saying "The oil is in Alberta."
  reply
• 

  Chris

  1 year ago

  It sounds like that the "market" (the public) is demanding access to information timely or otherwise in order to make informed decisions and participate in this experiment called, 'quasi-democracy'. I can't help but hope that some of the Globe's executives asked themselves the question, "Do we work for the bottom line or do we work for ourselves as citizens in a state where ultimately all our fates are tied together and the smarter we are the better for all!" Oh how painfully idealistic of me, however I do believe that as a twenty something, with tattoos and skateboard in hand we heed the words of Noam Chomsky and Howard Zinn and want what's best for our planet as a whole not just what's best for the shareholders of large corporations.
  Good for you Mathew Ingram for holding to the ideal that free access to varied sources of information is key to our country, in fact our planets future. If you think that is too far ranging and too wide of scope to be considered, rendering it useless remember... if millions of Chinese and Indian consumers buy cars, does that not affect the air my child will breathe? We are one planet. We need many sources of data to come to rational choices for our path forward.
  ME
  reply