Paywalls Suck — That’s Why We’re Banning Them!
First off, I’ve been a journalist, web publisher, and operated a media organization since late 2012, and if there’s one thing I understand about this business, its the need to earn revenue, or risk your media failing. No doubt, the current landscape for publishers on the web is a very tumultuous one, and over the years I’ve personally witnessed more media organizations and publishers crumble than I can count. With a modern web where ad revenues are often non-existent and ad blockers have become the norm, it would only make sense that publishers would result to the adoption of the ever proliferating paywall structures we see today. While I can totally sympathize with what these publishers are going through, I also believe that media organizations have a responsibility to put people first over profits, and that there’s a responsible way to implementing things like paywalls.
At present, the modern web has increasingly become a place where the public’s access to information is now locked behind closed doors. Some publishers have gone as far as to practically block access to their sites almost entirely unless users pay, and an increasingly larger majority of news publications on the web now only provide their visitors with 3 to 5 articles or less per month for non-paying viewers.
While some platforms like Medium have taken on a more responsible approach to the implementation of paywalls by offering a premium subscription service that provides access to additional premium content, others have flat out made paid subscriptions a mandate, rather than an option. Let’s face it, all it takes is a simple trip to Google News to realize half the publications who’s links we click on result in users being met with a locked screen followed by begging for our credit cards.
The original idea behind paywalls was to adopt them as a means of survival, but what we see today is paywalls being used as a giant money grab by big media.
I have to admit, we too are struggling as a media organization, and after 6 years of working to grow media like Strategic Social Networking, we’re drowning in debt, and currently at risk of losing everything we built.
In light of our own financial struggles, we decided the best way to gain support of the public is to ask for it, rather than demand it! This is why we’ve begun the process of implementing Patreon accounts for several of our media outlets including Strategic Social Networking. https://www.patreon.com/strategicsocialnetworking
Likewise, we too, just like the wider public, have become fed up with giant media organizations who make more money than god, demanding we pay to access any information on their sites.
As a result of the rampant proliferation of paywalls and the irresponsible ways in which they’re being implemented, we’ve decided to take action against publishers who treat the public as a private piggy bank by banning their content from our news related social media outlets on Google+, including Strategic’s community that currently houses over 160,000 members. The same will go for all of our media on Google+, including our gaming communities, as well as our travel photography community with over 250,000 members.
Moving forward, publications across the web who fail to apply fair means of implementing the use of paywalls will find themselves increasingly shut out from the wider Google+ community, we have our ways.
From here on, any publication that offers less than 5 free articles a month, or attempts to charge unfair and exorbitant fees to access their content, will have their posts removed from our Google+ communities entirely.
Publications who violate these rules and post their content directly to our communities will find their posts and accounts flagged as spam, they will lose all their visibility, and they will be banned from accessing and engaging with our communities across the Google Plus platform.
While these actions may seem harsh, we have a responsibility to protect our media organization’s members, followers, and the wider G+ community from deceptive publishers who don’t value their readers. We also think this is a fair approach to dealing with the issues currently surrounding paywalls and the often negative ways in which they affect our media organization’s audiences. After all, we aren’t outright banning paywalls altogether, but rather banning those who implement them in an unfair manner.
Likewise, we will be periodically publishing lists of news organizations we’ve banned, and or reinstated.
The first to join this list are the New York Times and The Washington Post, both of which either limit their users to a lousy 3 articles per month, or charge exorbitant fees to access their content.
What do we mean by exorbitant fees? Just look at this ad from the The New York Times that touts a monthly subscription for $8.99. While this doesn’t seem too bad, the average consumer obviously cannot afford to pay $8.99 for every site they access. Likewise, the regular fees of $15.99 are beyond excessive, as shown in the image below. Another thing to note here is how many paid subscribers publications like The New York Times have. Multiply these fees by the hundreds of thousands and these guys are making more money than they know what to do with.
The Washington Post is banned simply for blocking access to its page that explains its paywall, what a bunch of nonsense! Here’s a snapshot of the page they published that’s supposed to explain their paywall and subscription policies, notice its almost totally blocked:
What’s really deceptive about this is the fact the Washington Post states “Limited Number of Articles”, without bothering to state how many. From what I’ve seen its a maximum of 3. Either way, its really ridiculous when a publisher hides its own policies behind a paywall.
Again, I totally get it too, these publishers need revenue to survive, but blocking out the public from 100% of your content unless they pay just seems like a bad business model. Such actions also go against the guiding principals of a free and open web. What made the internet so great was the fact the world freely had access to information that often betters everyone involved.
Another way to look at this is the fact our media organization spent years promoting the content of big media publications like The New York Times and Washington Post. When it comes to our communities and brand pages across the social web, and not just on Google+, we’ve long been news aggregators who’ve prided ourselves on sharing diversity in opinion and ideas.
Here we could be promoting as usual these media outlets content, but because they choose to be greedy and selfish they’re going to lose on free traffic they otherwise could’ve had.
As for the use of Patreon, we honestly don’t know how well this will work our for us, but we’re definitely being open-minded in giving it a try.
All being said, its true that publishers need revenue, and I’m wholeheartedly in support of their implementation of paywalls, that is when its done in a responsible way. Again, forcing users to subscribe at ridiculous rates is not a good business model. If anything, its more likely to alienate an audience than help build one. Respect is something that’s earned, never something that’s given.
Written and published by Daniel Imbellino — Co-Founder of Strategic Social Networking and pctechauthority.com. Many thanks for reading. Be sure to check out Strategic Social Networking Community on Google+ to connect with tens of thousands of IT professionals and learn effective strategies to grow your social presence online. You’re also welcome to follow Strategic’s brand page on G+ for the latest social media and IT industry news. You’re also welcome to connect with me on Google+: https://plus.google.com/u/0/+DanielImbellino
Strategic Social Networking is Funded by The Public! Consider supporting our work on Patreon:
