I don’t get it

Checked an article at the New York Times today about Google going for a share of the TV advertising pie and decided to sent the link to a friend. I used their “share” button and clicked “permalink”. This is what I got:


What I don’t get is the following. Their NYT archive is for subscribers only which is nonsense just because of the arguments Doc Searls lays down. They probably could make more money with Google AdSense when opening up their archives than they can by divying up some subscriber fees. But why do they offer permalinks for bloggers and not open up for site visitors? Anyone?



  1. I don’t think it is sampling. Because as a blog reader following a link to an article in the NYT it is not obvious if it is an archived article or not. Besides, because of the arguments mentioned in the post, it is a pretty bizarre tactic to use sampling for a product that is costing you money when you could make more by freeing the content 😉

Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in:

WordPress.com Logo

You are commenting using your WordPress.com account. Log Out /  Change )

Google+ photo

You are commenting using your Google+ account. Log Out /  Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out /  Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out /  Change )


Connecting to %s