The New York Times Paywall For And Against

Edmund Lee, in Bloomberg, is for:

More than a year and a half later, it's clear the New York Times' paywall is not only valuable, it's helped turn the paper's subscription dollars, which once might have been considered the equivalent of a generous tithing, into a significant revenue-generating business. As of this year, the company is expected to make more money from subscriptions than from advertising - the first time that's happened.

Mathew Ingram, in GigaOM, is against (kind of):

In the end, newspapers watching the Times have to ask themselves not just whether they can duplicate the short-term revenue success of the paper's paywall (which some or all of them may be unable to do), but also what happens when that still doesn't make up for the decline in ad revenue.

Whenever I read anything about the downward pressure on CPM aka ad revenue, I go right back to Michael Wolff's piece on Facebook sucking the life out of the Web. I did write in Wolff's linked post that paywalls and site subscriptions are looking like the way forward but then what happens to online advertising? It's not just going to go away - it's a multi-billion dollar industry. You don't just sweep that under the rug. But then how do you get users to accept that in order to play, they need to pay?