Re:How paywalled sites permit access to visitors from social...
by frandroid on Tuesday July 18, 2017 @02:40PM
(#14798992)
It's fine talking about messes, but _someone_ has to pay for the content, and display ads don't cut it. Paywalls will be the dominant form of monetization for most mainstream news orgs in the next 5 years. The second most important one will be the Guardian's supporter model, which is a paywall lite. It's still not clear this model will work at the Guardian is still bleeding money.
I think eventually you'll see a re-arranging of press wire cooperatives such as AP and CP to limit dissemination of wire content for free without strings attached, forcing the hand of many.
Re:How paywalled sites permit access to visitors from social...
by bigbugbag on Wednesday July 19, 2017 @07:10AM
(#14803440)
The content is usually crap used to brainwash people, so let the shareholders pay for it. Besides once _someone_ has paid then no one needs to pay ever again because sharing and digital copies.
The business model is wrong and broken, and this failed business model is not our problem.
Many internet generations ago news sites were mad at Google for showing ads alongside their headlines on news.google. They even got some lawmakers to agree. Google offered to de-index them. Stalemate.
Similar issue here. News sites want paid subscriptions if they can get them, so paywall. They also want the readers who won’t pay, so no paywall.
Overall, I think paywalling is a semi-dead end. I don’t mean that it won’t work for any site, but it’ll probably be a niche revenue source like a print-only publication. Most news sites want to be part of the greatest, most relevant discussions. Those happen on the internet as a whole, not inside walled gardens. This mess free for some, paid for others mess is to much of a kludge to be the model.