I can't speak to the broader effectiveness of this strategy, but I know that I have paid to see some of a writer's paywalled work after first being exposed to their free content.
I can't speak to the broader effectiveness of this strategy, but I know that I have paid to see some of a writer's paywalled work after first being exposed to their free content.
I feel like 404media is doing a good job at that. They irritate me sometimes but they break a lot of great news with a tiny staff and have an indomitable social media presence (at least on bluesky) that really gets people talking about them. Don't get me wrong, I'll never pay for their work because I feel like they get a little user hostile sometimes[1], but people less curmudgeonly probably are subscribing.
Y’all choose the weirdest hills to die on.
Sure. This problem is conserved across private enterprise.
> providing half your content for free while keeping half behind a paywall seems like a perfectly reasonable strategy to address this discoverability problem
The New York Times runs a 12% operating margin [1]. Giving away half their content without sacrificing quality would require incurring the same 88¢ of costs for 50¢ of revenue; it just doesn't work. Sales and marketing is usually a single-digit percent of revenue for a reason [2].
The partial-reveal strategy particularly fails for news because I can now decide which articles I'll run through the Internet Archive. If you paywall everything, that's too tedious.
[1] https://nytco-assets.nytimes.com/2024/11/Q324-Press-Release-...
[2] https://bfi.uchicago.edu/wp-content/uploads/2024/11/BFI_WP_2...
NYT doesn't charge per article; they charge for tiers of access.
Yes. Not half.