The New York Times released details of its imminent paywall today and the negative reaction was pretty consistent across the web and blogs.
There are many reasons to be skeptical.
Felix Salmon notes how confusing the model itself is, creating many distinctions that are far from intuitive.
Emily Bell, who had hands-on experience leading digital content for the Guardian, estimates that only 5% of NYTimes.com visitors will ever hit the paywall, believing the focus on the paywall will actually hasten the decline of these newspapers.
One of the few optimists is PaidContent, which project revenues of $100m based on the prior experience with the inferior Times Select model.
I think the answer will fall somewhere in the middle. While I think pay walls will be a failed experiment for most publishers, I think the Times will probably do OK with this model, at least for the near term.
So, what did the Times get right?
First, they made sure not to cut off the flow of traffic from social media and other links. Unlike WSJ.com where only links from Google are free, any visits to the NY Times site driven by a link are free. Of course, if you click off that page to another Times page, the meter starts, but there’s no disincentive for bloggers or end-users to link to Times content.
Second, they rewarded their active users with an introductory offer. Felix poked fun at this, suggesting these were the users most likely to pay anyway, so there was no need to give them a deal, but there’s something to be said for showing favored treatment to your good customer. Looking at it another way, there’s little that irks customers more than when a longtime customer has to pay full price but new signups get special deals.
Third, and perhaps most importantly, they know their core readers fairly well. There remains a generation (or two) of people who were brought up believing that they must read the New York Times every day. This is partly a defensive move, of course, but the Times will be able to lock in a core part of their existing revenue base under this plan. Some print readers who may have dropped off in the coming months or years may stick around a bit longer, while others who have made the shift to digital only are likely to pony up for a subscription.
This was not a bold new plan from the Times, but it’s one that addresses their short-term needs without gutting their future. Had they turned to an impermeable wall, they would have done substantial damage to their web presence and their long-term future. Instead, they took modest steps which should generate some incremental revenue while protecting their core.
Yet before others go off to copy the Times, it’s important to remember that the Times is different from other newspapers. It’s the only truly national newspaper and remains the “publication of record” for many people in the New York area and beyond. Just as the Wall Street Journal and Financial Times are unique in the large percentage of readers who treat it as a business expense, the Times is unique in the devotion of its readers. Local papers around the country expecting to copy the model may be disappointed in the results.
Posted by: |