“Trimming the Times”: The Atlantic Wire’s new feature wants you to make the most of your 20 clicks

Add another entry into the growing group of New York Times meter-beating strategies: The Atlantic Wire is now providing a daily summary of the best content in the paper. “Now that the New York Times pay wall is live, you only get 20 free clicks a month,” Adam Martin notes in his introduction to the new feature. “For those worried about hitting their limit, we’re taking a look through the paper each morning to find the stories that can make your clicks count.”

“Trimming the Times” isn’t — per its framing, at least — about gaming the Times’ meter, per se; it’s about helping readers navigate stories within an ecosystem that, from the payment perspective, punishes aimless exploration. The inaugural edition of the feature is 400 words and change, with short graphs pointing to stories on the NYT’s front page and its various sections: Global, U.S., Business, Technology, Health, Sports, Opinion, and Arts.

So, essentially, The Atlantic Wire is curating and then summarizing the information the Times has curated and then summarized. Meta!

Here’s how Trimming sums up today’s front page:

Leading today’s paper: A report on the fallout of all those defections on the Libyan government, news that the U.S. will likely not arm the rebels there, and a House of Representatives committee is shocked, shocked! at the high salaries of officials at government-backed lenders Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac. Our top pick for today: Mad Men is saved!

First, it has to be said, Trimming’s wise selection of Don Draper’s Deliverance as the day’s top story demonstrates the validity of its editorial judgment. It also, however, suggests Trimming’s emphasis on curation (service!) over pure aggregation (menace?) — think Today’s Papers, with only one Paper. Introductions of stories with notes like “a worthwhile report,” “you’ll want to read how,” “we’re fascinated by,” and the like create an editorial sensibility that makes the feature feel less like a parasitic repurposing of NYT content and more like a respectful tribute to it.

Anyway, Trimming’s a neat idea — a reminder of the editorial and business opportunities that a paywall at one organization can represent for its fellows, whether foe or friend. It also suggests the cross-platform layering of editorial content that’s increasingly defining the news space: single stories spread across outlets, their look and their length — though not necessarily their core information — changing in the stretch. The value of this kind of meta-curated feature is, it’s worth noting, largely independent of the Times’ paywall. Though the meter thing makes for a nice hook — and though it adds a nicely service-y (and cheeky) element to Trimming as a feature — a cogent, curated summary of the best content in the nation’s paper of record is a useful thing as a general rule, meter or no.

Still, though, it’ll be interesting to see whether the Times’ monthly meter affects monthly traffic patterns for The Atlantic Wire’s newest feature. Today being the first of the month, users’ article-view meters, as of early this morning, have been rolled back to zero. Human nature being what it is, the budgeting mindset — the voice of reason that reminds you to use your clicks wisely throughout the month — probably won’t kick in until at least Article 10 or 15 (or, more realistically, 19). But Trimming wants to be the superego to your web-wandering Id. “It’s the first of the month so your clicks have reset,” Martin acknowledges. But: “You still must budget.”

Image by James Bowe used under a Creative Commons license.

This Week in Review: Navigating the Times’ pay-plan loopholes, +1 for social search, and innovation ideas

Every Friday, Mark Coddington sums up the week’s top stories about the future of news.

Putting the Times’ pay plan in place: If you read last week’s review, the first half of this week’s should feel like déjà vu — lots of back-and-forth about the wisdom of The New York Times’ new online pay plan, and some more hand-wringing about getting around that plan. If you want to skip that and get to the best stuff, I recommend Staci Kramer, David Cohn, and Megan Garber.

The Times launched its pay system Monday with a letter to its readers (snarkier version courtesy of Danny Sullivan), along with a 99-cent trial offer for the first four weeks and free access for people who subscribe to the Times on Kindle. Times digital chief Martin Nisenholtz gave a launch-day talk to newspaper execs, highlighted by his assertion that the link economy is not a win-win for content producers and aggregators.

Meanwhile, the discussion about the paywall’s worth rolled on. You can find a good cross-section of opinions in this On Point conversation with Ken Doctor, the Journal Register’s John Paton, The Times’ David Carr, and NYTClean creator David Hayes. The plan continues to draw support from some corners, including The Onion (in its typically ironic style, of course) and PC Magazine’s Lance Ulanoff. Former Financial Times reporter Tom Foremski and Advertising Age columnist Simon Dumenco both made similar arguments about the value of the plan, with Foremski urging us to support the Times as a moral duty to quality journalism and Dumenco ripping the blogosphere’s paywall-bashers for not doing original reporting like the Times.

