8 ms·

Disappointed in you Jeremy. Its fair for many here to complain about some of the online advertising practices of publishers. However the viable alternative it

• meritt 12y ago
  Can you share any feedback on the demographics of subscribers who successfully convert via paywalls? I'm curious how well it works with the 18-25 and 26-35 demos. Obviously this is a bit of an echo chamber here but I think a lot of us become annoyed and mentally boycott those sites instead of succumbing to pressure and paying. Have you ever considered doing cross-promotions through other channels, such as the ability to round-up my Starbucks purchases and have the excess go toward a subscription?
• yuncun 12y ago
  How do you feel about Adblock?
• patcon 12y ago
  Not a fan of the shaming... If news orgs value their journalists and the future of the profession, they should experiment with more daring models, rather than ones that simply maximally enrich the org under the same old model EDIT: imho a model that falls apart legally under a browser extension that fits in a 40-line gist is nothing on which to base the livelihoods of a bunch of people
  • donohoe 12y ago
    I agree - but to be fair you're assuming they haven't experimented. Micro-payments, dumb 'capthcha' based models, memberships, events, "premier access". All have been tried in various flavors. Some with limited success. I'm not asking for you to dream up an alternative solution, but don't assume this is a problem that has not been given a lot of thought by many organizations. This is partly why we are stuck with things like "native advertising" and pretty shit IAB ad units.
    • mapgrep 12y ago
      Even people inside the NYT know the pricing for digital subscriptions is excessive. They're high because circ department won an internal war and inflated digital prices in a misguided attempt to protect print subs. The NYT has experimented but is still clinging to the past. Which is why the "All Digital Access" subscription costs more than Netflix, Hulu, and HBO Now combined. Give me a break.
      • binxbolling 12y ago
        Almost thought you were joking, but wow... nearly $38/mo to read NYT's webpages.
      • OrwellianChild 12y ago
        This raised an interesting question for me - how much money is saved on a per-subscriber basis by sending the digital version vs. print (for the NYT)? Their pricing certainly doesn't reflect it: Web + Smartphone: $3.75/wk $16.25/mo $195/yr Web + Tablet: $5.00/wk $21.67/mo $260/yr All Digital Access: $8.75/wk $37.92/mo $455/yr 7-Day Home Delivery: $8.90/wk $38.57/mo $463/yr There are multiple levels of insanity here: Web + Smartphone & Web + Tablet are identical except for device type but Tablet is 33% more. Web + Smartphone plus Web + Tablet cost as much *together* as All Digital Access (and are feature equivalent). 7-Day Home Delivery *includes* All Digital Access and costs about the same. Paper is free? None of these pricing strategies appear to be designed to maximize readership, broaden subscription basis, or grow brand penetration. They are structured to capture the most value possible from customers with high switching costs or price indifference. This is what a conservator in a dying market looks like.
        • donohoe 12y ago
          Actually, thats not true. A broad amount of research wen tin to this (originally at least). There is a method to this madness :)
          • kaybe 12y ago
  • jameshart 12y ago
    The model doesn't fall apart legally because it can be trivially circumvented. Any more than the model of renting bikes falls apart legally if people just don't bring the bikes back, or the model of selling software licenses falls apart legally because people can easily copy it. You can base the livelihoods of people on these things, provided the amount of circumvention remains low.
    • patcon 12y ago
      I see what you're saying, but I wasn't intending to stretch my thought that far. I was just assuming that changing the referral header couldn't possibly be illegal.
  • manigandham 12y ago
    More daring models? It's easy to just say "do something else" when actively circumventing a system. I really wish people would generally stop with comments like this unless they have an alternative to propose, otherwise its just criticism without purpose because the people involved in this industry are trying their best to make things work. What does the size of the "hack" have to do with anything? Simple execution doesn't make something ok by the fact of being simple to execute.
