WebProNews

Tag: paywall

  • Maureen Dowd’s Paranoid Pot Ramblings, at Your Fingertips, for Just $6 per Month

    Yes, I’m kind of mixing a couple of stories here, but two interesting things happened today in New York Times land.

    First, the venerable newspaper launched a new digital subscription for Opinions only, and second, columnist Maureen Dowd got really, really high (and lived to tell the tale!).

    The New York Times has focused their paywall options to allow readers who presumably only care about the various op-ed columns the paper regularly publishes to gain all access. For $6 a month, the new nytOpinion option gives you access to the full Opinion section online and on the new iOS app, as well as “curated commentary from around the globe and new features like Q&A with columnists.”

    If you jump on it now, they’ll let you have your first three months for just $0.99.

    And if you do, you can (hopefully) expect more articles like this.

    In Don’t Harsh Our Mellow, Dude, veteran columnist Maureen Down shows why you should always ask someone who knows about the drug you’re about to ingest, before you ingest said drug.

    Dowd flew up to Denver to sample the newly legal cash crop, and didn’t have a great time. Edibles can be tricky, Maureen.

    For an hour, I felt nothing. I figured I’d order dinner from room service and return to my more mundane drugs of choice, chardonnay and mediocre-movies-on-demand.

    But then I felt a scary shudder go through my body and brain. I barely made it from the desk to the bed, where I lay curled up in a hallucinatory state for the next eight hours. I was thirsty but couldn’t move to get water. Or even turn off the lights. I was panting and paranoid, sure that when the room-service waiter knocked and I didn’t answer, he’d call the police and have me arrested for being unable to handle my candy.

    I strained to remember where I was or even what I was wearing, touching my green corduroy jeans and staring at the exposed-brick wall. As my paranoia deepened, I became convinced that I had died and no one was telling me.

    Good lord.

    It was only the next day that she thought to ask someone about how much she should eat, considering she was a novice.

    The rest of the op-ed…well, you can go read it yourself–unless you’ve already used up your free views for the day. With the new Opinions only subscription option, this won’t be a problem.

    I can’t wait for Thomas Friedman’s op-ed on that huuuuge bong rip that completely changed his thinking on globalization.

    Image via Wikimedia Commons

  • Wikileaks Angers Anonymous By Implementing A Paywall

    Wikileaks has always been about the free distribution of information. In every interview and speech, the site’s founder Julian Assange speaks on how important freedom of speech and information is to a democracy. That may be the site’s mission, but Wikileaks is incredibly underfunded. They may have found a way to fix that problem.

    If you went to check out the GIFiles on Wikileaks last night, you would be greeted by this:

    Wikileaks Paywall

    The paywall coincides with a new GIFiles release containing over 200,000 emails from Stratfor regarding Obama, Romney and their respective parties. The emails could garner significant interest from US citizens as we head into the final stretch of the election.

    All of this would be perfectly acceptable if it was just an ad asking for support. People are angry because Wikileak isn’t asking for support, they’re demanding it. The above image is a legitimate paywall that you can’t get behind unless you donate money. One of Wikileaks’ biggest allies wasn’t too happy with it.

    Anonymous, or at least the guy who runs the @YourAnonNews Twitter feed, was livid last night in regards to the paywall.

    The sentiments expressed here were widespread throughout Twitter with many users angry that Wikileaks would force donations. It appears that the anger got through to the Wikileaks staff as they reportedly suspended the paywall. Some people, such as yours truly are still seeing it, but others are getting to the site with no problems.

    In their defense, Wikileaks had this to say about the paywall:

    UPDATE: The paywall appears to have been taken down. Users can now access the GIFiles normally without having to donate.

  • Do Paywalls Scare Off Media Professionals?

    Do Paywalls Scare Off Media Professionals?

    Paywalls seem to be straightforward: users pay to gain access to content. What could be simpler? The internet, however, with its ability to infinitely copy and immediately disseminate information, quickly makes whatever lurks behind paywalls worthless. The only paywalls that have worked are those catering to niche industries or groups of people (such as financial investors) who require instant access to breaking stories in their industry.

    eMarketer, a website specializing in digital intelligence reports, has just released a review of an April 2012 DigiCareers study in which U.S. digital medial professionals were polled about their feelings toward paywalls. Though a majority of them do not abide paywalls, there is evidence to suggest that attitudes toward the content-locking shcemes are becoming more accepting.

