Paywalls: The Times Vs The New York Times, social media Vs anti-social media
There’s a good piece on the Wall Street Journal looking at how publishers are devoting more time to analysing their reader’s social media habits as they get more and more traffic via social sources.
As I read this I was reminded that yesterday I was accused of being overly negative about News International and The Times paywall. Not true. I don’t have a problem with their paywall: it’s just the way they have done it – hermetically sealing the paper off from the social web and stopping its content from being shared in anyway whatsoever.
That’s where the issue is. So to be clear: I’m pretty certain that paywalls in one form or another are essential for the long term future of journalism. The Times has good journalism and writers – words that deserved to be shared and no doubt in (some cases) to be paid for.
Look what happened last week. Yes that’s right I’m talking about the great Times paywall collapse of 10/10, 1530hrs. Okay so not a collapse, but a spot of routine IT maintenance. After I tweeted about it there was a frenzy of social activity, a mass of tweeting and blogging.
Notable in all that was the tweet from Times writer Caitlin Moran: “Scream! Apparently the Times paywall has just fallen down! Quick! Read all my articles”.
That tweet, highlighting the lack of ability to share in anyway or even get a taster of an article (try before you buy?), was I thought telling.
Compare this to the other Times – the New York Times. It is ironic that the paper that Rupert Murdoch is battling in America via the Wall Street Journal should be the next major world newspaper to join his Times of London with a paywall.
But the strategy being pursued by the New York Times is different quite different. It is pursing an inclusive and “social strategy” and it underscored that last month by announcing that it was adding the ability to login to its site via Facebook.
It wants to ensue that when its metered paywall does go up that it remains part of the social conversation. You will be able to read some articles, as with the paywalled Financial Times, see excerpts for the rest and share its content socially.
The Times on the other hand is not part of the conversation. You can see or share nothing unless you subscribe.
And because of that the tweets you see most often when it comes to The Times are something along the lines of “would share but damned paywall”.
I don’t see why they have done it that way and I’m sure it is barrier to higher subscriber levels.
Take a second and look at the WSJ. Another News Corporation paper. It has a paywall, it had one long before the Times, and even if you are not a subscriber you can still get to an article, read an extract, and still share it.
I don’t understand why The Times have eschewed that approach in favour of an anti social media one (unless Murdoch and News Corp are planning to de-Google and de-social that site along the lines of The Times).
I started this post talking about a piece I’d seen tweeted on the WSJ. I went onto read that. One of its key points was that 42% of social-networking users “regularly or sometimes get their news through social-networking sites, according to a report released this week by the Pew Media Center”.
That is telling some publishers that “they are better off trying to reach users where they are congregating than trying to corral them on their site”.
I don’t know if that is the answer, but I am pretty sure that social media is the most significant thing to happen to the web since Web 2.0 and to cut yourself off from that makes no sense. It swims against the tide and fights the zeitgeist.
If anyone from News International would like to write and tell us why they are pursuing this particular strategy then, of course, we’d love to hear from them.
Until then we will have to wait for News International release data telling us how its paywall is doing.
All Comments
Gordon, I’m getting to this a tad late. But since this is always the subject of my comments on your posts, I wanted to let you know… with this post, you have absolutely nailed it, IMHO. I look forward to seeing how the NYT’s “social strategy” pans out.
Hi Gordon,
You make a good point about the difference between the two approaches: there is a broader social conversation going on, and being part of it ensures news publications stay relevant.
The Times has cut itself out of this conversation, and regardless what the numbers say at the end of the experiment, the publication has become less relevant. It has cut itself out of the social web and its cultural value has depreciated. In contrast, the New York Times recognises that it needs to be part of that broader conversation in order to maintain cultural relevance. The publication is very aware that cultural value translates to profitability, even if the practicalities of this relationship (paywalls? selected content for free? subscription only? new approach to ads? paid-for apps?) aren’t yet completely understood.
They New York Times has a strong tradition of doing its research before taking the plunge. I expect we’ll all learn a lot from the way The Gray Lady approaches paid-for content, but don’t expect The Times to follow suit. Murdoch has set his sails and his course has little to do with engaging users or taking part in any conversation– see Fox interview: http://video.foxbusiness.com/v/4223924/murdoch-we-have-to-make-the-best-content/?playlist_id=87185
Cheers for the comment @peter. It is going to be interesting to see how the NYT pans.
@Sara great point about how “cultural value translates to profitability”. The Times has not recognised and is exluding itself from culture in its widest sense and i think that will cost.
[...] This post was mentioned on Twitter by Sean Adams, Mike Hills, Christian Hughes, Shane Lennon and others. Shane Lennon said: get back into your cages? Paywalls: The Times Vs The New York Times, social media Vs anti-social media | The Wall Blog http://bit.ly/aj4Pfq [...]
[...] I wrote last week that I don’t have a problem with The Times paywall just its implementation. One of its biggest failing appeared to be shutting its once popular blogs behind the paywall. [...]
[...] Celebrity coverage by its rivals or lack of its own was not it’s the cause of its trailing its rivals, but this is used as part of a justification for the total paywall it has erected as opposed to the first click or more social media friendly ones already in operation or planned by the Wall Street Journal, the FT.com and the New York Times. [...]
[...] media, and put all of his UK content behind lock and paywall key, while others like the Mirror (and the New York Times) are looking for ways to embrace it, but still make money from [...]
[...] It makes sense to me that those who have bought Apple iPads are more likely to subscribe on a continuous monthly basis to the Times based on the idea that having bought it they need something to read on it. While the Times paywall in its current anti-social media form is much less compelling. [...]
[...] is in stark contrast to the Times in London, as I have blogged about once or twice before…, which apparently has no interest in social media or the turbo charging affect that it can have on [...]
[...] how its anti-social media paywall model was rejected by other parts of News Corp and how the Times and The New York Times compare (social media Vs anti-social [...]