  • donohoe 12y ago
    Also, not my intent to shame. And I'll apologize to Jeremy next time I see him if it came across that way. Actually, as I write and re-read it, it does come across that way. Sorry.
• amackera 12y ago
  If it's really so concerning, then perhaps the technology should be made a bit more difficult to thwart. This extension is simply changing the Referer request header.
• jashkenas 12y ago
  Sorry to hear that, Michael. Subscription models are great, and paywalls are great. What's not so great is creating an internet where if you use our Trusted Corporate Partner™ you're allowed to view a public webpage, and if you come from anywhere less privileged on the internet, you're not. That's not sustainable. Lest we fall into a vortex where you're only allowed to browse the public web by logging in through Facebook. I wouldn't want to be online in that world. This isn't a complicated extension, and it doesn't do anything fancy to subvert any paywalls — and it's not going to. It simply reloads the page as if you had arrived via Google. I think that's a fair thing to do.
  • donohoe 12y ago
    ... if you use our Trusted Corporate Partner™ No. Not like that. Basically, its Google saying publishes must do this or they won't send traffic their way (via search result / SEO) Its not publishers saying use Google over Bing over Yahoo etc. Lest we fall into a vortex where you're only allowed to browse the public web by logging in through Facebook The other argument that this may hold water is similar exceptions when you come from social (Reddit, Twitter, FB, etc) where they often allow access. However not for the reasons you're suggesting. In that case its the publisher saying they don't want to cut them-self out of the conversation (who'd link to the NYT if it was alway a paywall or would immediately count against your monthly free views before you can determine whether you wanted to read it or not...). In such cases those exceptions are factored into the economics of whatever the 'free views' limit is. and it doesn't do anything fancy to subvert any paywalls — and it's not going to Really? You could make that argument. However the screenshots you choose for the extension in the WebStore are all sites that have paywalls or subscription requirements. So that last statement is being a big disingenuous. I think that's a fair thing to do
    • yuncun 12y ago
      Makes sense from google's perspective. Why should they list sites that people can't access.
      • fixermark 12y ago
• scrollaway 12y ago
  It's quite a bit absurd to complain about technical solutions which fullfill the needs of users. If a source of income revolves around annoying users into paying and for them not to find a way around such annoyances, don't expect it to last forever. In this model, I consider the whole tactic to be publishers relying too much on Google's policy in the first place. If they change that policy, said publishers are screwed. Anything that depends on a third party is doomed to begin with. These things are temporary income at best. Publishers should not just "take the win and go home"; keep looking for other, better solutions.
  • eli 12y ago
    > It's quite a bit absurd to complain about technical solutions which fullfill the needs of users. Nonsense. Users want everything for free, instantly and with no ads. I would like my sandwiches from the shop downstairs to be free all the time. But it's not cool to forge stamps on a loyalty card.
    • scrollaway 12y ago
      > Users want everything for free, instantly and with no ads. And where's the source to that little strawman of yours? I'm sure users also want hot threesomes and a million dollars.
      • eli 12y ago
        I think we're perhaps talking past each other. You want a source that says people prefer getting things for free over paying for them?
  • manigandham 12y ago
    Life and business is all about 3rd parties and working with and against them. It's quite easy to say that things should just be better but it's not like all these publishers are stupid and just sitting around not trying to come up with better solutions. This is actually the best we have at this moment without a massive shift in how the web works. The fact is that the internet makes things very easy to take without repercussions. Physically walking into a store and taking something has consequences but a quick hack on the browser is basically unnoticeable. The abilities and democracy of the internet architecture facilitates the extraction of content without compensation. Just because it's easy though, doesn't make it "right".
• petemill 12y ago
  This is a positive thing has been made, and I too have worked at publishers. You can't control these things and this tool prevents a user from having to jump through hoops to use a feature which is publicly available. Well done. You want your geek customers to have some chance of once-again enjoying reading these sites so let them back on them.
