Times Select is Dead...

RIP TimesSelect. After being sent cease and desist letters from the NYTimes legal offices last year because we wrote a post making fun of the concept and used the logo at left, it seems they now agree. Yesterday TimesSelect was officially abandoned. We didn't read much of that stuff anyway, but were glad they've eased up. Check out Jeff Jarvis' excellent obit.

Comments (8)

I used TimesSelect when I left the country two years ago. It was a great way to keep in touch. The Times editorialists are first rate and the $49.95 was nothing to complain about.

posted by SeanG on September 20th 2007 at 11:57am
view SeanG's profile

I'm personally not saddened by its demise. As a fan of the Times, I'm also heartened that the reason they did so was a smart business choice, not a defeat. Because they can make more money selling online ads than subscriptions, it just made sense to make everything as available to as many eyes as possible.

posted by Terry B on September 20th 2007 at 12:06pm
view Terry B's profile

I resisted and did without Maureen Dowd for a while but I'm glad I did- was happy to hear NYTimes.com did away with their subscription service

posted by anyimage on September 20th 2007 at 1:11pm
view anyimage's profile

Yay!!!

About time!

I remember a Froomkin 'net discussion betting how long they would last (not if, but when). The Times was so dumb to do this to their columnists.

posted by mschatelaine on September 20th 2007 at 1:23pm
view mschatelaine's profile

as a subscriber to the paper, I got the online "select" for free.

I don't understand the "we didn't read much of that stuff anyway" comment. Really? People don't read the OpEd pages? Maureen Dowd drives me nuts, but I really look forward to that part of my morning. Having the New York Times as my hometown paper is one of the better things about living in NYC.

posted by Julianna on September 20th 2007 at 1:39pm
view Julianna's profile

I recently saw the CEO of Fairfax Media (a large Australian media company) speak about news in the internet age. He said that only 20% of revenue from newspapers comes from subscriptions. The other 80% comes from advertising. So making the switch to "free" online content isn't a drastic change in the revenue structure where 100% of revenue comes from advertising.

As an avid NYT reader and fan of the Op Eds, I was put off by the pay to view system and did not pay to subscribe. But select content was always posted elsewhere and could be tracked down via a Technorati search.

Cheers to the NYT for providing quality (easily accessible) journalism!

posted by stoat on September 20th 2007 at 2:39pm
view stoat's profile

I'm very happy that Times Select is gone. Now I can catch up on Maureen Dowd and Thomas Freidman.

The Times said that the reason they stopped Times Select is that it served it's purpose which was to get more subscriptions. I wonder if that's really the reason.

posted by anne on September 21st 2007 at 7:23am
view anne's profile

Hey anne, I did not see that in the NYTimes piece or the Jeff Jarvis piece. Did you read that somewhere else?

posted by jamie pup on September 21st 2007 at 8:36am
view jamie pup's profile