Re: New strategy at NY Times and libraries

["Michael McCulley" <mmcculley@sandiego.gov>]

Not really, Ann.. I have seen the news reports. We buy the NY 
Times Archive, and it covers the period now from Sep 18, 1851 to 
Dec 31, 2003, and rolls forward one year periodically. The free 
public domain content is an extra, but the period not covered 
(1923-1986) is safely available within our archives. So, we at 
this point don't plan any changes.

I think the ProQuest staff will probably re-evaluate the pricing, 
based on this change, and I would suspect the price would come 
down.

There's a common value in finding all content in a single 
location; having users jump here or there or wherever isn't a 
good strategy when you have a one stop option, IMHO. "Save the 
time" applies here.

The most interesting point here is that subscription revenue 
isn't as "good or rich" as ad revenue, so the NYT is changing 
their model. This could bode well for other publications and 
sites in the future. That is, an ad-only model can work well.

My $.02..

Best,
Michael
*speaking only for himself*

P. Michael McCulley, Librarian II / Information & Technology
San Diego Public Library, 820 E Street, CA 92101-6478
Phone: 619-238-6678 / FAX: 619-238-6639
E-mail: mmcculley@sandiego.gov

>>> ann.okerson@yale.edu 9/18/2007 4:43 PM >>>

Readers,

I forwarded a little while ago a piece of today's longer article 
in the New York Times about their decision to stop charging for 
archives and some current materials.  I believe libraries have 
paid a significant sum of money for the back issues that will now 
be available for free (e.g., before 1923).  Should we now be 
dropping out of those arrangements?

This article may also be of interest in our thread about business 
models to sustain publishing, even though the item at issue here 
is a newspaper rather than a specifically scholarly journal or 
database.

Ann Okerson/Yale