    After encountering a paywall, 52% of digital media professionals immediately leave the site. 42% stick around to weigh whether the pricing is fair. Oddly, 4% of respondents “applaud the site for their business acumen.”

    As for what respondents are willing to pay for, Hollywood might be winning its public relations battle in that area. While only 8% said they had paid for radio, 47% paid for movies and 35% paid for music. Of course, these percentages are still a minority, suggesting that a simple paywall scheme for entertainment content may not be the best model.

    90% of survey respondents expect a “freemium” model where at least some content is free before hitting a paywall, and 63% expect no ads once they pay. Almost as many, 61%, are willing to see ads behind a paywall, as long as it lowers the paywall toll price. In what might be the most interesting news from the survey, only one-quarter of respondents said they had a negative perception of sites that use paywalls.

    With so much free content available online these days, what could possibly get viewers to pay for content? The answer isn’t surprising. eMarketer cites an Accenture study that shows over one-third of viewers are willing to pay more for content that is either higher-quality or has reduced advertising attached to it. Viewers will gladly pay for new, high-quality content; they just don’t want to feel cheated. If content creators offer their products in an easy, straightforward manner, in quality as good as that available through piracy, viewers will buy it.

    (via eMarketer)

  • New York Times Paywall Gets A Little Higher

    The New York Times has announced that, in honor of the first anniversary of the launch of their digital subscriptions service, they are increasing the restrictions on free access to their content. Under the initial system, non-subscribers got access to 20 free articles per month. Beginning in April, that number will drop to 10.

    Most of the other content restrictions remain the same. Users of the Times’s tablet and smartphone apps will still be able to access the Top News section of the app without paying. Other sections require users to be digital subscribers. Home delivery subscribers and print subscribers to the International Herald Tribune will still have completely unlimited access to the Times’s website. The website front page and all section fronts remain free to browse, as well. Perhaps the best news, though, is that those who get to the Times via email links, social media links, and search results will still be allowed access to those articles, even if they’ve already hit the ten article limit.

    According to the Times, in the year since they first launched the digital subscription service, they have drawn 454,000 subscribers. The Times offers three subscription plans, all of which are currently on sale for $0.99 for four weeks of access. The cheapest plan offers unlimited access to the Times’s website and smartphone apps and is regularly $15 for four weeks. The second plan, normally $20 for four weeks, allows unlimited access to the Times’s website and tablet apps. The third plan, regularly $35 for four weeks, provides complete digital access to the Times’s website, smartphone apps, and tablet apps.

    Paywalls are generally unpopular among internet users, but news organizations like the Times insist that they are necessary to maintain revenue streams and continue providing the level of journalism to which readers are accustomed.

    What do you think of the New York Times’s new digital restrictions? Are you a digital subscriber? Let us know in the comments.

  • L.A. Times Launching A Paywall For Their Online Content

    It’s no surprise that the traditional newspaper model is a failing model – at least in major cities. One of the ways to offset the decline in revenue is to launch a paywall. The L.A. Times is the latest newspaper to launch such a program.

    On Friday, the L.A. Times announced the launch of a new membership program for their Web site – that’s business speak for a paywall. It’s not as bad as you might think, however, as it leaves print subscribers alone and it still has a free model.

    If you are already a subscriber to the print edition of the L.A. Times, you will still be able to access the Web site free of charge. You are also getting a new lifestyle section in the Saturday edition of the paper.

    For those who just read their content online, you will have to pay attention because their paywall is kind of confusing. First things first, there will still be a free component to the online edition of the paper. You will be able to read 15 stories for free over a 30-day period. So if you read only one story every two days, you should be good.

    For those who are more realistic, you will want to subscribe to access the news content behind the new paywall. How much will you be paying to get access to this news? Well, once the paywall launches on March 5, readers will be asked to pay 99 cents for four weeks of access. Once those four weeks are up, readers will be asked to pay $1.99 a week for access that includes the Sunday newspaper. For those who just want the digital edition, they will have to pay $3.99 a week.

