Views sought on FT.com

[Richard Poynder]

Hi,

I hope this is not OT. If it is, pointers to a more relevant US-oriented
list would be greatly appreciated.

I am currently working on an article about FT.com
(http://news.ft.com/home/us) for Information Today. Last week I
interviewed John Marcom, the President of the Financial Times in the US,
and I am now seeking some user views. As list members may be aware,
until May this year content on FT.com was all free. Now some of it is
free, plus there are two levels of subscriptions. Since the FT aims to
reach a somewhat similar audience to the Wall Street Journal it is
clearly seeking to tap into the subscription revenues that the Wall
Street Journal has enjoyed via its web site for some years now.

I would, therefore, appreciate any comments on the service and its move
to introduce subscription-based access. I am happy for any comments to
be either on or off the record. 

The kind of questions I have in mind are:

- what, if any, impact has the introduction of subscriptions on FT.com
had on your usage/your patron usage of the service?

- what are your views on the levels of subscription that have been
introduced by the FT?

- would you have preferred the FT to have opted for a different type of
paid-for access (pay-per-use for instance)? If so, why?

- how does FT.com now compare with other sources of business
information/news sources (in terms of cost, breadth of content
available, usability etc.), especially the Wall Street Journal/Business
Week, Economist etc.

- as more and more web services move to charge for their content, what
are the implications e.g. in terms of content availability, usability,
utility of the web etc.

- given the introduction of subscriptions on FT.com does the decision by
Pearson two years ago to sell FT Profile look any more or less
advisable?

Thanks in advance.

Richard Poynder



Richard Poynder    
Freelance Journalist
Phone: + 44 (0)191-386-0072
Mobile: 0793-202-4032
E-mail: richard.poynder at journalist.co.uk
Web: www.richardpoynder.com






*********************************************************************
Due to deletion of content types excluded from this list by policy,
this multipart message was reduced to a single part, and from there
to a plain text message.
*********************************************************************