And though the opposition was expressed much more strongly the past two weeks, there was a smattering of dissent about the plan this week, too — some from the Times’ mobile users. One theme among the criticism was the cost of developing the plan: Philip Greenspun wondered how the heck the Times spent $40 million on planning and implementation, and former Guardian digital head Emily Bell wrote about the opportunity cost of that kind of investment. BNET’s Erik Sherman proposed that the Times should have invested the money in innovation instead.

A few other interesting thoughts about the Times’ pay plan before we get to the wall-jumping debate: Media consultant Judy Sims said the plan might actually make the Times more social by providing an incentive for subscribers to share articles on social networks to their non-subscribing friends. Spot.Us’ David Cohn argued that the plan is much closer to a donation model than a paywall and argued for the Times to offer membership incentives. And Reuters’ Felix Salmon talked about how the proposal is changing blogging at the Times.

PaidContent’s Staci Kramer said the Times is fighting an uphill battle in the realm of public perception, but that struggle is the Times’ own fault, created by its way-too-complicated pay system.

The ethics of paywall jumping: With the Times’ “pay fence” going into effect, all the talk about ways to get around that fence turned into a practical reality. Business Insider compiled seven of the methods that have been suggested: A browser extension, Twitter feeds, using different computers, NYTClean and a User Script’s coding magic, Google (for five articles a day), and browser-switching or cookie-deleting. Mashable came up with an even simpler one: delete “?gwh=numbers” from the Times page’s URL.

Despite such easy workarounds, the Times is still cracking down in other areas: As Search Engine Land’s Danny Sullivan noted, it blocks links from all Google sites after the five-articles-per-day limit is reached. The Times also quickly (and successfully) requested a shutdown of one of the more brazen free-riding schemes yet concocted — NYT for a Nickel, which charged to access Times articles without paywall restrictions. (It also established a pattern for unauthorized Twitter aggregators and bookmarklets: You’re fine, as long as you don’t use the Times’ name.)

So we all obviously can crawl through the Times’ loopholes, but should we? A few folks made efforts to hack through the ethical thicket of the Times’ intentional and unintentional loopholes: Times media critic James Poniewozik didn’t come down anywhere solid, but said the Times’ leaky strategy “makes the paywall something like a glorified tip jar, on a massive scale—something you choose to contribute to without compulsion because it is the right thing” — except unlike those enterprises, it’s for-profit. In a more philosophical take, the Lab’s Megan Garber said the ethical conundrum shows the difficulty of trying to graft the physical world’s ethical assumptions onto the digital world.

A possible +1 for publishers: Google made a big step in the direction of socially driven search this week with the introduction of +1, a new feature that allows users to vote up certain search results in actions that are visible to their social network. Here are two good explainers of the feature from TechCrunch and Search Engine Land, both of whom note that +1′s gold mine is in allowing Google to personalize ads more closely, and that it’s starting on search results and eventually moving to sites across the web.

The feature was immediately compared to Facebook’s “Like” and Twitter’s retweets, though it functions a bit differently from either. As GigaOM’s Mathew Ingram noted, because it’s Google, it’s intrinsically tied to search, which is both an advantage and a disadvantage. As Ingram said, it’s smart to add more of a social component to search, but Google’s search-centricity makes the “social network” aspect of +1 awkward, just as Buzz and Wave were. To paraphrase the argument of Frederic Lardinois of NewsGrange: if your +1′s go into your Google Profile and no one sees them, do they really make a sound?

All this seems to be good news for media sites. Lost Remote’s Cory Bergman said that if they essentially become “improve the SEO of this site” buttons, media companies will be pretty motivated to add them to their sites. Likewise, Poynter’s Damon Kiesow reasoned that +1 could be a great way for media sites to more deeply involve visitors who arrive via Google, who have typically been less engaged than visitors from Facebook and Twitter.

Shrinking innovation to spur it: This month’s Carnival of Journalism focuses on how to drive innovation, specifically through the Knight News Challenge and Reynolds Journalism Institute. Most of the posts rolled in yesterday, and they contain a litany of quick, smart ideas of new directions for news innovation and how to encourage it.

