Alan Mutter on why the New York Times’ meter system should not be used as an industry-wide example:

While a revenue jolt like that is sure to grab the attention of any publisher, most newspapers in the rest of country lack the substantial body of compelling, exclusive content and the unparalleled concentration of wealthy readers that are enjoyed by the Times.

What the publishers do have, however, are any number of local broadcasters and other online competitors who will be only too happy to reprise, re-report or otherwise repurpose the stories for which the newspapers hope to charge.

I couldn’t agree more. The New York Times is unfairly — and incorrectly — used in “future of news” conversations. Unlike most news outlets, the Times has valuable information, an excellent track record, and a dedication to experimentation.

The Times may very well get away with a paywall (I tend to think not, but we’ll see). A dinky metro or a local that’s 2 degrees removed from the Weekly Shopper need to be realistic — you are not the New York Times. You might aspire to that, but in moments of honest reflection you’ll see that all the “want” in the world isn’t going to get you there.

On a related note: I’ve been around both academics and journalists, and I have yet to figure out which group overvalues their work more.

David Carr cuts through the naivete of “one paywall to rule them all” thinking:

Throwing up a big content wall would satisfy a visceral need on the part of journalists to have people pay for their work, but it would be a bet-the-company move at a very perilous time for media companies, including, yes, The New York Times. As it is, the company will use all levers — paper and digital, consumer and advertising, cost and investment — to maneuver very carefully through complicated waters.

Internet revenue is out there, but it must be aggregated from hundreds of sources: advertising, subscriptions, affiliate relationships, conferences, consulting, mobile, etc. Sustainability will come from the combination of appropriately scaled organizations (i.e. way smaller) and successful management of these myriad revenue sources. A tough task, no doubt, but this is the reality we face.

Anyone blaming the Globe’s ills solely on New York Times management is suffering from myopia. Granted, the Times made business blunders that put it in a bad position (heavy debt loads being chief among them), but the Globe’s problems are also linked to the systemic change rumbling through traditional media.

This is the flood. It’s going to wipe out a lot of the entrenched structures and we’ll all suffer through a period of transition and ambiguity. But ultimately, the new businesses that pop up (including a new and improved Globe) will be stronger and better positioned.

So I was thrilled to see the New York Times make Timothy Geithner’s ‘07-‘09 calendar available for all to see and investigate. I’d prefer a more robust database-driven option, but this is an excellent addition nonetheless.

On a related note, Wired had an excellent feature story in February that examined transparent data as a solution for the financial mess. Highly recommended.

This sums up The Boston Globe’s ills:

“The problem with the Boston Globe is this: (1) it has very large unfunded ($100mm-plus) liabilities, (2) it has union contracts that are unsustainable, (3) it’s advertising revenue is down more than 60% from just two years ago, (4) it loses (it says) about $7 million a month, and (5) its parent company is in acute financial distress.”