CDZ Are paywalls smart or effective for websites?

[2aguy]

There are news websites that are behind paywalls.....so I don't go to them. Is a paywall smart or effective vs. selling advertising? Does anyone have any information on paywalls and their return vs. simply selling advertising?

 

[Blues Man]

I always click the back button when I run into a pay wall

 

[justinacolmena]

I hate pay-per-view and cash-for-eyeballs. People got something to sell, and I'm expected to shell out the dough just to read or listen to their sales pitch.

 

[2aguy]

One political site I go to has a VIP paywall for extra columns......I won't pay for them so they lose out on that advertising......

 

[kwc57]

I've yet to find a site I valued enough to pay for.

 

[CarlinAnnArbor]

There are news websites that are behind paywalls.....so I don't go to them. Is a paywall smart or effective vs. selling advertising? Does anyone have any information on paywalls and their return vs. simply selling advertising?

I will never pay for that kind of service. Very bad business model. They will die out.

 

[Bob Blaylock]

I have to admit to not fully understanding all the dynamics of trying to run a web site, that costs money to run, with content that costs money to obtain or produce; while getting enough money either in advertising or direct payments from the audience, or from whatever other sources may be available, to cover the costs involved in running such a web site and making enough profit to be worth doing so.

But it's clear to me that putting content behind a paywall has the most profound effect of limiting the audience, and it seems to me that that cannot be good. If they just let me through, and put up a page with reasonable advertising on it, then they can get whatever revenue is there to get for putting that advertising in front of me. If they put up a paywall, then, in order to get any revenue at all from me, they have the impossible task of convincing me that the content behind it is worth paying for, without letting me see the content first, so that I can judge whether it is worth paying for.

Like Blues Man and 2aguy have stated, when I run into a paywall, I just turn back. It's not unthinkable that there might be content that I might want to see enough that if I hit a paywall, I'll pay to go through it,but that has never happened yet.

Same reaction when I hit one of those walls that won't let you go past with an ad-blocker enabled. AdBlock Plus, by default, comes configured to allow ads to be displayed that meet the Acceptable Ads Standards. I think these standards are very reasonable, and am willing to allow ads that comply with them. If any media source is not willing to comply with these standards, then I sure as Hell am not going to let them send their noncompliant garbage to my browser. If they do comply with these standards then there is no reason for them to object to me having a blocker up that blocks stuff that doesn't comply.

 

[Juicin]

There are news websites that are behind paywalls.....so I don't go to them. Is a paywall smart or effective vs. selling advertising? Does anyone have any information on paywalls and their return vs. simply selling advertising?

other than the very top of the top it seems to be much more effective to open up and ask for donations

consensus seems to be if you're going to paywall. It should be extra crap no one really wants and the sub is basically a donation for more engaged fans.

The NY times makes money with a paywall. If you're in the top of your niche you might make some money, even on a newsletter. But if you're not near the top of your niche guaranteed you're better off opening up and asking for donations while trying to monetize as you see fit via ads.

Only exception i can think of to that is financial newsletters...which are their own beast