  • donohoe 12y ago
    No, you can't control these things. All I'm saying is I'm disappointed to see yet another one. However I would much rather spend my time building new features then having to find ways to ensure a paywall is not circumvented.
• TEMPLEOS_DEV 12y ago
  Extensions that allow you to modify the referrer have been around forever. Also, fuck off.
• supermatt 12y ago
  This extension simply modifies the referrer, overcoming some strange problem with certain websites where it alters page content depending on the referrer header - i.e. it fixes URL uniformity on broken websites. I'd be all for this extension not needing to exist if these website owners would simply fix this obviously broken behavior.
• jneal 12y ago
  I'm a bit curious. I was under the impression that changing your site to show different content to "Google" than "regular users" was against TOS and could get you banned from results all together. Do big companies pay to get around these restrictions or have there been rule changes in Google Search?
  • icebraining 12y ago
    Google is OK with it as long as you show the same content to a user going through Search as you do to the bot. They don't care if you show different things to users coming through other sources or directly hitting the URL.
• herbig 12y ago
  I see you wrote a Chrome extension that cuts most of the ads from NYT.
  • donohoe 12y ago
    Yes. My guess is you're leaving that statement hanging to make a larger point? If so I'd love to add that I'm annoyed by some of the tactics and lengths that publishers go to to monetize content ad the expense of user-experience and other costs. The only path right now are ads, 'sponsored content', 'native units'. I would much rather we have a subscription-based model that generated enough revenue to ween them off awful ad experiences. Thats very much an aspirational goal. My larger point is that having readers circumvent that, as opposed to supporting that, is disheartening to many of us who are working on the inside to push change. BTW: And that extension was a redesign, of which ads were removed or moved. The NYT legal dept had Google remove it.
    • hire_charts 12y ago
      I support subscription content. But you can't have your cake and eat it too -- in other words, you can't put content behind a paywall and also have it publicly indexed by search engines. Remove the trick where it's okay for Google searches to circumvent the paywall and this extension becomes useless.
      • manigandham 12y ago
        Why not? So paywall content is not good enough? It's just a different business model by publishers: free access with ads or pay for access. Why does that penalize the content itself and the discovery of it?
        • hire_charts 12y ago
          What's happening here is that it's not just "free access with ads or pay for access." It's "free access if you came from google, so that google can index our pages, but otherwise pay for access so that we can put the same content behind a paywall." It's less a business model and more an SEO trick that Google puts up with under certain conditions.
• glibgil 12y ago
  Why should I support the work? The work is given away for free on Google searches. I value a WSJ article very little unless it is free. I want to support their work with exactly zero dollars. Why is that a problem? I would prefer that everyone working at the WSJ were just doing something else with their lives. Is it okay for me to align my spending with my values?
  • fixermark 12y ago
    That's a tenable position, but this extension should not be useful to people holding that position.
• jgrowl 12y ago
  Guess what I do when I hit a paywall like this? I get annoyed and close the site. Just because I click a link doesn't mean I value it. I would be just as happy if no one ever sent these links to anyone. As far as I'm concerned people that let google index their site and try to paywall everyone else are the ones abusing the system.
  • gambiter 12y ago
    Exactly what I do too. I suspect it's pretty common. I've never felt that I missed out because I didn't read a paywalled article. If anything, I probably found more interesting info in the comments.
• DanielBMarkham 12y ago
  I used to be a freelance writer. I love writing. I wrote for several magazines, a daily, and a weekly. I even consulted at a newspaper back in the 80s installing desktop publishing capabilities. I love printed media. Printed media is also dead. I wish this were not the case, and I know lots of folks are trying really hard to prevent its complete destruction, but heck if I can see a way forward. Google is not the magic gateway to the internet, and sites that treat it like it is will have this happen to them, just like the sun follows rain. I do not enjoy pointing these facts out, and I worry tremendously about the quality of journalism, writing, and online discourse. But the facts are the facts. This has been a losing battle long enough for all of us to figure out how it ends.
