It looks obvious

The New York Times decided to open its content to non-paying readers. The reason behind the decision was simple, the NY Times calculated that they can earn more money from selling add for higher traffic than from subscriptions and advertisement for less readers. While I’m sure that the NY Times calculations were thorough I’m a little bit skeptical about business model that relay on one source of income. 

It become a commonly agreed assumption that consumers would not pay for content, or web services. Furthermore,  the wide variety of options would drive the, much praised, "traffic" to those services that will offer free service. Those free services build their business model on high traffic and the ability to sell advertisement. But this isn’t necessarily true. Some of the most successful web services are paid services - Basecamp, SaleForce and others - are charging for the services they provide. Their business model tied not by the amount of traffic they generate but by offering consistent quality. And, not surprisingly, people are willing to pay for quality. 

I have no moral issue with business model that is based on advertisement. I reject, however, the moral objections to paid service. I was a paying costumer of time selected (the previously paid service of the NY times), I’m a paying customer of the WSJ, The Atlantic and of the printed version of Reason. I’m a willing to pay for services that I consider as worth my money. And for practical reason I doubt the wisdom of solely relaying on one, not the most stable, source of income.