Come on, NYT, shouldn't I get, say, 5 free hits for each one of these you send me?

by Ken

I'll bet you got one of these in your inbox too. (By the way, you can click on it to enlarge. Why you would want to is a curious question, but heck, none of my beeswax. I know some people like to do stuff just 'cause they, you know, can.) If you were smart, you just deleted it without reading it and went on with your life, or whatever part of life is represented by slogging through you e-mail inbox. But then, there's that name, TimesLimited. Does that sound important or what? What yo-yo at nytimes.com was so foolish as to leave this out of the e-mail subject line?

Ooh my, TimesLimited! Sounds, you know, serious -- insider-ish. My goodness, "exclusive offers"! Be still, my heart.

Then it turns out to be just some cheesy marketing ploy designed to sell us e-boxloads of what I assume is unending of overpriced trash. Excuse me, I stand corrected. What the ritzy swells, the chi-chi limiteds who sign up for TimesLimited, are promised is "exceptional opportunities in live entertainment, dining, travel, lifestyle and much more." (Don't tell me we're talking about yet another Groupon imitator.) And don't forget: "Each offer is only available for a limited time and in limited quantities -- so don’t miss out on all that TimesLimited has for you." Who could refuse an offer like that?

It isn't every day that one is offered exceptional opportunities in lifestyle. Oh wait, it's exactly every day that we are. Though I suppose this is a notch above all the ones that offer "a chance to win" some lovely merchandise, or good old-fashioned cash, that in reality we have no chance to win.

Somehow I can't help feeling, NYT folks, that our relationship has taken an unfortunate turn. You used to welcome me into your e-house and let me treat it as my own personal reading e-room. Until you decided that no, I could only sit out on the e-porch and score 20 hits a month. But heck, I understood. Given the economics of print media (lousy and getting worse), and the non-economics of online media (?????), you had to give it the old college try. And I'm even rooting for you to extract enough bucks via this new system to burnish the old bottom line. I understand that you can't generate the content you put online for free, and if somebody doesn't pay for it, it's not going to be there.

(I know I was grumpily ungrateful for your thoughtfulness in bundling other digital media -- you know all those fancyphones and smarttablets with all their fancypants "apps" -- at the very same inclusive price for monthly e-access. Maybe I was overreacting in taking this as a "F*&k you!" to those of us who live appless lives. But I'm only human, and couldn't get beyond what seemed a crude way of forcing us to subsidize those happy-go-lucky appspeople.)

As I've mentioned, ever since I discovered that I can accidentally forget the new order and click on a NYT link and presumably have it put on my running e-tab, I've become a teensy bit paranoid about clicking through. I don't know how they reckon the e-months exactly, and I haven't cared enough to find out, but I'm guessing that my e-tab, far from closing in on 20, hasn't hit 5.

In fairness, considering that you've allotted all of us cheapskate unworthies out here those 20 free hits a month, maybe I have to allow you a certain number of free hits on my e-mail inbox. Fair enough. We just have to work out what that number is.

Meanwhile, I'm counting, TimesNudniks. That's 1.

#