Quote:
In a national online longitudinal survey, participants reported their attitudes and behaviors in response to the recently implemented metered paywall by the New York Times. Previously free online content now requires a digital subscription to access beyond a small free monthly allotment. Participants were surveyed shortly after the paywall was announced and again 11 weeks after it was implemented to understand how they would react and adapt to this change. Most readers planned not to pay and ultimately did not. Instead, they devalued the newspaper, visited its Web site less frequently, and used loopholes, particularly those who thought the paywall would lead to inequality. Results of an experimental justification manipulation revealed that framing the paywall in terms of financial necessity moderately increased support and willingness to pay. Framing the paywall in terms of a profit motive proved to be a noncompelling justification, sharply decreasing both support and willingness to pay. Results suggest that people react negatively to paying for previously free content, but change can be facilitated with compelling justifications that emphasize fairness.
[
Jonathan E. Cook and Shahzeen Z. Attari] hat tip: Jim Romenesko
Or, in English: If you tell folks you'll charge them money to read your stuff because you want to make money, that's a no-no, but you can open their hearts and wallets [somewhat] if you threaten to fire Krugman, Dowd and everyone else.
Login
FAQ
Search
![[Valid RSS]](http://www.testycopyeditors.org/phpBB3/styles/subsilver2/imageset/valid-rss.png "Validate my RSS feed")