I have received quite a lot of emails/tweets from people pointing me towards ways to break the NY Times paywall.
From the "@freeNYTimes" twitter account that aggregates all articles and thus provides free access to all content. To articles like "Am I Violating The DMCA By Visiting The NYTimes With NoScript Enabled?" Or, simply to this Greasemonkey script that removes the paywall altogether.
But I have very mixed feelings about it all.
But, on the other hand, it clearly illustrates the problem and the destructive culture of the internet.
Just because you can take something, without paying, doesn't mean you should!
The New York Times have put a price tag on their product. You get 20 articles for free, after that you have to pay. We can debate if it is the right price, if the product is valuable, or if the implementation is too complex.
But, nobody has the right to just take the content. Just as you are not allowed to just take a shirt hanging outside a clothing store.
Taking paid for content without paying for it, is theft. It doesn't matter if it is not adequately protected.
People say, "but why should I pay when everyone else are giving away their news for free?" Well, fine. Don't pay. Don't read The New York Times, go to all the other sites instead.
I wrote about this problem in "The Rights of People." Essentially, if you don't pay, you don't get to do anything. You don't have the right to tell other companies what price to set, or what product to make. You can suggest a price, but the seller maintains all the rights until you have paid for it.
But once you pay, everything turns upside down. Now it is the buyer who has all the right. The seller has no right to tell you how to use their product.
It is the same with the NY Times. If you don't pay, you don't have any rights. You make suggestions. You can complain. You can write articles about it (like I did). But, you have no rights. It is entirely up to the NY Times if they want to listen.
Once you pay, you can do anything you want (short of republishing it, of course).
I personally do not think The New York Times' metering system is useful. It is way too complex, and it punished loyal readers instead of rewarding them (because they have to pay, while infrequent readers don't).
But that doesn't mean I, or anyone else, can just take the content anyway.
The media industry cannot fight content piracy (just look at the music industry), but we can change the culture.
Can magazines combine advertising and subscriptions? Well, it depends...
Can a cheaper news product unlock more of your market? Let's explore.
Bundling publications at random is not very useful, but using it as a tool to drive upsell is.
Most of your conversions should happen because of your journalism, but for many magazines, this is not the case.
If your advertising is designed to annoy people, then it not going to work with subscriptions. But brands don't want annoying ads either.
What if something was free for one period and paid for another?
In Norway, 42% of the public pays for online news, while the industry standard is just 10%. Let's look at why this is.
Publishers are obviously worried about how COVID-19 will impact them, but what is the long-term outlook?
Founder, media analyst, author, and publisher. Follow on Twitter
"Thomas Baekdal is one of Scandinavia's most sought-after experts in the digitization of media companies. He has made himself known for his analysis of how digitization has changed the way we consume media."
Swedish business magazine, Resumé