A quick sampling: City University London and Birmingham City University j-prof Paul Bradshaw proposed a much broader, smaller-scale News Challenge fund, with a second fund aimed at making those initiatives scale. J-Lab Jan Schaffer said we need to quit looking at innovation so much solely in terms of tools and more in terms of processes and relationships. British journalist Mary Hamilton and Drury j-prof Jonathan Groves both focused on innovation in training, with Groves proposing “innovation change agents” funded by groups like Knight and the RJI to train and transform newsrooms.

Also, University of British Columbia j-prof Alfred Hermida opined on the role of theory in innovation, Lisa Williams of Placeblogger advocated a small-scale approach to innovation, and the University of Colorado’s Steve Outing had some suggestions for the RJI fellowship program.

The mechanics of Twitter’s information flow: Four researchers from Yahoo and Cornell released a study this week analyzing, as they called it, “who says what to whom on Twitter.” One of their major findings was that half the information consumed on Twitter comes from a group of 20,000 “elite” users — media companies, celebrities, organizations, and bloggers. As Mathew Ingram of GigaOM observed, that indicates that the power law that governs the blogosphere is also in effect on Twitter, and big brands are still important even on a user-directed platform.

The Lab’s Megan Garber noted a few other interesting implications of the study, delving into Twitter’s two-step flow from media to a layer of influential sources to the masses, as well as the social media longevity of multimedia and list-oriented articles. A couple of other research-oriented items about Twitter: a Lab post on Dan Zarrella’s data regarding timing and Twitter posts, and Maryland prof Zeynep Tufekci more theoretical exploration of NPR’s Andy Carvin and the process of news production on Twitter.

Reading roundup: Plenty of other bits and pieces around the future-of-news world this week:

— New York Times editor Bill Keller wrote a second column, and like his anti-aggregation piece a couple of weeks ago, this piece — about the value of the Times’ impartiality and fact-based reporting — didn’t go over well. Reuters’ Felix Salmon called him intellectually dishonest, Scott Rosenberg called him defensive, and the Huffington Post’s Peter Goodman (a former Times reporter) said Keller misrepresented him.

— A few notes on The Daily: Forbes’ Jeff Bercovici said it was downloaded 500,000 times during its trial period and has 70,000 regular users, and a study was conducted finding that it’s more popular with less tech-savvy, less content-concerned users.

— Journal Register Co. CEO John Paton talked about transforming newspapers at the Newspaper Association of America convention; he summarized what he had to say in 10 tweets, and Alan Mutter wrote a post about the panel. The moderator, Ken Doctor, followed up with a Lab post looking at how long, exactly, newspapers have left.

— I’ll send you off with Jonathan Stray’s thoughtful post on rethinking journalism as a system for informing people, rather than just a series of stories. It’s a lot to chew on, but a key piece to add to the future-of-news puzzle.

Image of a fence-jumper by like oh so zen used under a Creative Commons license.

Goodbye, NYTClean, hello new name? A Canadian coder gets a letter from the NYT’s legal department

Remember David Hayes, the Canadian coder who, when confronted with the new New York Times paywall, figured out a way to evade it with four lines of JavaScript? (Technically, only three lines of code and one line of comment.) We wrote about it at the time as part of our coverage of the paywall.

Well, according to David’s blog, the Times has reached out to him in the form of an email from its legal team asking him to stop offering his JavaScript bookmarklet under the name NYTClean. But that’s the interesting part: The Times’ only stated complaint is the name of the bookmarklet, not its existence.

Here’s the text of the email, according to David’s blog post:

I am writing concerning your “NYTClean” bookmarklet, posted at http://euri.ca/2011/03/21/get-around-new-york-times-20-article-limit/.

As you obviously know, The New York Times Company has used its ‘The New York Times’ trademark since at least as early as 1851 and today offers numerous products and services under its famous ‘The New York Times’ trademark, including its online version of The New York Times at the URL NYTimes.com, and various blogs and electronic media products. NYTCo’s NYTimes.com website receives over 15,000,000 unique visitors each month. NYTCo owns numerous registrations for its ‘The New York Times’ trademark in the U.S. Patent and Trademark Office and Canadian Trade-Marks Office and these trademarks are among the company’s most valuable assets.

We object to your use of our famous “NYT” trademark in connection with your application and your promotion thereof, which constitutes trademark dilution and trademark infringement under U.S. and Canadian trademark law.

