A couple of weeks ago, the New York Times removed the pay wall in front of its TimesSelect service, which controlled access to much of the paper's archives and its popular columnists like Thomas Friedman and Frank Rich. Unfortunately, much of the paper's non-wire service content still sits behind an utterly useless and annoying registration wall.
The Times says the reason they ask for registration is to be "able to offer people around the world free-of-charge access to news, reviews and more." But is it really necessary? Can't they do all those things without annoying users? Do to they get anything out of it? I don't think so.
I think the New York Times registration system is hurting them for a handful of reasons:
So what does the Times get out of all of this? User info that might be helpful for marketing and ad sales if it wasn't polluted by bogus entries, a few sign ups to their email newsletters (which are opt-in and unchecked by default on the sign up form, so probably not that many), and a bunch of pissed off readers. Is it worth it?
To be fair, the New York Times isn't the only newspaper that locks content behind a stupid registration wall. The Washington Post, the LA Times, and other major papers have the same annoying habit. There is a simple way for the New York Times to tear down their registration wall and still capture user data and encourage users to sign up for their newsletters.
They can begin by removing registration requirements on all of their content and adding some reason for people to register. The most likely path is to take a page from other news sites and add social features like comments, article rating, and blogs. Not only would the Times only require registration from users who are interested in registering, but they would be capturing information about their most engaged users. The Washington Post is actually halfway there -- they already offer a lot of added utility to users who register, but unfortunately, they still require registration simply to view much of their content.
TrackBack URL for this entry: http://www.readwriteweb.com/cgi-bin/mt/mt-tb.cgi/1676
Comments
Subscribe to comments for this post OR Subscribe to comments for all Read/WriteWeb posts
who cares?
nyt has by far the lowest friction login system of any website i use - i registered in about 1998 with a hotmail address that hasn't worked since about 1999 and i am basically never asked to re-login - it's actually about the least annoying log in out there
http://mattishness.com
Posted by: mathew johnson | October 5, 2007 11:52 AM
The other half of the problem is that the paper is ideological and only gives its readers one side of every story. I like walls and I urge the Times to build it back up again.
Posted by: Jeff | October 5, 2007 12:30 PM
I agree with Matthew. NYT has been the least painful as far as login system. The worst has to be blogs that require you to register to leave a comment. I used to be of the latter because I didn't know any better until couple of readers pointed out how annoying it was for them.
In the end, however, I agree with you more. If NYT really wants to open up, login system has to go.
Posted by: Emon | October 5, 2007 12:31 PM
Sorry Josh, this is much ado about very little... I registered once, it dropped a cookie on my systems and, unless I delete my cookies for some reason, I never see that screen again. If a one time registration that takes 10 seconds is too much for you, well, I really don't know what to say.
About the ideological point... Yes it is. Any edited source is ideological in that it makes choices. No wall is needed to protect you however - take responsibility and go read whichever source fits your biases. One of the great things about the web is that I can read a multiplicity of sources from around the world without ever leaving my house or paying a cent.
Posted by: rick gregory | October 5, 2007 12:56 PM
This seems to be another post by a blogger who feels what is appropriate for blogs is the most appropriate solution for everyone. Paying for content is silly, advertising is the solution to everything.
Here are a couple reasons the nytimes is doing it right
1> Most people only have to log in once every couple of years.
Most computer users don't install new broswers or use multiple computers or fool around with their cookies- so they can log in once and forget about the registration wall
2> Many people would not think to lie on a web form. Although heavy internet users who frequently register at new sites to try them out may get annoyed at the process, this is not the average user.
3> Advertisers will pay for targeting.
Posted by: mike | October 5, 2007 2:03 PM
I agree with Mathew. It is not all that annoying. I wouldn't mind this small one time registration for the kinda quality they offer. Are you guys running out of stories on friday :-). This is not even a topic worthy of a post.
Posted by: Krish | October 5, 2007 2:36 PM
Agree with #1 (Matthew) and all others... NYT has the simplest registration ever. For each new computer I get on, I know I have to enter my un/pass once, and never again. Contrast that with the Washington Post, which asks for the password every 5 minutes, and I will take the NYT anytime.
Posted by: Eddie | October 5, 2007 2:53 PM
I guess I'm alone on this one. I still find unnecessary registration schemes an annoyance (and was using the Times as a representation for any of them -- since it has annoyed me most recently). Making you users sign up and not providing any added utility for doing so -- especially when they are doing something benign like reading (i.e., something not susceptible to spam like commenting) -- is bad form for any site.
I would venture that since it is the most popular site on BugMeNot.com I must not be completely alone in thinking their reg scheme is annoying. But it would appear that readers of this blog don't think agree. ;)
Also, maybe this is the exception, but in the past few months I've had to resign-up for the New York Times site at least 3 or 4 times even though I've never clear my cookies since buying this laptop (about a year ago), signed up with real (albeit free/web-based) email accounts, and didn't share. So now, I just use BugMeNot, but I'd rather they ditch it completely.
@Mike: You're right on #2... many casual users would just not use the service than give up personal info. ;) And re: #3, I'm theorizing that they have a lot of garbage data that isn't useful at all to advertisers.
Posted by: Josh Catone | October 5, 2007 3:14 PM
It IS an annoyance for the times you want to include NYT links in, say, an email or IM and you have no idea if the recipient is registered. You can't assume they are, so you need to run the URL through the NYT Link Generator to get a link that doesn't require registration (the style of link used in blogs--or should be, anyway).
Posted by: Rick | October 5, 2007 10:47 PM
It's a privacy issue.
I don't want the NYT or any paper tracking what I read. If I choose to hide my IP address and hide my web-browser-identifying information that's a good clue that I don't want to be tracked.
Posted by: davidwr | October 6, 2007 6:51 AM
The registration thing is no biggie; what I hate is the click to see page 2, 3, et.c of a longer story. It's almost as bad as going back and forth from page 1 to the middle of the print edition to read the articles. Why they feel the need to do this electronically is a mystery. And a time waster. Do i really need to see the java/flash/whatever advertisements reload every time?
Posted by: scott | October 7, 2007 1:41 PM