So the paywall debate is raging. Again. That media rascal Murdoch has erected barriers and toll booths around his London Times and Sunday Times, and the New York Times is going to follow suit with a metered system that will charge readers who try to access more than an as-yet-to-be-determined number of stories.
Predictably in a business that so loves its navel, the NYT’s move spawned voluminous coverage. My cursory analysis of that coverage is about as scientific as scientology, but the pieces that bubble to the top of the search soup seem to be largely down on the idea, pointing to the lost links and, possibly more pertinently, the pointlessness of the exercise in revenue terms.
Discussing the plans at the annual shareholder meeting, Times publisher Arthur Sulzberger Jr., offered no specifics about targets for increased revenue from metering, instead stressing the opportunity provided by the new system to increase “engagement,” and the “emotional connection” with Times users. The theory, at least as interpreted by Business Insider, is that if users are paying, they’ll go to the site before they go to other sites and spend longer once they get there.
This argument, like telling yourself that paying for an expensive gym will make you go more often, probably wouldn’t stand up to rigorous examination by a behavioral economist. And, while metering better recognizes the way information is spread and consumed online than more absolutist content lockdowns, history suggests it will still frustrate and drive away more users than it’ll bring into the fold. By definition most of those who are driven away will also be people who had been exhibiting some loyalty to Times’ content, rather than people who just stumble on the occasional story and never reach their story quota.
If Sulzberger really wants to increase reader loyalty and engagement, perhaps he ought to be looking at ways to incentivize loyalty among all readers, rather than – or at least in addition to – putting a pay barrier in the path of some of his more avid online readers.
One trendy idea for incentivizing reader loyalty is the application of game mechanics to web publishing. Riffing off the success of Facebook applications like Farmville, or mobile apps like FourSquare, the thought here is that users can earn points, badges, virtual currency or whatever in return for demonstrating loyalty and deeper engagement with a website. Brad Feld’s Foundry Group just led a $5-million investment in Big Door, a company that practices exactly this kind of gamification of websites.
If earning badges sounds a little lightweight for the New York Times, we might also think of this kind of approach as a loyalty marketing scheme akin to those run by airlines or hotels. (While I can’t quite work out why I care about checking in to places on Foursquare, I know exactly why I suffer an Up-In-The-Air-esque addiction to American Airlines, namely because the loyalty points I accrue translate to upgrades to business class, which makes air travel just about palatable.)
The Times could offer points for stories or videos viewed, comments, clicks on ads, newsletter signup, subscribing, joining its clubs, attending events, buying things from its store and so on. Those points would not only be a badge of honor for users, but could have practical applications such as giving money off subscriptions and purchases — thus encouraging more traffic to the Times store, which really could be a great resource if better curated — and granting the heaviest users first refusal on events and special deals (tying these users into some of its deeper, more integrated advertising deals would undoubtedly appeal to some brands). Such a scheme would also yield a lot of data from the Times on its community, potential revenue streams and allow it to really start to chart the lifetime value of a consumer.
While metering certainly isn’t as obviously punitive as putting a paywall around everything, it still feels like a publisher trying to create a certain user behavior by brandishing a stick. Am I the only one who thinks carrots might be more likely to boost user loyalty and long-term revenues?
Jonah, I agree with you wholeheartedly. Trying to artificially limit the supply of an infinite digital resource smacks of a hail mary attempt by publishers, even as innovative little startups such as Pay With A Tweet have been finding alternatives to exchanging online content for cold hard cash. I've been thinking about alternative payment models for months, many of which I've built out in puzzle form: Value Propositions (here's the executive summary, should you get stuck or not want to traverse the various walls linearly) is an experiment in alternative valuation models for the web premised on the idea that putting online content behind payment gateways subverts characteristics of the internet (ubiquity, indexability, universality) that are what make the content valuable in the first place. The site arranges a number of possible "paywall" alternatives into a kind of obstacle course that requires the user to rethink his or her assumptions about the web at each step. I am a devoted believer in the open web, and hope that Rupert Murdoch's upcoming paywall experiments will fail ignominiously, shifting the current debate from how to make people pay for online content to the real question: how to make online content pay.
Jonah, I agree with you wholeheartedly. Trying to artificially limit the supply of an infinite digital resource smacks of a hail mary attempt by publishers, even as innovative little startups such as Pay With A Tweet have been finding alternatives to exchanging online content for cold hard cash. I've been thinking about alternative payment models for months, many of which I've built out in puzzle form: Value Propositions (here's the executive summary, should you get stuck or not want to traverse the various walls linearly) is an experiment in alternative valuation models for the web premised on the idea that putting online content behind payment gateways subverts characteristics of the internet (ubiquity, indexability, universality) that are what make the content valuable in the first place. The site arranges a number of possible "paywall" alternatives into a kind of obstacle course that requires the user to rethink his or her assumptions about the web at each step. I am a devoted believer in the open web, and hope that Rupert Murdoch's upcoming paywall experiments will fail ignominiously, shifting the current debate from how to make people pay for online content to the real question: how to make online content pay.
Hi! Great article! Also great comment from AlexK!
There is also another service, equivalent of paywithatweet, for Google Plus: http://www.plusonetodownload.com