3 ms·
The pay wall isn't meant to attract people who "rarely read" the New Yorker. Those are the consumers they are OK with losing because they didn't make up an appr
by thathonkey 12y ago
The pay wall isn't meant to attract people who "rarely read" the New Yorker. Those are the consumers they are OK with losing because they didn't make up an appreciable demographic for their business model anyway.
- dublinben 12y agoReaders are readers. They now have zero chance of converting me into a paying subscriber, since I can't read their articles. With a more flexible paywall, I can be encouraged to subscribe every time I'm linked to an article.
- cshenoy 12y agoIt's a metered paywall [1]. You'll still be able to read a few articles a month. IMHO, that's fairly flexible. [1]: http://www.newyorker.com/magazine/2014/07/28/note-readers http://www.newyorker.com/magazine/2014/07/28/note-readers
- GrinningFool 12y agoBut they had a zero chance of converting you to a subscriber to begin with. You represented only an expense to them.
- discardorama 12y agoBut you yourself said (in GP) that you wouldn't pay to read them. So the chance of converting you into a paying subscriber is 0 to start with. What's the loss? :D