3 ms·

The problem is that all loyal readers start as nonsubscribers stopping by for the first time. When I encounter a site that is intentionally poorly designed and

The problem is that all loyal readers start as nonsubscribers stopping by for the first time. When I encounter a site that is intentionally poorly designed and annoying, I don’t even consider subscribing. First impressions matter. If I walked into a store and the salespeople were grubby and obnoxious, I wouldn’t think “hmm, maybe they’ll be less grubby and obnoxious if I buy something.” I’d just leave. You no doubt have numbers that you think justify your decisions here. To that, I would say: We shall see. Users—and browser manufacturers—are getting a lot better at stripping away annoyances. I browse most sites with JavaScript off or read them in reader mode, and I import articles directly into an offline reader app; more and more frequently, I never even visit the site whose content I’m reading. I do this because I’m tired of having annoyances thrown in my face. Makes me wonder if a less hostile attitude towards nonsubscribers might encourage people to stay on your site a little longer, and ultimately subscribe.

HelloNurse 6y ago
Subscribing means taking a risk: will future content from this publication be worth the price? In the case of a newspaper, the answer is often "definitely not" even in the absence of signs of nonsubscriber aversion. For example, I sometimes stumble upon local newspapers covering some event of interest (e.g. details of police violence in USA cities I've never heard about, or schedules of concerts etc. wherever I'm on vacation for a few days). Regardless of high quality and low prices, I might only be interested in subscribing to such publications if I expected lots of interesting future news from that place, which is of course absurd; but I could be willing to pay (not too much) for the single article that I know interests me. When there is a chance of subscription, the publication should prioritize convincing readers that content is relevant and high quality, by letting people access it. Instead, there are pearls of marketing like a monthly limit to free articles (e.g. the Washington Post), a surgical strike against the most interested potential subscribers.

HelloNurse 6y ago

Subscribing means taking a risk: will future content from this publication be worth the price? In the case of a newspaper, the answer is often "definitely not" even in the absence of signs of nonsubscriber aversion. For example, I sometimes stumble upon local newspapers covering some event of interest (e.g. details of police violence in USA cities I've never heard about, or schedules of concerts etc. wherever I'm on vacation for a few days). Regardless of high quality and low prices, I might only be interested in subscribing to such publications if I expected lots of interesting future news from that place, which is of course absurd; but I could be willing to pay (not too much) for the single article that I know interests me. When there is a chance of subscription, the publication should prioritize convincing readers that content is relevant and high quality, by letting people access it. Instead, there are pearls of marketing like a monthly limit to free articles (e.g. the Washington Post), a surgical strike against the most interested potential subscribers.