    Funny enough, the L.A. Times recognizes that programs like this are known as “paywalls,” but wants everybody to know it’s a “membership program.” What’s the difference? This “membership program” will include access to retail discounts, deals and giveaways. I’ll give them that, but it’s still a paywall that just offers digital inserts that you would usually find in a print newspaper.

    If you don’t want to pay this new fee, the newspaper does say that they will not be charging those who access the site through smartphones or tablets. They will, however, soon be implementing a payment method for those users. My guess is something similar to the New York Times iPad app.

    You better get used to this being the norm now, instead of the exception. While newspapers are still doing pretty well in small towns with limited Internet access, the same can not be said of the bigger cities where technology and the Internet have changed everything. The L.A. Times has found a good subscription model and the addition of the Sunday paper to the $1.99 model is a good move.

  • Media Sites In Slovenia Initiate Paywalls Today

    Media Sites In Slovenia Initiate Paywalls Today

    The idyllic habit of reading a physical newspaper became more than a nostalgic pastime today in Slovenia as many media sites begin charging readers for online access to their content. In order to generate revenue, nearly every major Slovene newspaper has implemented a paywall today where readers (or potential readers at this point, I should say) will be required to pay in order to access and read content on the media websites.

    Piano Media, a developer of the common-payment systems that has “changed online media publishing forever” (theirs words), is the architect of the paywall in Slovenia. Previously, Piano Media launched a paywall in Slovakia that, given its success, will be the model for the paywall in Slovenia. “We have been looking for ways to monetize our content,” said Jurij Giacomelli, CEO of Delo, Slovene’s leading newspaper, news-portal and media house. “Piano brings know-how and valuable experience from their Slovak project, and we are looking forward to using that experience as we build our model for digital subscription in Slovenia. We see the unique value of the Piano project as it accelerates the adoption process of paid digital content for the entire market.”

    To be clear, not all of a media site’s content will be locked behind the paywall’s coin slot. Publishers will have the liberty to choose what content exists behind the paywall and as well as offer readers ad-free versions of their sites while “others will offer premium access to their content before it is released to the public later in the day.”

    Interesting way to prioritize who stays in informed if the news will only come out in a staggered release and go first to those that pay. At any rate, this isn’t exactly an original idea to profit off of media’s original content. Believe it or not, people used to pay other people to come throw newspapers at their house so that those subscribers could find out what was going on in the world. It was a primitive ritual humanity enjoyed for years. In case you forgot, here is some rare archival footage of what the world looked like before we began receiving our news on computers via Internet:

  • New York Times Paywall Decreasing Traffic

    Data collected by Hitwise shows the impact of the newly instated New York Times paywall, and it’s not great news for the venerable news outlet.  Overall visits have decreased between 5% and 15% per day.

    As you probably remember, The New York Times rolled out a semi-permeable paywall on March 28th.  The paywall allows up to 20 pages views for readers who access the site through direct means.  After that, readers are prompted to pay for a subscription service.  The paywall also includes social media and search exceptions, allowing articles accessed via sites like Google and Facebook to not count towards the “20.”

    Hitwise crunched the numbers and compared traffic for a 12 day period before the paywall with traffic 12 days after the paywall was erected.  Both total visits to the site and page views have dropped dramatically.  Below is the chart for percent change in total visits between the two 12-day periods.  Note the only increase is Saturday, April 9th which Hitwise suggests was “likely due to visitors seeking news around the potential government shutdown and ongoing budget discussions.”

    The paywall’s negative effect is even more prominent when looked at in terms of page views.  The same 12-day period shows negative changes of between 11% and 30%:

    Hitwise also notes that the social media and search loophole discussed earlier hasn’t done much to increase traffic to the New York Times website from those sources:

    “While using these sources could be a clever workaround for a reader hoping not to pay, to date there has not been a significant difference in the share of upstream traffic from both search and social networks to NYTimes.com before and after the launch of the paywall.”

    Traditional journalism is struggling to compete with the rise of internet reporting.  Information is plentiful, and mostly free.  While these statistics aren’t a comprehensive comment on the success or failure of paywalls, they do suggest the New York Times’ system might not be optimal.  It will be interesting to see if they are simply slow out of the gates or whether it will become a much larger failure for the news organization.