Comparative paywalls

The New York Times put up its paywall a year later than the (London) Times did, yet the former has outstripped the latter in acquiring paying customers. The graph here shows by how much. The accompanying analysis suggests this is probably due to the NYT's bigger and more international market, rather than because the NYT's paywall is more 'porous' (so pulling readers in?) than the Times's. I wouldn't know. But so porous is the NYT's paywall - not only in the way noted - that it barely exists as a wall. It's more like a sieve. (Via.)