Accordingly, we ask that you immediately cease use of the “NYT” trademark in connection with this application. This email is without prejudice to any action that may be necessary to protect the valuable rights of NYTCo in its intellectual property.

Very truly yours,

Rxxxxxx Sxxxxx
Senior Counsel
The New York Times Company
[Contact information followed]

The trademark claim follows on the Times’ similar request to Twitter regarding the @FreeNYTimes account’s use of a Times logo as its Twitter avatar. (The issue was apparently not, as was reported, with @FreeNYT, which is unrelated to @FreeNYTimes.) In both cases, the actual workaround wasn’t the issue — the use of a Times trademark is.

Now, of course, the NYT’s concern over its trademarks doesn’t limit its ability to come back later with another legal claim. But if any evasion method so far was going to prompt a Times claim under the Digital Millennium Copyright Act’s anti-circumvention rules, NYTClean was a prime candidate. Those rules place limits on the use of tools to get around DRM, which in the right light the Times paywall could be considered. (To be clear, the Times has, to my knowledge, never mentioned the DMCA as a possible weapon against paywall jumpers. But the possibility has been a topic of conversation in the technology community.)

Here’s the DMCA language:

No person shall circumvent a technological measure that effectively controls access to a work protected under this title…

…to “circumvent a technological measure” means to descramble a scrambled work, to decrypt an encrypted work, or otherwise to avoid, bypass, remove, deactivate, or impair a technological measure, without the authority of the copyright owner; and a technological measure “effectively controls access to a work” if the measure, in the ordinary course of its operation, requires the application of information, or a process or a treatment, with the authority of the copyright owner, to gain access to the work. [Emphasis mine.]

Invoking the DMCA would be breaking out the big guns, and would no doubt cause a backlash against the Times. Its attorney’s email shows no signs of such a claim, which fits well with the tone the Times has struck on potential paywall evaders since before the U.S. launch: that it will “continue to monitor the situation” but doesn’t plan to plug any of the many leaks in the wall.

Personally, I think the Times is taking the right approach here, since the actions of people who use JavaScript bookmarklets aren’t likely to have any impact on those of the Times’ readers who might actually pay. (Although NYTClean, unlike other evasion methods out there, leads the Times to serve a story page without ads. Even though that’s not something intentional in Hayes’ code, it’s still obviously suboptimal for the paper.)

For his part, David Hayes says he plans to comply with the Times’ request and rename the script to something like NYNewspaperClean. But he also says the Times missed an opportunity:

I’m a big fan of the newspaper in question; I would’ve taken the page down in exchange for a manila envelope with leftover detritus from Bill Safire‘s old desk.

Goodbye, NYTClean, hello new name? A Canadian coder gets a letter from the NYT’s legal department

Remember David Hayes, the Canadian coder who, when confronted with the new New York Times paywall, figured out a way to evade it with four lines of JavaScript? (Technically, only three lines of code and one line of comment.) We wrote about it at the time as part of our coverage of the paywall.

Well, according to David’s blog, the Times has reached out to him in the form of an email from its legal team asking him to stop offering his JavaScript bookmarklet under the name NYTClean. But that’s the interesting part: The Times’ only stated complaint is the name of the bookmarklet, not its existence.

Here’s the text of the email, according to David’s blog post:

I am writing concerning your “NYTClean” bookmarklet, posted at http://euri.ca/2011/03/21/get-around-new-york-times-20-article-limit/.

As you obviously know, The New York Times Company has used its ‘The New York Times’ trademark since at least as early as 1851 and today offers numerous products and services under its famous ‘The New York Times’ trademark, including its online version of The New York Times at the URL NYTimes.com, and various blogs and electronic media products. NYTCo’s NYTimes.com website receives over 15,000,000 unique visitors each month. NYTCo owns numerous registrations for its ‘The New York Times’ trademark in the U.S. Patent and Trademark Office and Canadian Trade-Marks Office and these trademarks are among the company’s most valuable assets.

We object to your use of our famous “NYT” trademark in connection with your application and your promotion thereof, which constitutes trademark dilution and trademark infringement under U.S. and Canadian trademark law.

Accordingly, we ask that you immediately cease use of the “NYT” trademark in connection with this application. This email is without prejudice to any action that may be necessary to protect the valuable rights of NYTCo in its intellectual property.

