{"id":643820,"date":"2013-02-25T14:01:46","date_gmt":"2013-02-25T19:01:46","guid":{"rendered":"http:\/\/paidcontent.org\/?p=225106"},"modified":"2013-02-25T14:01:46","modified_gmt":"2013-02-25T19:01:46","slug":"marco-arments-digital-magazine-and-the-paywall-vs-sharing-problem","status":"publish","type":"post","link":"https:\/\/mereja.media\/index\/643820","title":{"rendered":"Marco Arment\u2019s digital magazine and the paywall vs. sharing problem"},"content":{"rendered":"

When it comes to new-media players worth watching, Marco Arment\u2019s iPad-only publication \u2014 known simply as \u201cThe Magazine\u201d<\/a> \u2014 is at or near the top of the list, if only because it is a totally new, digital-native media venture that appears to already be profitable<\/a> according to its founder. So it\u2019s interesting to note that Arment recently announced a significant change by making full articles available for sharing on the web via a metered<\/a> paywall approach. Like so many publishers, The Magazine\u2019s founder is trying to find a happy medium between charging and sharing. But is there one, and if so where is it?<\/p>\n

As Arment explains in his blog post about the change, the need to open up his magazine\u2019s content more for sharing was brought home by the response to a recent piece he published by Jamelle Bouie<\/a> on the topic of race and technology writing. As with most of the essays in The Magazine, the writer was free to publish on his own blog as well, which he did \u2014 and while The Magazine\u2019s version got plenty of readers, the response to Bouie\u2019s piece<\/a> after it appeared on his own site was substantially larger:<\/p>\n

\n

\u201cWe allow authors to republish their articles on their own sites (or anywhere else) just 30 days after we publish them. Bouie did exactly that, as many of our authors have. Only then did his article explode into the huge discussion I suspected may result from it \u2014 and The Magazine wasn\u2019t a part of it.\u201d<\/p>\n<\/blockquote>\n

The magazine was cut off from the social web<\/h2>\n

The Magazine wasn\u2019t part of this broader web and social-media discussion because Arment initially showed only a short excerpt at the website \u2014 as well as a download link for the iOS app \u2014 when readers shared a story. As the publisher points out, since his magazine doesn\u2019t rely on advertising at all but gets its revenue entirely from subscriptions, a web presence with full content seemed like a fairly low priority, if not an outright negative<\/a>. Arment calls this \u201cthe biggest mistake I\u2019ve made with The Magazine to date.\u201d<\/p>\n

\n

\u201cYou\u2019d share a link, and everyone would just see the truncated teaser. Some of them would subscribe and see the rest, but most would get turned off by the truncation and just abandon the effort, as we web readers tend to do. Most people with big followings would quickly realize this and, understandably, avoid linking to our articles.\u201d<\/p>\n<\/blockquote>\n

\"paywall\"<\/a><\/p>\n

This is similar to the problem (one of many) that News Corp.\u2019s iPad-only magazine The Daily ran into when it launched: it didn\u2019t even have a website, per se, so initially users who followed a shared link from a subscriber would get a static page. In the early days of the app, in fact, readers were actually sent to an image of the page from the app \u2014 something that was impossible to click on or otherwise interact with. The sharing experience was so broken<\/a> that many likely never bothered.<\/p>\n

Where should the freemium line be drawn?<\/h2>\n

Arment\u2019s problem is a microcosm of the tension that publishers everywhere are experiencing, from the New York Times<\/em> to the smallest local paper. While some media companies \u2014 including News Corp. with some its British papers \u2014 have chosen to go with what are called \u201chard\u201d paywalls, where virtually no content is provided to readers for free, almost everyone else is trying to find a happy medium between that and no subscription barrier or paywall at all.<\/p>\n

The NYT started by providing 20 free articles, and giving anyone who came in via a link on social media a free view, a so-called \u201cporous\u201d paywall approach many other newspapers have adopted. But the paper recently cut the number of free articles in half<\/a>. Andrew Sullivan, meanwhile \u2014 who recently launched a standalone blog funded<\/a> solely by subscriptions \u2014 has made virtually of his content free via RSS, but imposed a click-through wall for readers<\/a> on the site.<\/p>\n

The issue for everyone from Sullivan (who will be appearing at our paidContent Live conference<\/a> in New York in April) and Arment to the New York Times<\/em> is how much they need to be part of the social web vs. how much they plan to rely on reader subscriptions. A hard paywall essentially means a publication will be supported solely by existing readers, plus a few new sign-ups here and there \u2014 but newer or smaller publishers need the word-of-mouth that sharing brings in order to build awareness (and older brands might as well).<\/p>\n

As traditional advertising continues to decline in value \u2014 something that has taken both the New York Times<\/em> and the Financial Times<\/em> to the point where subscription revenue now exceeds<\/a> advertising revenue for the first time \u2014 more and more publishers are going to have to confront this tension between paying and sharing. And in all likelihood, there is no single right answer.<\/p>\n

Post and thumbnail images courtesy of Flickr user Giuseppe Bognanni<\/a> and Shutterstock \/ Daniilantiq<\/a><\/em><\/p>\n

\"\"<\/p>\n

<\/a><\/p>\n

Related research and analysis from GigaOM Pro:<\/strong>
Subscriber content. Sign up for a free trial<\/a>.<\/p>\n