Paying for Content

Trying to Wean Internet Users From Free
The New York Times is trying to make up for declines in its traditional revenue by charging for portions of its Web site.

I find this slightly amusing. The NY Times has a portion of its online content as subscriber only. Recently, under this new pay content, demarcated by a nifty orange "T", is an article on just that subject--namely, how the NY Times is trying to charge for content.

The catch is that as interesting as the article looks, one can only read it if one is already a subscriber. Thus, paying to read an article about paying to read articles.

Is that ironic? I'm not sure. Dave Eggers (who apparently used to be a regular writer for salon.com) had some "author's notes" in the back of his book "A Heartbreaking Work of Staggering Genius". In the notes, which are written in about a five point font, just big enough to cause chronic squinting, he goes on about the overuse of the "ironic" situations one might confront. I don't even want to try to encapsulate the breathtaking spin he put on ironic, but he offers alternative words for almost any situation that people would feel inclined to call ironic, but would be better served by those alternative words.

It makes you realize how much of a cliche "ironic" truly is. So, is an article about paying to read that is accessible only by those who have already paid ironic? Maybe, but more likely it's genius marketing ploy.