Putting Up A Paywall Just To Have Advertisers Pay To Take It Down?

from the suckers-bet? dept

Mon, Apr 4th 2011 11:00pm — Mike Masnick

There's an interesting article at AdAge noting that while there are various paywalls going up, there are also a growing number of advertisers willing to pay to take down the paywall... and they're willing to pay more than it would have cost to just advertise. For example, Lincoln "paid" for a bunch of people to get the new NY Times' paywall for free, and Volvo is paying for a bunch of people to get free streaming video of Major League Baseball content. What strikes me as amusing about all of this is that the folks putting up these paywalls keep insisting that "advertising alone" can't pay enough... and yet here they are more or less admitting that advertisers are happy to pay "enough," if they're given a promotional package that brings benefits to them. Of course, the silly part of this is that part of that "benefit" to the advertisers is the perception that they're helping people take down the paywall. If that's really true, perhaps we should set up a paywall here at Techdirt just so some advertisers can "pay" to take it down. Any interest? Let us know...

Thank you for reading this Techdirt post. With so many things competing for everyone’s attention these days, we really appreciate you giving us your time. We work hard every day to put quality content out there for our community.

Techdirt is one of the few remaining truly independent media outlets. We do not have a giant corporation behind us, and we rely heavily on our community to support us, in an age when advertisers are increasingly uninterested in sponsoring small, independent sites — especially a site like ours that is unwilling to pull punches in its reporting and analysis.

While other websites have resorted to paywalls, registration requirements, and increasingly annoying/intrusive advertising, we have always kept Techdirt open and available to anyone. But in order to continue doing so, we need your support. We offer a variety of ways for our readers to support us, from direct donations to special subscriptions and cool merchandise — and every little bit helps. Thank you.

–The Techdirt Team

Filed Under: advertisers, newspapers, paywall

16 Comments

If you liked this post, you may also be interested in...

Reader Comments

Subscribe: RSS

View by: Time | Thread

testcore (profile), 4 Apr 2011 @ 10:53pm

Why isn't this the norm?
Never made sense to me to suddenly change your target consumer just because your media/format was different. Just because you're a newspaper going online, now your readers need to pay? Doesn't make sense.

Especially considering with online advertising, the advertiser can get a ridiculously clear and accurate picture of their return. 'Stead of the same ol' 50% wasted. Seems to me such targeted & known space is much, much more valuable.
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Anonymous Coward, 4 Apr 2011 @ 11:09pm

Cable used to be commercial free and reasonably priced. Now it costs a whole lot more and is riddled with commercials and the content quality isn't as good as it used to be. There is no reason why cable still can't be much cheaper with much fewer commercials like it used to be, but that's what happens when the government grants monopolies on everything.
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Cowman Mau, 4 Apr 2011 @ 11:59pm

Great Wall Of China
Oh you westerners, always trying to copy the Great Chinese Inventions!

This is no Great Wall Of China, just Great Wall of Whiner.

I think New York Times always complaining they can't make enough money, just a lot of FOO. Shame on you!

Everything in China free, and look .... we take over the world.
No worries, soon we buy New York Times just for laughs,
he he ho ho ;)
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Blatant Coward (profile), 5 Apr 2011 @ 1:45am

Re: Great Wall Of China
Ooooo Snap Western World! Cow Dung Flung done schooled you!
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Anonymous Coward, 5 Apr 2011 @ 2:29am

Re: Great Wall Of China
No worries, soon we buy New York Times just for laughs,
he he ho ho ;)

You could probably get a good deal right now. I understand they just invested a considerable sum in a tech project that ultimately panned out.
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Anonymous Coward, 5 Apr 2011 @ 2:47am

Generous Offer
I am willing to pay $0.00. What do you think?
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Michael, 5 Apr 2011 @ 4:46am

Paywall
Just say you have a paywall that has been created using JavaScript but will not be encountered if:

1) you come in through a link from somewhere else
2) you have visited TechDirt less than 20 times today
3) you have turned off JavaScript (careful though - this may be a DMCA violation)
4) your computer has a keyboard
5) or your computer is a tablet
6) it is sunny outside
7) you drive a hybrid car (tip out hats to eco-friendly people - Google knows who you are and share this information with us)
8) it is rainy outside but warm
9) you have NOT downloaded illegal music this week

Subscription costs are:
- $9.99 per month
- for the bargain hunter - $125 per year
- an extra $4.99 per month for the iPad app
- an extra $3.99 per month for access through an Android app
- an extra $10 per month for access from any device except a Boost Mobile phone
- the full digital package is free (except the iPad app) if you subscribe to the paper version of TechDirt delivered Tuesday and Thursday to your doorstep for $8.25 per month
- You can get the iPad app with the paper subscription for $9.99 per month

Just give us your credit card and tell us what you want to use - we will figure out the charges for you.
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Anonymous Coward, 5 Apr 2011 @ 4:59am

Re: Why isn't this the norm?
Quote:
the advertiser can get a ridiculously clear and accurate picture of their return.

Therein lies the problem, news organizations never ever counted on accurate pictures to sell ads they relied on fantastic assumptions to increase the prices and get the money, now they can't do that anymore.
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Anonymous Coward, 5 Apr 2011 @ 5:01am

In the meanwhile my eyeballs are elsewhere.
[ link to this | view in thread ]
coldbrew, 5 Apr 2011 @ 6:00am

Re: Paywall
That's exactly it, isn't it? I'm starting to think it's brilliant, except for the $40M budget (the details of which I'm unclear). Maybe I'll check out their earnings call transcripts and see if any analyst asked how to model that, and over what time period.

Good summary, btw.
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Spaceman Spiff (profile), 5 Apr 2011 @ 6:42am

(mis)quoting Forest Gump, "Stupid is as stupid does".
I say, TD should put up a paywall only for those who are stupid enough to subscribe to the NYT paywall. Those folks have already illustrated two things, that a) they have the $$ to waste, and b) that they are gullible enough to pay for what should be freely available...
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Michael, 5 Apr 2011 @ 7:00am

Re: Re: Paywall
$40m? Nah. I'll build that paywall for Techdirt for a mere 2.5% of that.

Talk about a bargain!

Mike - call me. We'll talk.
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Josh in CharlotteNC (profile), 5 Apr 2011 @ 7:47am

Any interest? Let us know...
Any interest? Let us know...

I'll build you a paywall, Mike. I'll only charge half as much as it cost the NY Times to put theirs in place, I'll do it in a month, and it will be of the same quality as a multi-billion dollar media company can do.

Now, off to Amazon to buy a JavaScript for Dummies book...
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Anonymous Coward, 5 Apr 2011 @ 7:51am

"Putting Up A Paywall Just To Have Advertisers Pay To Take It Down?"

Maybe the NYT did this on purpose because they want more money and figure that advertisers would be willing to give them more money for removing the paywall if they put one up.
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Atkray (profile), 5 Apr 2011 @ 8:52am

Re:
I think Hanlon's razor applies.
[ link to this | view in thread ]
thepi (profile), 5 Apr 2011 @ 5:54pm

I'm sure the major studios would be competing to let people jump your paywall.
[ link to this | view in thread ]