Comments on: Don’t build a paywall, create a velvet rope instead

By: Jacob

Jacob — Thu, 12 Apr 2012 16:39:05 +0000

“Exactly Ian Kennedy…that’s EXACTLY what I want to be true so it will be easier for me to keep my job in the future!” -Matthew Ingram

Why do Asians have such a hankering to oversimplify the world? (I really think this has to do with people thinking Buddhism is cool nowadays which I don’t understand!)

Anyway the fact that a few loyal leftists are gonna pay party dues by contributing to the NYT doesn’t really impress me any more than the fact that housewives love Pinterest. Yea it’s cool..those things will continue to exist.

Guess what, McDonalds is going to keep existing too. I don’t try to whip myself into a hype that McDonalds is somehow reinventing the food industry with its new extra value meal by surviving.

Most of this hub bub is boomers who are bitter that their world is dying and that it looks extremely unlikely that there’s going to be another New York Times that people respect the way that older people respect that rag.

I for one am glad. I was born before digital news and I am now far more informed than I ever was (and that will stand even if all the MSM websites put up paywalls)!

By: SK

SK — Thu, 29 Mar 2012 22:22:30 +0000

KN makes an interesting point when stating – If newspapers and magazines would write original content (articles, infographics, videos, etc) that is ONLY available on their website or page, then people would pay.

The challenge in providing original content is on par with the challenge of being being a primary source authority. When news outlets try as they may to be authoritative i.e when fulfilling public service announcement as part of their licensing – or selling the poli sci 201 lie that the media is the 4th Branch of Government – when the real goal is to sell avertising space that results in thier exposing themselves as tertiary or third level sourcing authority at best.

By: KN

KN — Wed, 28 Mar 2012 18:53:51 +0000

Original content will always draw a pay audience. Because a general interest story (for example: an article about the debt ceiling limit) can be found on many websites, newspapers, and blogs, there is no need to pay one outlet for the story, when it is easily found elsewhere for free. If newspapers and magazines would write original content (articles, infographics, videos, etc) that is ONLY available on their website or page, then people would pay. But with the proliferation of RT’s and re-use/republishing of articles, there is no incentive to pay. Create original content – get monitized!

By: Greg Smith

Greg Smith — Wed, 28 Mar 2012 16:47:41 +0000

Ken Doctor at Nieman Journalism Lab wrote an article http://www.niemanlab.org/2011/10/the-newsonomics-of-100-reach/ describing the digital membership model at “The Day” newspaper in New London, CT; its model shifts from a “Pay” button to a “Join”.

By: Digidave

Digidave — Tue, 27 Mar 2012 17:42:33 +0000

As I’ve said from the beginning: Where the NYT has started in its paywall won’t be where it ends. It either needs to morph into a true paywall or into a membership program. I personally think a membership program is much more appealing. But that’s just IMHO

By: Ranjan Roy

Ranjan Roy — Tue, 27 Mar 2012 17:17:07 +0000

You’ve completely nailed it: monetize the engagement, not the traffic or content. Newspapers never really monetized content, but only the purported eyeballs from circulation to advertisers, and other than the HuffPos, will never build the digital ad sales teams and low-cost bases to compete. They are sitting on massive, engaged, lucrative audiences yet are still trying to replicate print monetization models on the “new” medium of the web. (An unconventional take on this short-sightedness: http://bit.ly/zWVf5N)

By: Jeff S

Jeff S — Tue, 27 Mar 2012 17:01:39 +0000

It’s because digital ad space if virtually unlimited. There is no scarcity to digital advertising, especially the way it is served (indiscriminately across multiple brands and platforms simultaneously). Obviously, no scarcity = low prices.

By: Arvin Alba

Arvin Alba — Tue, 27 Mar 2012 12:29:37 +0000

Also, I really don’t see why digital ads are not as expensive as print ads. Is it because of limited screen space? But then, your HP ad takes tons of screen space, it’s very noticeable, and it did not annoy me as most animated flash ads would. That’s effective advertising, probably more effective than a print ad, which I would have glossed over, too, just like any ad.

By: Arvin Alba

Arvin Alba — Tue, 27 Mar 2012 12:21:09 +0000

That’d be great for special focus blogs, but traditional media won’t survive on that model. Community is very difficult to attain. In the end, much of traditional journalism will probably collapse. But in the end, this is good. Much of traditional media survived on bland content and reposts anyways. The rise of the web ensures that only quality content is monetizable.

Also, this does not completely mean that traditional media will die. People are still OK with paying for high quality content. Personally, I don’t see anything wrong with a paywall – if the content is good enough, I’ll bite.

By: Mathew Ingram

Mathew Ingram — Tue, 27 Mar 2012 01:04:07 +0000

Thanks, Greg.