5 ms·

huh? it's just substack... the whole point is this half blog/half newsletter thing. It does have a close button, called "Let me read it first"

by esrh 4y ago

matheusmoreira 4y ago
> It does have a close button, called "Let me read it first" Why do websites have these "cute" labels these days? We have to beg the site to let us read what's written on it now? Are they trying to plant ideas and emotions in our minds or something? "Let me read it first" implies I'm gonna decide later. I've already decided not to subscribe, reading the article won't change a thing. Where's the "don't bother me ever again" button?
- thinkingemote 4y ago
  The idea is not at all to get people to subscribe to a newsletter, it's to get them to read the selected page. That's the intention of the annoyance. Most people will bounce from pages. This encourages more people to stay and read. If this cute label wasn't there most of us wouldn't want to read it, of those who do visit it we would scan the page, maybe scroll once, then bounce. This annoyance is twofold. It makes the user invest something (the time, brain power needed to find the correct link) and the user will want to at least get something back from that investment. Secondly the "let me read it first" is a kind of suggestive NLPish language. It says to the user "I will read it before deciding", the "first" bit is important. We promise to hold off of some activity (deciding if its worth it) by reading more than we would normally. it's a trap. The words "let me read it first" could be written as "I won't subscribe" or "Just let me read it" but these other two won't get as many views and time on the page. It's not at all cute, it's manipulative and it actually appear to work.
  - luckylion 4y ago
    I can imagine the setup for the user to "read it first before deciding" with that message (but they're missing a CTA after you've read it, or does that only come up when you return to another page and haven't cleared your cookies?), but is there actual data on an interstitial increasing time on page and other metrics by more than the time it takes to click on the close-button (or link in this case)?
  - bheadmaster 4y ago
    > The idea is not at all to get people to subscribe to a newsletter, it's to get them to read the selected page. That's the intention of the annoyance. I sincerely doubt that is the intention. A simpler explanation would be that they want just you to subscribe, so they nag you.
    - thinkingemote 4y ago
      edits: Yes, it is the stated and obvious intention. However, no user is going to subscribe (and go through the time costly action of giving their email to get a newsletter) to a blog where they haven't read it before, it's never going to happen. About 99% of users to that page will be first time visitors to the page.
      - bheadmaster 4y ago
        Still, the intention is the same - to get the user to subscribe. Whether or not user reads an article completely is completely irrelevant. I don't understand your point.
        thinkingemote 4y ago
        Yes, it's the stated and obvious intention. However in actuality it works to get the user to read the page, and not actually subscribe. This non-obvious side effect is the hidden primary intention of the mechanic. edits: They could probably re-word the annoyance to state this and it would have the same effect. Something like: "we want to give a pause right here to ask you to read the page, as asking for this helps more people stay and read but first please think about whether you want to subscribe to our newsletter sometime in the future. By thinking about this, we've found that this helps more people to read this wonderful article. Thanks for your time!"
  - matheusmoreira 4y ago
    > This encourages more people to stay and read. It sure as hell didn't encourage me. I closed the tab the second I saw it. If anything it encouraged me to come here talk about the manipulative nag screen because it's probably a more interesting topic than whatever the article is talking about. If they're putting a stupid screen dimming modal in front of the words, surely whatever they wrote can't be that important anyway.

huh? it's just substack... the whole point is this half blog/half newsletter thing. It does have a close button, called "Let me read it first"

by esrh 4y ago

huh? it's just substack... the whole point is this half blog/half newsletter thing. It does have a close button, called "Let me read it first"

matheusmoreira 4y ago

> It does have a close button, called "Let me read it first" Why do websites have these "cute" labels these days? We have to beg the site to let us read what's written on it now? Are they trying to plant ideas and emotions in our minds or something? "Let me read it first" implies I'm gonna decide later. I've already decided not to subscribe, reading the article won't change a thing. Where's the "don't bother me ever again" button?

thinkingemote 4y ago
The idea is not at all to get people to subscribe to a newsletter, it's to get them to read the selected page. That's the intention of the annoyance. Most people will bounce from pages. This encourages more people to stay and read. If this cute label wasn't there most of us wouldn't want to read it, of those who do visit it we would scan the page, maybe scroll once, then bounce. This annoyance is twofold. It makes the user invest something (the time, brain power needed to find the correct link) and the user will want to at least get something back from that investment. Secondly the "let me read it first" is a kind of suggestive NLPish language. It says to the user "I will read it before deciding", the "first" bit is important. We promise to hold off of some activity (deciding if its worth it) by reading more than we would normally. it's a trap. The words "let me read it first" could be written as "I won't subscribe" or "Just let me read it" but these other two won't get as many views and time on the page. It's not at all cute, it's manipulative and it actually appear to work.
- luckylion 4y ago
  I can imagine the setup for the user to "read it first before deciding" with that message (but they're missing a CTA after you've read it, or does that only come up when you return to another page and haven't cleared your cookies?), but is there actual data on an interstitial increasing time on page and other metrics by more than the time it takes to click on the close-button (or link in this case)?
- bheadmaster 4y ago
  > The idea is not at all to get people to subscribe to a newsletter, it's to get them to read the selected page. That's the intention of the annoyance. I sincerely doubt that is the intention. A simpler explanation would be that they want just you to subscribe, so they nag you.
  - thinkingemote 4y ago
    edits: Yes, it is the stated and obvious intention. However, no user is going to subscribe (and go through the time costly action of giving their email to get a newsletter) to a blog where they haven't read it before, it's never going to happen. About 99% of users to that page will be first time visitors to the page.
    - bheadmaster 4y ago
      Still, the intention is the same - to get the user to subscribe. Whether or not user reads an article completely is completely irrelevant. I don't understand your point.
      - thinkingemote 4y ago
        Yes, it's the stated and obvious intention. However in actuality it works to get the user to read the page, and not actually subscribe. This non-obvious side effect is the hidden primary intention of the mechanic. edits: They could probably re-word the annoyance to state this and it would have the same effect. Something like: "we want to give a pause right here to ask you to read the page, as asking for this helps more people stay and read but first please think about whether you want to subscribe to our newsletter sometime in the future. By thinking about this, we've found that this helps more people to read this wonderful article. Thanks for your time!"
- matheusmoreira 4y ago
  > This encourages more people to stay and read. It sure as hell didn't encourage me. I closed the tab the second I saw it. If anything it encouraged me to come here talk about the manipulative nag screen because it's probably a more interesting topic than whatever the article is talking about. If they're putting a stupid screen dimming modal in front of the words, surely whatever they wrote can't be that important anyway.