• fab13n 12y ago
  The paywall model is currently broken: * not culturally integrated the way we don't mind paying for smartphone apps; * not atomic enough (we want to pay cents for an article, not dollars for a website, nor tens of dollars for a long-term subscription); * it raises convenience and trust issues; * it competes against ad-based models, which adblockers have failed to bankrupt until now; * paywall sites aren't taken into account properly by Google et al. Relieving pressure from the currently broken paywall model won't help fix it. Making the situation untenable is the only way to make it change. The most effective move would be to kill ads as a business model. Of course, don't expect Google, an advertising agency, to help us do that. And how to pay author while keeping Internet searchable remains an open problem AFAIK.
  • untog 12y ago
    we want to pay cents for an article, not dollars for a website, nor tens of dollars for a long-term subscription Is that true, though? I think Spotify has proved that people prefer subscriptions to one-off payments for music, for example. Having to make a purchase/don't purchase decision for every news article you read doesn't seem like a good experience at all.
    • PhantomGremlin 12y ago
      Yes it is true. For a single payment to Spotify you get access to music from all four major record labels. OTOH paying for a subscription to a single newspaper is like subscribing separately to Sony, EMI, Warner Music Group, and Universal. Not gonna happen.
      • robryan 12y ago
        I think they would be much better off with the Spotify model. I would happily pay a monthly fee for a collection of all the major newspapers.
        • PhantomGremlin 12y ago
          That depends on the price. I just checked out WSJ and NY Times. After promo, WSJ is $29/month. That's whether or not you want actual paper or just digital access. NY Times has various plans, one of the cheapest is about $16/month. So that's just two newspapers. I'd gladly pay $20 or even $30 per month for full access to all the major newspapers. But the big papers would never agree to that, because their individual cuts of the pie would probably be too small.
• darkstar999 12y ago
  And we are disappointed in your crappy paywall model.
• zem 12y ago
  how would you feel about an extension that simply removed hyperlinks to paywalled pages, or highlighted them in a different colour? (serious question; I've been tempted to make one simply because I feel that publishers are welcome to paywall their sites, but then I don't want them on "my" web.)
• bdcravens 12y ago
  Problem is that Google, HN, "share" links etc is free advertising. Media says that certain discovery channels (Google) should be let in, while other (HN, emailed links, etc) shouldn't. This extension only equalizes that. Perhaps a better extension would be to hide organic search results in Google for pay-walled content providers, while leaving AdWords links intact. In the interests of protecting profit-based interests. Additionally, Facebook should require paywalled content providers to pay users that use their integrated comments or click a like button, as we certainly don't want free buzz, as that would violate the profit-driven flow of information.
  • manigandham 12y ago
    Publishers are all for-profit, they just choose different monetization models. Whether it's ads or paywall, content is content. Why should it be ok for Google to discriminate which content is shown by the host's business model instead of the relevance and quality of the content?
    • bdcravens 12y ago
      I'm cool with content providers charging. What I'm not ok with is some discovery channels getting free access to that content, while others don't. As far as Google is concerned, they're a business, not a public utility. If a content provider can choose what and whom to show to, so can Google. The ethical approach would be to not be indexed by Google, but rather, use a pure paid ads approach (or a revenue sharing model). To not have a universal interaction model is deceptive. (I search on Google, see an article, click, and use your nifty sharing widget, but those I share with are prompted to subscribe, and now I look bad)
• makeitsuckless 12y ago
  The free-for-Google paywall is in many ways similar to online advertising: it's all bait-and-switch. Anything that discourages such practices is a step forward. It's time publishers start considering their readers as customers to be treated with respect instead of either dumb cattle or the enemy in a digital arms race. What kind of a legit, respectable business tries to trick people into thinking their giving their product away for free? At the very least don't whine about the public tricking you back in return.