Ridiculous right? Silly to pay for something that was once free - makes you want to boycott parks all together and just ride on the streets instead.
Why throw this analogy out at you, you might be wondering. Well there's been a trend in the digital world where newspapers are allowing readers a certain number of articles for free but once that quota has been reached, prompt them to pay for a subscription. This trend is called the Pay Wall.
The image above basically explains it all. Most readers who expect this digital content to be free end up getting stopped by this wall that wont let them pass. Here's my problem with pay walls:
- Users may be confused that what was previously free content (in the case of the NY Times) is now fee-based content
- Users may be angered that they can't finish reading an interesting article because they've reached their max viewing time
- Most users will not subscribe because they are casual readers only
- The user-experience is different for everyone depending on what source they use (i.e. if they have a mobile device vs a tablet, the price could be different; if a user comes in through Google or Facebook, their viewing quota may differ)
- Users who have a certain perception of a publisher might think "Who do you think you are, the Wall Street Journal?" That's because WSJ has always been a high end, subscription based newspaper so in the mind of the consumer, digital versions would naturally follow suit.
Sure, your loyal consumers will probably want a subscription because they've been with you for x number of years or are already a print subscriber but the majority of these readers are casual and if they can't consume on the nytimes.com, they will Google it and find it somewhere else. For free.
A solution that I've seen and actually think is pretty awesome is Ad Wall. This concept is similar to the Pay Wall but the key difference is, the publisher is asking the reader simply to watch an ad instead and then they can continue to read the publisher's content. It's a win for the client and a win for the reader. AND the publisher gets more ad dollars. Best yet, if the user has an opportunity to choose between two ads to watch, it'll make them feel as if they had a choice in the matter, and it wont be such a drag to have to sit through. Just look at Hulu - I'd sit through five commercials just to watch my fave show. Wouldn't you? Oh wait, you probably are already!
Stop hitting your head against the wall. You'll leave a scuff mark.
-D
I hadn't considered "Ad Wall" and really like your point. Also, your post was really engaging and fun. I felt like you were talking right to me.
ReplyDeleteI agree, the Ad Wall is the way to go. Look at Zynga games, that's all players do to get virtual currency! Great post.
ReplyDeleteI agree with you on the ad wall - I will totally watch an ad if it means I get to read the whole article. #2 you mention is so frustrating, I never pay I usually just try and find the info elsewhere. Also leads to your #5... if I know a site usually does this, I avoid it entirely. Now they've lost my viewership! - Kaitlyn
ReplyDeleteI also completely agree with the ad wall. I usually hit the 'skip' button on the ad walls but I don't mind them at all.
ReplyDeleteGreat analogy and very interesting way of looking at it. Totally agree with the ad wall.
ReplyDelete