You Can’t Subscribe to Everything

That the news industry is reeling is not a matter for debate. And if there is one data point that should focus the mind for its executives — and for anyone who cares about journalism — it probably is this: for most outlets, most readers arrive from other websites, search results or social media shares. Let’s look at my hometown paper, the Philadelphia Inquirer. According to the web analysis service SimilarWeb, just under 41% of its page views come from users directly intending to visit the site — and 47% come from search. The picture is similar at the mighty New York Times: 36% direct, 38% from search, and another 22% from referrals from other sites. You’ll get similar numbers everywhere, with about 5% of readers arriving via social media links shared by friends. Now think of what this means in an era where sites are putting up paywalls. Increasingly, people are innocently crashing upon pages containing content they want to consume but with only a small (if any) attachment to the site (since they did not actually start there). They want to see a single piece of content and are jarringly asked to subscribe. It’s safe to say most will not; the publisher sees no money, the user experience is harmed, and time is wasted. Google, Facebook and Twitter are not well served as well. This used to never happen in the early days around the turn of the century when publishers were betting on advertising. Some actually thought the web would be no more than a marketing tool for print editions. Around 15 years ago, as the unviability of print was coming into focus, sites began to try diversifying online revenues. Only a few succeeded — the truly distinctive, with prosperous and captive audiences. It was limited to truly top-tier sites like the Times, the Wall Street Journal, the Financial Times and the Economist. Part of the problem was the inconvenience of charging online: it was too clunky back then to justify the effort for a single piece of content.

Here