Slashdot Mirror

← Back to Stories (view on slashdot.org)

Time Warner Properties May Only Be Available Through AOL

Posted by chrisd on from the since-it's-already-bought-and-paid-for dept.

ryman writes "According to MSNBC, Time Warner is considering making its online content available without charge only to AOL subscribers. Sounds like a desperate move to redeem AOL, but this will have to take on a big toll on its online readership."

7 of 374 comments (clear)

  1. Tying sites to a particular online service... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 5, Interesting

    ... is madness. What's needed is syndication: why can't I pay my ISP a few bucks a month for access to a package of properties of my choosing? TW's advertisers should revolt over this.

  2. Two things... by anthony_dipierro · · Score: 5, Interesting

    They should start out by just making it ad free through AOL. Then move to allowing extra features through AOL (premium stories, free music streaming). Then finally move to exclusive access.

    Secondly, they gotta offer direct PPP access as an alternative. No way I'm using their bloated client, no matter how many features they stuff into it.

  3. Proprietary content by Alomex · · Score: 5, Interesting


    This was long coming, since the announcement of the merger. Almost immediately we was a revival or the "AOL keyword" in addition to the URL in all Time-Warner owned media. Before that, the "AOL keyword" was nearly gone.

    The recent announcement suggests that this has not worked, hence the need for more radical measures. If AOL has critical mass, they can pull it off and make people pay AOL fees just to download, say, Britney's latest CD, or cool Star Wars trailers. If they don't have enough critical mass, all they will achive is to bring down the once mighty TimeWarner online properties along with AOL.

    So the real question is, does AOL have critical mass to carve out a proprietary section of the Web?

  4. Re:Why shouldnt they by scenic · · Score: 5, Interesting
    There's no reason you "can't" do this. But, I question whether it's a good idea, and in the best interests of your general readership.

    Personally, they should do it. It might save more interesting online news sources like Salon. :)

    sujal

    --

    politics, food, music, life: FatMixx

  5. Re:What's the point? by astrashe · · Score: 5, Interesting

    I don't know if anyone would buy AOL just for Time/Warner content, but it does sweeten the pot for some people.

    The people that I know who are on AOL are there for stuff that's not available on the net at large -- chatrooms, the parental controls on IMs that allow kids to chat with their friends, without worrying about predators, etc.

    I know parents who buy AOL even though they have broadband and home networks, for just this reason.

    This move would just make AOL that much nicer for the people who subscribe. By itself, it's not enough to swing anyone. But when you add it to the pile of AOL features that people like, it contributes to the cumulative effect.

    Since online readers of Time or People don't do the company much good anyway, it seems like a good move to me.

    I could see them doing something similar with online movies in the future -- bringing out stuff first for AOL customers, or whatever.

  6. Value of content? by peterdaly · · Score: 5, Interesting

    One of the real issues that may poke it's ugly head in all this is the value of TWAOL's content. How much is it worth? If you ask the executives, they probably can put a value on it. Is the value realistic? Maybe we will see.

    I really think this is something that needs to happen, and it's about time. Content has a percieved value in old economy companies which is based on physical distribution mechanisms.

    Right now the value of content is not known in my my mind. I don't think anyone else really knows either.

    Just look at Salon.com. They, probably more than any other company, are in a battle to define the correct value of their content. At some point we need to progress beyond 1980's paradigms of content value in large media companies as well. Salon.com is in the thick of it as we are reading this. We see headlines almost weekly about their quest to break even, much less turn a profit. Salon has a problem that online content is their only product. AOLTW has other lines of business and markets to help keep them afloat. Maybe now it is AOL Time Warner's turn to test the waters and discover, or at least try to, the real value of their content.

    I don't see this as a bad thing.

    -Pete

    --
    Soccer Goal Plans
  7. Re:Why shouldnt they by stinky+wizzleteats · · Score: 5, Interesting

    I'm a company, I've made some content and I only want people who are "members" and "customers" of my company to see this contaent..why cant I do this?

    Well, I'm certainly no fan of CNN, and wouldn't mind a bit if its web presence evaporated as a result of this foolishness. That having been said...

    As a company, you can do whatever you want under the law. If you start a company under the pretense that you are providing "free" (cnn.com had a ton of ads the last time I went there) news content on the Internet, develop a huge readership, and then start charging for the service (through AOL membership or otherwise), nothing is legally wrong with that.

    However, don't be surprised if the rest of the world thinks you are a flaming scumbag for doing so. The last time I checked, my right to think that, say that, and gather a group together to discuss it were constitutionally protected.