Peter Levinson - on super hanc petram - gives his view about the NYT new subscription model and he explains in a simple but convincing chart, why he doesn't need the NYT "behind the subscription wall content"
There is too much content out there, not to be a good replacement ...
The table lists (some) main elements of the Times "op-ed page" and Peter suggests good "equivalent content supplied by the competition" ... more
That is a valid confirmation on my ongoing suspicion that content can't be the key driving force behind a winning subscription model in the web ... fortunately the NYT means more than content to many of us!
(Does the NYT's Marketing and Communication Department know about this?)