Blog Post

Marco Arment’s digital magazine and the paywall vs. sharing problem

Stay on Top of Emerging Technology Trends

Get updates impacting your industry from our GigaOm Research Community
Join the Community!

When it comes to new-media players worth watching, Marco Arment’s iPad-only publication — known simply as “The Magazine” — is at or near the top of the list, if only because it is a totally new, digital-native media venture that appears to already be profitable according to its founder. So it’s interesting to note that Arment recently announced a significant change by making full articles available for sharing on the web via a metered paywall approach. Like so many publishers, The Magazine’s founder is trying to find a happy medium between charging and sharing. But is there one, and if so where is it?

As Arment explains in his blog post about the change, the need to open up his magazine’s content more for sharing was brought home by the response to a recent piece he published by Jamelle Bouie on the topic of race and technology writing. As with most of the essays in The Magazine, the writer was free to publish on his own blog as well, which he did — and while The Magazine’s version got plenty of readers, the response to Bouie’s piece after it appeared on his own site was substantially larger:

“We allow authors to republish their articles on their own sites (or anywhere else) just 30 days after we publish them. Bouie did exactly that, as many of our authors have. Only then did his article explode into the huge discussion I suspected may result from it — and The Magazine wasn’t a part of it.”

The magazine was cut off from the social web

The Magazine wasn’t part of this broader web and social-media discussion because Arment initially showed only a short excerpt at the website — as well as a download link for the iOS app — when readers shared a story. As the publisher points out, since his magazine doesn’t rely on advertising at all but gets its revenue entirely from subscriptions, a web presence with full content seemed like a fairly low priority, if not an outright negative. Arment calls this “the biggest mistake I’ve made with The Magazine to date.”

“You’d share a link, and everyone would just see the truncated teaser. Some of them would subscribe and see the rest, but most would get turned off by the truncation and just abandon the effort, as we web readers tend to do. Most people with big followings would quickly realize this and, understandably, avoid linking to our articles.”


This is similar to the problem (one of many) that News Corp.’s iPad-only magazine The Daily ran into when it launched: it didn’t even have a website, per se, so initially users who followed a shared link from a subscriber would get a static page. In the early days of the app, in fact, readers were actually sent to an image of the page from the app — something that was impossible to click on or otherwise interact with. The sharing experience was so broken that many likely never bothered.

Where should the freemium line be drawn?

Arment’s problem is a microcosm of the tension that publishers everywhere are experiencing, from the New York Times to the smallest local paper. While some media companies — including News Corp. with some its British papers — have chosen to go with what are called “hard” paywalls, where virtually no content is provided to readers for free, almost everyone else is trying to find a happy medium between that and no subscription barrier or paywall at all.

The NYT started by providing 20 free articles, and giving anyone who came in via a link on social media a free view, a so-called “porous” paywall approach many other newspapers have adopted. But the paper recently cut the number of free articles in half. Andrew Sullivan, meanwhile — who recently launched a standalone blog funded solely by subscriptions — has made virtually of his content free via RSS, but imposed a click-through wall for readers on the site.

The issue for everyone from Sullivan (who will be appearing at our paidContent Live conference in New York in April) and Arment to the New York Times is how much they need to be part of the social web vs. how much they plan to rely on reader subscriptions. A hard paywall essentially means a publication will be supported solely by existing readers, plus a few new sign-ups here and there — but newer or smaller publishers need the word-of-mouth that sharing brings in order to build awareness (and older brands might as well).

As traditional advertising continues to decline in value — something that has taken both the New York Times and the Financial Times to the point where subscription revenue now exceeds advertising revenue for the first time — more and more publishers are going to have to confront this tension between paying and sharing. And in all likelihood, there is no single right answer.

Post and thumbnail images courtesy of Flickr user Giuseppe Bognanni and Shutterstock / Daniilantiq

4 Responses to “Marco Arment’s digital magazine and the paywall vs. sharing problem”

  1. The key to finding the balance between paid and free content is through testing. Audiences feelings about the value of the brand and content both play a role. In short, not one size fits all.

    Content owners are best served to have a platform that allows them to change the business logic quickly based upon data collected. We find by shifting pricing, subtle placement of text and graphics, and many other factors dramatically impact profitability and user experience.

    A paywall strategy is based on constant revision and experimentation and it can always be improved.

  2. I don’t believe that earning subscription revenue and being part of the social web are mutually exclusive – I think this idea stems from the “one-size-fits-all” approach to content that brands have managed to shed much faster than publishers.

    One core piece of content can support lots of different media optimised for sharing: lightweight pieces that inform and entertain – we could be talking about photographs, segments of video interviews, infographics, or an excerpt that’s edited to be self-sufficient. These channel-optimised bits of content, valuable and shareable in and of themselves, can serve as a vehicle for driving traffic and interest to the paywalled, high value add ten thousand word article. You don’t have to give away the farm to bring a crowd to the barn dance.

  3. Glenn Fleishman

    “As with most of the essays in The Magazine, the writer was free to publish on his own blog as well”: I should clarify this, as we didn’t think so many people would amplify that angle. Marco from the start has contracted for non-exclusive rights to the work we license (writing, photography, and illustration), but asks for just 30 days of exclusive rights following publication. After that, it’s not just that a writer or artist has certain freedoms we’ve allowed. Rather, the creator has all of his or her rights back (and retains copyright to boot). We retain a sliver of rights for reproduction. That’s the way it used to be for freelancers, and I like that Marco wanted to offer those rights for his publication. (It’s one of the reasons I approached him about becoming its editor.)

    I’d argue that we differ from The Daily in goals. The Daily wanted to become a widely read publiation that would be perhaps the de facto iOS newspaper. They spent enormously. And they had to capture a huge audience to make it work. Gaining 100,000 subscribers is fairly amazing.

    The Magazine’s finances and goals are much more slender: We want to be a source of unique and interesting content to our subscribers, and everything we do is oriented around that. We can’t ignore attracting new subscribers (or replacing lost ones), but we really think about our subscribers as patrons that are having content created that meets their interest.