Comments on: How the NYT paywall could turn out to be a success A slice of lime in the soda Sun, 26 Oct 2014 19:05:02 +0000 hourly 1 By: TFF Fri, 25 Mar 2011 09:46:32 +0000 For those making comparisons between print ads, consider the differences as well.
* I’ve never had a print ad crash my newspaper and force a browser restart.

* I’ve never had a print ad throw itself on top of the article I’m trying to read and insist that I find the “X” if I want to go on reading.

Perhaps the NYT has a higher class of ads than their subsidiary, but the Boston Globe is increasingly annoying to visit. The result, naturally, is that I’ve mostly stopped reading it. When I do, I navigate directly to the blogs or features that I want and avoid the aggressive main page.

I would pay for the Boston Globe if it eliminated the aggressive ads. But (as my viewing habits have shown) I will leave an ad-ridden website for free.

By: iflydaplanes Wed, 23 Mar 2011 20:13:25 +0000 Forgive me if I am missing a point here but printed newspapers also have adds in them. Even if a person does not subscribe they still have to pay for it on an individual basis. So what’s the difference if the website also has ads even if one subscribes to it? I mean SWARMtheBANKS finds it offensive to have ads on a web site paid for to access. Is SWARMtheBANKS also offended by ads in printed newspapers of which are also paid for?

By: dWj Wed, 23 Mar 2011 14:01:59 +0000 @Swarm: We never had cable growing up, and at some point in the mid nineties I remember being shocked to discover that cable had ads. People *pay* for cable; it shouldn’t *need* ads. Why do people pay for it if it still has advertising?

Felix: suppose advertisers are rational. (Just for the sake of argument.) It seems likely to me that whatever benefit they’re drawing from selling the advertising is well approximated by a sum of benefits associated with ads served to each viewer — 42 cents from dWj seeing our ads this month, $3.24 for Felix (since he’s a big spender), etc. — with higher numbers per pageview basically represent higher amounts of “engagement”. If we remove the lower-valued pageviews, the average will go up — say by 30% — but the total will go down. I would think advertising revenue would ultimately be reflective of this; the only way you end up with more advertising revenue is if you can draw in customers (or engagement) that wasn’t there before.

Perhaps, as you suggest, even if the advertisers are rational, the readers aren’t — they’ll take their free pass from Lincoln (or a paid subscription, for that matter), and tell themselves how much more they value NYT than they would any free website, and they will provide the extra aggregate engagement there. General equilibrium is complicated, and perhaps something else would turn up — maybe the comments on articles improve, and draw readers who otherwise wouldn’t have been there, or the selection of articles starts to change. Most of the stories I tell myself that seem likely to lead to an increase in ad revenue, though, require new readers. I think the first-order effect is a decline, avereage engagement level notwithstanding.

By: RZ0 Wed, 23 Mar 2011 10:42:39 +0000 Sorry, I thought you knew about the difference between paid subscribers and free copies. This is a key of the newspaper model. Newspaper subscriptions were carefully audited, separating paid subscriptions from daily sales from freebies.
And I think you are describing part of the Times strategy, but I think their motivation lies elsewhere, if they’re smart (which is hardly a given when you are talking about newspaper companies.)
Paid subscribers back in the day were worth more because those people were motivated enough to fork over dough to get the paper regularly. The assumption is, as you say, they are looking more closely at content than the free readers.
But that metric only makes sense in the old media, when it was possible to give away, oh, 100,000 copies of a paper but never really know how many people took the time to open it. Then advertisers had to gauge the likelihood of seeing their ad, given that a paper had found its way into the hands of a reader. They had to measure somehow that the guy with the paper actually read it, instead of just throwing it in the trash.
But paid circulation is not a precise metric. Lots of people used to subscribe to a paper and let unwrapped papers pile up just inside their doorstep. They’d only unwrap the papers to prepare them for recycling. However, it was the best measurement device available.
With the internet, paid subscription remains a weak gauge of whether subscribers were exposed to an ad. You don’t need an indicator at all. You can find out how many times your ad was placed on a page in front of people. There are already tons of more sophisticated metrics.
Example: Reuters doesn’t need a paid subscription base to tell advertisers how much people like Felix Salmon’s blog. (Right now ING has the banner on my screen.) They can report that X people looked at Felix’s blog on Wednesday, March 23, and Y of those people were exposed to the ING ad (I’m assuming the Felix Salmon banner is sold to more than one advertiser.)
In fact, paying a premium for paid subscribers doesn’t make a whole lot of sense, since along with knowing who clicked, you can describe a whole lot of demographic information about the clickers.
There are two possibilities.
First, advertisers, like the Times, haven’t really thought through the stuff I just wrote about. You can’t discount that possibility, because the idea of CPM has a century of momentum behind it, and the people who run businesses can be victims of that kind of statistical tyranny. (Separating daily and Sunday circulation had the same effect on the newspaper, but that’s a story for another day.)
Or the Times may be cleansing its demographic. It can present the average paid subscriber as wealthier than the average Lincoln-fed subscriber and charge a premium to appear on paid subscribers’ pages. This makes sense if you figure the average Times paid subscriber is a wealthy person to whom $15 a month is meaningless.
So the paid pages would have lots of ads from Lexus while the Lincoln-fed ads would have lots of ads from, say, Wal-Mart.
My example, though, kind of shows how shaky this thinking is. Why would Lincoln want to sponsor the Wal-Mart pages?
I’d love to see the demographics of the people Lincoln is offering subscriptions to. I suspect it has a lot more to do with median income than with account activity.

By: Loebner Wed, 23 Mar 2011 10:32:43 +0000 One pays for the print edition, and gets ads. I don’t mind ads, as long as they are not the intrusive “skip this ad and go on to the article” preview type. Who knows, the ad might actually be something I’m interested in.

I don’t mind paying for the Times, (although I did accept the Lincoln offer). Newspapers aren’t selling paper, they are selling news. They have to pay investigative reporter, and to do that they need an income.

By: SWARMtheBANKS Wed, 23 Mar 2011 05:48:42 +0000 Couple things. If I paid for access, I will find ads offensive, what the heck am I paying for? I’m not just paying for access, I’m paying to not be bothered by ADS!

Second thing, there is no standardized accountability when it comes to internet advertising. Even the most ethical standards put in place will suffer from those who stack their stats.

here are some examples of stat stacking that I think I have stumbled upon as a browser. I’m following 60 second game updates on any of a number of well known sports platform. Everytime the game update refreshes, a new ad appears, and the website can count that as a new ad hit! Well, my question is, just when does a viewer reach saturation on a site?

If I am watching for game updates, and in the course of an hour I allegedly see 60 different ads, did I really notice more than a handful of them?

Some websites with forums and comments sections force their readers to relog in every few hours. Sometimes the loyal reader/viewer has to go back to a main page to re-sign in, and then navigate through a few links to get back to where they were. Are these all considered separate page hits?

Another annoying tactic involves loading multiple ads at the same time that use too much memory and clog up the actual loading of the page.

Other annoying ad tactics are promising some type of information or item for “free”. but then not allowing access to said free item or info until the reader has given up their own email address and personal mailing address as well.

The sad truth about the internet is that most people like to flit from site to site, sometimes even establishing a routine, and they just have no desire to buy anything. The result is incredibly low ad response rates.