Felix Salmon

The marriage of Figaro and paywalls

By Felix Salmon
February 12, 2010

France’s Le Figaro has unveiled its own freemium version of a paywall, and it’s an interesting model. Fresh news is free; old news disappears into an archive. Once you’ve registered, you can get emailed newsletters and can comment on articles; if you pay €8 per month you get French versions of New York Times articles and 30 articles per month from the archive, as well as various social-networking bells and whistles. And for €16 per month you can get 90 stories from the archive, as well as two business newsletters, and a concierge service for restaurant and travel reservations.

Interestingly, the social-networking bells and whistles at the €16/month level are “focused around business networking” — this essentially uses your willingness to pay that kind of money as a signalling device, indicating that you might well be someone worth doing business with. There’s also an interesting distinction being made between being allowed to comment, on the one hand, and being allowed to contribute your own stories, on the other. Although it’s a little bit worrying that people are now being asked to pay for the privilege of providing content to news sites: it kind of turns the old-fashioned business model — of paying journalists for their contributions — on its head.

My feeling here is that the premium services aren’t designed as money-makers, in and of themselves, so much as they’re designed to build the kind of brand loyalty among online subscribers that Le Fig currently has among its print subscribers. Paying money for something makes you feel more fondly towards it — especially when doing so means that you become part of a select social network. I’m sure that once people start subscribing to the paper’s website, they’ll start visiting it many more times per month than they do currently, and thereby help increase, rather than decrease, its total advertising revenue.

This, then, if it works, is a paywall done right — although the blogosphere is going to want some way to be able to link to articles while knowing that the linked articles aren’t going to disappear behind an archive paywall in a few days or weeks. But more to the point, if it doesn’t work, then little harm is done, and Le Fig can dismantle it without embarrassment. It’s a low-cost experiment, not a high-profile directional bet on the future of online journalism. Such bets have an astonishingly low success rate, and it behooves all news organizations to avoid them. NYT, take note.

5 comments so far | RSS Comments RSS

Not sure I understand why they have limits on archive access even at the highest tier. Any idea how ‘old’ news has to be to end up there?

Posted by absinthe | Report as abusive

A quibble: There is a marriage, a Figaro, and a paywall, but I went back over the plot of Marriage of Figaro and was unable to find a touchstone. Empty play on words???

Posted by Uncle_Billy | Report as abusive

What idiots. OLD news should be free. Fresh news should cost. They obviously don’t understand their basic business model.

Posted by dlr | Report as abusive

In whose book does paying money for something behind a wall make the heart grow fonder?

Posted by HBC | Report as abusive

Post Your Comment

We welcome comments that advance the story through relevant opinion, anecdotes, links and data. If you see a comment that you believe is irrelevant or inappropriate, you can flag it to our editors by using the report abuse links. Views expressed in the comments do not represent those of Reuters. For more information on our comment policy, see http://blogs.reuters.com/fulldisclosure/2010/09/27/toward-a-more-thoughtful-conversation-on-stories/