Very truly yours,

Rxxxxxx Sxxxxx
Senior Counsel
The New York Times Company
[Contact information followed]

The trademark claim follows on the Times’ similar request to Twitter regarding the @FreeNYTimes account’s use of a Times logo as its Twitter avatar. (The issue was apparently not, as was reported, with @FreeNYT, which is unrelated to @FreeNYTimes.) In both cases, the actual workaround wasn’t the issue — the use of a Times trademark is.

Now, of course, the NYT’s concern over its trademarks doesn’t limit its ability to come back later with another legal claim. But if any evasion method so far was going to prompt a Times claim under the Digital Millennium Copyright Act’s anti-circumvention rules, NYTClean was a prime candidate. Those rules place limits on the use of tools to get around DRM, which in the right light the Times paywall could be considered. (To be clear, the Times has, to my knowledge, never mentioned the DMCA as a possible weapon against paywall jumpers. But the possibility has been a topic of conversation in the technology community.)

Here’s the DMCA language:

No person shall circumvent a technological measure that effectively controls access to a work protected under this title…

…to “circumvent a technological measure” means to descramble a scrambled work, to decrypt an encrypted work, or otherwise to avoid, bypass, remove, deactivate, or impair a technological measure, without the authority of the copyright owner; and a technological measure “effectively controls access to a work” if the measure, in the ordinary course of its operation, requires the application of information, or a process or a treatment, with the authority of the copyright owner, to gain access to the work. [Emphasis mine.]

Invoking the DMCA would be breaking out the big guns, and would no doubt cause a backlash against the Times. Its attorney’s email shows no signs of such a claim, which fits well with the tone the Times has struck on potential paywall evaders since before the U.S. launch: that it will “continue to monitor the situation” but doesn’t plan to plug any of the many leaks in the wall.

Personally, I think the Times is taking the right approach here, since the actions of people who use JavaScript bookmarklets aren’t likely to have any impact on those of the Times’ readers who might actually pay. (Although NYTClean, unlike other evasion methods out there, leads the Times to serve a story page without ads. Even though that’s not something intentional in Hayes’ code, it’s still obviously suboptimal for the paper.)

For his part, David Hayes says he plans to comply with the Times’ request and rename the script to something like NYNewspaperClean. But he also says the Times missed an opportunity:

I’m a big fan of the newspaper in question; I would’ve taken the page down in exchange for a manila envelope with leftover detritus from Bill Safire‘s old desk

So, then…if you jump The New York Times’ paywall, are you stealing?

James Poniewozik has a great column this week asking a question we’ve been talking about here at the Lab: Given all the ways to avoid paying for a New York Times digital subscription — ways that the Times has purposely built into the pores of its paywall, and ways that clever techies have figured out — is it immoral to jump the wall? To what extent, essentially, is gaming the Times also stealing from it?

As Poniewozik said: “Calling the Ethicist!” And, totally. But — we checked — current Ethicist Ariel Kaminer is also currently employed by the Times, and so is indisposed on meta-ethical grounds…and Randy Cohen politely declined my request for a comment. So, for a bit of amateur Ethicism — buckle your seatbelts, everyone! — here are a few points to add to Poniewozik’s.

A Times kind of person

Here’s how Martin Nisenholtz explained wall-jumping to Peter Kafka:

I think the majority of people are honest and care about great journalism and the New York Times. When you look at the research that we’ve done, tons of people actually say, “Jeez, we’ve felt sort of guilty getting this for free all these years. We actually want to step up and pay, because we know we’re supporting a valuable institution.” At the same time we want to make sure that we’re not being gamed, to the extent that we can be.

Continue reading "So, then…if you jump The New York Times’ paywall, are you stealing?"

So, then…if you jump The New York Times’ paywall, are you stealing?

James Poniewozik has a great column this week asking a question we’ve been talking about here at the Lab: Given all the ways to avoid paying for a New York Times digital subscription — ways that the Times has purposely built into the pores of its paywall, and ways that clever techies have figured out — is it immoral to jump the wall? To what extent, essentially, is gaming the Times also stealing from it?

As Poniewozik said: “Calling the Ethicist!” And, totally. But — we checked — current Ethicist Ariel Kaminer is also currently employed by the Times, and so is indisposed on meta-ethical grounds…and Randy Cohen politely declined my request for a comment. So, for a bit of amateur Ethicism — buckle your seatbelts, everyone! — here are a few points to add to Poniewozik’s.

