3 ms·
I wonder if this is going to work. First of all because it is a paywall, and many people might go elsewhere. But secondly, as set out in the article, their aim
by wybo 16y ago
I wonder if this is going to work. First of all because it is a paywall, and many people might go elsewhere.
But secondly, as set out in the article, their aim seems to be a semi-transparent paywall, that will allow people to read a few articles before triggering a payment requirement.
Will people buy into this?
- brudgers 16y agoWhen the NYT required logging-in using free registration, I rarely read their articles online and would not click on articles linked to them. The same was true a couple of years ago when the Washington Post briefly installed annoyware. Of course I may not be typical, but then again neither are people who subscribe to the NYT to have it on their Kindle. If the NYT stops working seemlessly with aggregators, it may be hard to replace the advertising revenue they lose with subscriptions.
- jonknee 16y agoFT.com uses a similar "first few are free" scheme and while I don't think they are exactly killing it, they have stuck with it and are able to make money (last I heard they have around 125,000 online subscribers). Most interesting to me is they are going to do like WSJ.com and allow unlimited access for search engine referrals. That makes it easy for savvy readers to read whatever they want, but hard to link to. That's a bad strategy to get links/attention online.