3 ms·

this isn't directed at you, but to your opinion that seems to be prevalent amongst others. It seems like when Ars does this, it's ok, but when a newspaper or A

this isn't directed at you, but to your opinion that seems to be prevalent amongst others. It seems like when Ars does this, it's ok, but when a newspaper or AP wants to do the same thing it's somehow not ok? Why is that? I'm not trying to be argumentative but rather looking into what Ars is doing differently that makes it ok?

sstrudeau 17y ago
Recent talk by newspapers & the AP have been to put up all or most of their content behind paywalls. What Ars is doing is placing long form/higher cost content (e.g., long form PDF documents), exclusive features (e.g., ability to vote other users into the "hall of shame"), exclusive events (e.g., live chats w/ popular writers), and an ad-free experience behind a paywall, while leaving the majority of their content on the free, ad-supported site. And critics of the newspapers (or at least my criticism of the newspapers) plans to go paywall isn't that it's bad or wrong, just that it's a bad idea if it's all-or-nothing since readers will simply substitute. If newspapers were proposing something closer to what Ars is trying, I think you'd hear less criticism and more curious interest...
mrkurt 17y ago
We've done things a bit differently than what most newspapers and the AP have talked about. For one, we've worked really hard to enhance the overall reading experience for subscribers. They get a better "window" into the free content. It's ad free, they can read it on the pooper when they print out a PDF, etc. There's also full text (including 23 page reviews) RSS available. We actually wanted to give subscribers free Kindle subscriptions too, but that wasn't possible. The content that is behind a paywall is going to be less broadly appealing, and supplementary to what's already freely available. The most interesting thing, and probably the most daring, is the whole editorial round table thing. If it works as planned, we'll basically be giving subscribers a great deal of influence over what the site publishes, and vast amounts of information that media sites don't generally give out. There's already a planned discussion, for instance, on the economics of producing long form content, all because subscribers consistently ask for more of it. We may not be able to deliver it as much as they or we want, but we are going to involve them in those discussions.
tjogin 17y ago
Besides the great points that sstrudeau brings up, I'd also point out that there is a big difference in how the offers are presented. News organizations are just about calling their online readers freeloading cheapskates who need to start paying for news again (while in the same breath saying that their news are essential to society, all the while misunderstanding that readers never paid for the news itself to begin with). Ars instead are presenting you with an offer of even higher quality content, which you can opt-out of and still have access to their current product. Long story short: Ars are doing it right, news corps are doing it ass-backwards, misunderstanding their own business, their readers and their product.
- steveklabnik 17y ago
  Yep. It's all in the branding. Newspapers are saying "This is our pay service, you can maybe get a little for free," while Ars says "This is our free service, you can pay to get a little bit more." The difference is pretty big.
rythie 17y ago
Newspapers tend to cover a lot of the same stuff that is available in 50 different places - you can't charge for that. E.g. you couldn't charge for information about the lastest iPods. I think you can only charge for the unique content, which is what Ars's is doing.

sstrudeau 17y ago

Recent talk by newspapers & the AP have been to put up all or most of their content behind paywalls. What Ars is doing is placing long form/higher cost content (e.g., long form PDF documents), exclusive features (e.g., ability to vote other users into the "hall of shame"), exclusive events (e.g., live chats w/ popular writers), and an ad-free experience behind a paywall, while leaving the majority of their content on the free, ad-supported site. And critics of the newspapers (or at least my criticism of the newspapers) plans to go paywall isn't that it's bad or wrong, just that it's a bad idea if it's all-or-nothing since readers will simply substitute. If newspapers were proposing something closer to what Ars is trying, I think you'd hear less criticism and more curious interest...

mrkurt 17y ago

We've done things a bit differently than what most newspapers and the AP have talked about. For one, we've worked really hard to enhance the overall reading experience for subscribers. They get a better "window" into the free content. It's ad free, they can read it on the pooper when they print out a PDF, etc. There's also full text (including 23 page reviews) RSS available. We actually wanted to give subscribers free Kindle subscriptions too, but that wasn't possible. The content that is behind a paywall is going to be less broadly appealing, and supplementary to what's already freely available. The most interesting thing, and probably the most daring, is the whole editorial round table thing. If it works as planned, we'll basically be giving subscribers a great deal of influence over what the site publishes, and vast amounts of information that media sites don't generally give out. There's already a planned discussion, for instance, on the economics of producing long form content, all because subscribers consistently ask for more of it. We may not be able to deliver it as much as they or we want, but we are going to involve them in those discussions.

tjogin 17y ago

Besides the great points that sstrudeau brings up, I'd also point out that there is a big difference in how the offers are presented. News organizations are just about calling their online readers freeloading cheapskates who need to start paying for news again (while in the same breath saying that their news are essential to society, all the while misunderstanding that readers never paid for the news itself to begin with). Ars instead are presenting you with an offer of even higher quality content, which you can opt-out of and still have access to their current product. Long story short: Ars are doing it right, news corps are doing it ass-backwards, misunderstanding their own business, their readers and their product.

steveklabnik 17y ago
Yep. It's all in the branding. Newspapers are saying "This is our pay service, you can maybe get a little for free," while Ars says "This is our free service, you can pay to get a little bit more." The difference is pretty big.

rythie 17y ago

Newspapers tend to cover a lot of the same stuff that is available in 50 different places - you can't charge for that. E.g. you couldn't charge for information about the lastest iPods. I think you can only charge for the unique content, which is what Ars's is doing.