A Times kind of person

Here’s how Martin Nisenholtz explained wall-jumping to Peter Kafka:

I think the majority of people are honest and care about great journalism and the New York Times. When you look at the research that we’ve done, tons of people actually say, “Jeez, we’ve felt sort of guilty getting this for free all these years. We actually want to step up and pay, because we know we’re supporting a valuable institution.” At the same time we want to make sure that we’re not being gamed, to the extent that we can be.

Continue reading "So, then…if you jump The New York Times’ paywall, are you stealing?"

Tweet late, email early, and don’t forget about Saturday: Using data to develop a social media strategy

Tweet more, and embrace the weekends.

That’s according to Dan Zarrella, a social media researcher (with 33,000 followers himself). Zarrella works for HubSpot, mining data on hundreds of millions of tweets, blog posts, and email newsletters to help marketers find trends. News organization should pay attention, too.

Zarrella says the right Twitter strategy depends in part on what your goals are. Want to accumulate as many followers as possible? Then tweet a lot: Twitter’s A-listers — those with the most followers — tweet an average of 22 times a day, and more tweets generally lead to more followers. But if your goal is to drive more traffic to your site, you should show a little more restraint; accounts that share two or more links an hour show a dramatically lower clickthrough rate than those who share no more than one.

It’s an inexact science, but at least it’s an attempt at science where so much social media strategy is driven by intuition. (Zarrella complains about the the “unicorns and rainbows” strategy: “Love your customers, hug your followers, engage in the conversations. It sounds like good advice, and it’s hard to disagree with,” he says. “But generally, it’s not based in anything substantial.”)

After collecting more than two years of data, Zarrella shared his findings Tuesday in a webinar called “The Science of Timing.” That science is less about when and more about when not — what he calls “contra-competitive timing.” The trick is to reach people when the noise of the crowd has died down.

It turns out that time is often the afternoons, when blogs and news sites are slower, and the weekend, when they’re all but asleep.

Retweet activity is highest late in the work day, between 2 and 5 p.m., and the sweet spot (tweet spot?) is 4 p.m., Zarrella’s analysis found. Late in the week is most retweetable, too. Zarrella created TweetWhen to tell Twitter users what time days and times yield the most retweets. (Our @niemanlab tweets get the most retweets around 9 p.m. and on Saturdays. Go figure. That’s our hour-by-hour chart up top.)

On weekend mornings, when most news sites see substantial drops in pageviews, Twitter clickthroughs spike, he says. Comment activity also jumps dramatically: Users have more time and attention to devote to content on the weekend, even if the content isn’t fresh, and fewer distractions compete for attention. On Facebook, Zarrella says, the effect is even more pronounced: Facebook participation on weekdays is infinitesimal in comparison. (He thinks it might be because so many companies block Facebook at the workplace.) Facebook does not reward frequent posting in the same way Twitter does, however, and it’s much easier to flood (and annoy) Facebook fans than Twitter followers. Postings on Facebook also tend to “stick around” longer, re-emerging when people post a comment or like.

Not only does Zarrella recommend tweeting more — he recommends tweeting the same links two or three times a day. Don’t bother calling it a “rerun” or apologizing to people who might have seen it before. Simply wait a few hours and change up the language. Only a fraction of your followers will see it the first time. Even an organization with thousands of followers won’t reach most of its audience most of the time. (As an experiment, social media star Guy Kawasaki once repeated the same tweet every day for nine days, and found the clickthrough rate remained high each time.)

Zarrella recently performed a similar deep dive into data for email newsletters, working with MailChimp to analyze 9.5 billion messages. A lot of the same lessons apply, he says: Email more, and embrace the weekends.

Most people who unsubscribe do so after receiving their first email. Send 30 emails a month or send five — it makes little difference, he found. (“Unsubscribers are doing you a favor,” he says — they don’t want to hear from you anyway.) The most important time to reach subscribers is right away, especially in the first couple of days after signup. The average click rate for the average user drops to almost nothing after four months. Like with blogs and social media, readers are more likely to open an email newsletter and click links on weekends. For all days of the week, early-morning hours (between 4 and 7 a.m.) are the best times to reach readers — before they get caught up in their to-do list for the day.

Here are the slides from Zarrella’s webinar:

The Science of Timing
View more presentations from HubSpot Internet Marketing