You brought the wall down.
No, you're not liable for anything. In fact, you are to be commended. On Wednesday, TimesSelect, a subscription service to NYTimes.com, ceased operating, and you helped make it happen.
The Times sees more value in advertising revenue potential than it does in a paid subscription model, it explained in a Tuesday article and letter to readers. While this might seem petty in the mix of all other news, it's a landmark on the timeline of the Internet.
The facts aren't necessarily shocking, nor do they shake the foundation of our routines. Yet it says something about the state of the Internet when the frontrunner of newspaper Web sites opens its cyber doors to the masses.
The accessible content is trivial to the average college student, though avid readers of the Times value the archives and opinion writers who are no longer barred behind the subscription wall.
Oddly enough, you helped bring down that wall.
Observe...
"Since we launched TimesSelect in 2005, the online landscape has altered significantly," the Times' Web site said. "Readers increasingly find news through search, as well as through social networks, blogs, and other online sources. In light of this shift, we believe offering unfettered access to New York Times reporting and analysis best serves the interest of our readers, our brand, and the long-term vitality of our journalism."
That's you. You're the shift.
Thanks Facebook. Grazie MySpace. Danke Blogger.
Ciao, TimesSelect.
The service lasted two years to the day before the Times raised its white flag. The world of aggregated content, powered by people and exemplified by Google News, brought the online subscription model to its doom.
Put aside the educational reprint rights and consider the number of newspaper articles you've read for class. Now count how many of those were on newsprint when you read them.
You've likely seen more "NYTimes.com" and "WSJ.com" Web logos than print mastheads. And those logos probably appeared more by viral process - when an article was passed along or sent to you - than by you just casually browsing a news organization's Web site.
Bundle in those "Oh, crap this paper is due tomorrow and I haven't started," Google searches for sources. Recall the blogs with story summaries or links and the Facebook shares or groups revolving around a certain news item. (See: "Save Verizon Wireless Music Center.")
Even at a local level, your interest in sharing, commenting on and viewing these news sites feeds the advertising model NYTimes and other sites thrive on.
And then there's Wikipedia.
While the site is anything but citable, it often references rather thoughtful and worthwhile news items.
If for no other reason than accurate sources, the now free archive search at NYTimes.com is a great gift for those who helped break it out from the subscription jail cell. For the sake of future students' bibliographies we can only hope all online news sites follow.
And it appears one other big name might.
The Times and other internet articles list speculation that Rupert Murdoch is considering the same destiny for The Wall Street Journal's site. The Journal's subscription service is nearly one million strong, which adds up to close to $65 million in revenue annually, the Times article said.
There are downfalls. After all, this can't all just be "free." While subscription services go the way of AltaVista (never to be heard from again, that is), the cost will come at the expense of the user experience.
In other words be prepared for more inventive advertisements.
Luckily news sites still uphold standards in advertising practice, limiting or prohibiting horribly intrusive advertisements and pop-up windows. In a media landscape turning to integrated and focused marketing techniques, anything and everything will become fair game.
When that time comes, we consumers will have another wall to conquer.
Write to Dave at heydave@bewilderedsociety.com