When opening the wallet becomes a no-brainer Mar 31 2010
11 comments Latest by aczarnowski
According to this Economist article, the two most notable paywall success stories are financial publications:
The two most prominent are the Financial Times, which lets web users view just a few articles each month before it asks them for money, and News Corp’s Wall Street Journal, which charges for much business and finance news.
In Slate, Jack Shafer tries to explain why only a few sites thrive behind paywalls:
Not all successful paid sites are alike, but they all share at least one of these attributes: 1) They are so amazing as to be irreplaceable. 2) They are beautifully designed and executed and extremely easy to use. 3) They are stupendously authoritative.
Good points to be sure. But maybe overlooking a more important lesson: The easiest way to get people to pay you money is when they think they’re getting something in return that will help them make more money.
FT and WSJ succeed because of the kind of information they deliver: financial analysis and info that enables its readers to invest wisely, manage a business better, and/or improve the bottom line.
It’s a lesson for anyone trying to figure out what to sell. Help people make more money and then forking over cash to you becomes a no-brainer. It’s not the only way to sell something. But it’s probably the easiest.
Got a web design project in mind? Find a web designer on Sortfolio. Browse by visual style, portfolio, budget, and geographic location.
Over 1 million people use 37signals' simple web-based software to collaborate on projects, track contacts, and organize their business with an intranet.
11 comments so far
John 31 Mar 10
I’ve assigned myself a $/hour value. If something costs less than the amount of time I would spend doing it myself, I open my wallet.
Ruben A 31 Mar 10
First!!
Couldn’t agree more! Excellent article.
James 31 Mar 10
Membership (aka paywall) websites are a multi-billion dollar business. Our clients offer great value for their membership sites and are rewarded with huge profits. The notion that all content should be free is IMO something that we will look back on with not so fond memories.
Sandeep Sood 31 Mar 10
This is the difference between a tool and a product.
I pay for Basecamp because it helps us manage software development/design projects, and therefore, makes us more money over time. It’s clearly a tool.
And though I love it, I don’t know that I’d pay a lot for Twitter, since I have yet to see any real business value result from it. It’s still an enjoyable product to me, not a tool.
In looking at our own business, we fail at selling design services when we can’t convince a client that a redesign will make them more money. Software development has always been easier to sell, since it’s more obviously tied to the tools our clients are building.
Jean Pierre 31 Mar 10
I pay for the FT for what they don’t put on their site. Very little celebrity buzz, football news, travel brochures, top 100 films of the noughties etc. That is why I don’t think “The Times” will fare well, it is not focused enough.
That is also why I use products.
Kenny 31 Mar 10
They also succeed because their customer base is very corporate and their content is oriented towards business. It’s so easy to charge to the expense account, necessary even, because they are so good at what they do. Other news organizations are good at what they do too, but paying customers aren’t so easy to find in their coverage areas.
Simon Willison 31 Mar 10
I heard Clay Shirky explain this really well the other day: the sites which are successful with paywalls are sites with the information that becomes MORE valuable the less people have access to it – in other words, financial news.
Bill Seitz 31 Mar 10
Two other related possible explanations:
1. target people who have loads of money and can rationalize any expenditure
2. target people who get their expenses reimbursed by their employer who has loads of money…
Jimmy Chan 31 Mar 10
Matt, don’t forget people buy not make ‘money’ reason only. Think about need of comfort, security, style, happiness, etc.
Paul Thrasher 31 Mar 10
Pandora’s model is similar. I used the product so much that I went over my free music limit. They asked me for 99¢ to keep going for the month or pay for the year. I love Pandora, it was a no-brainer to give them 99¢ or pay for premium.
aczarnowski 01 Apr 10
Reminds me of the JWZ quote about how software worth writing should help get its users laid. Not money, but close!
Comments are closed