I found this clip online – debating the decision to install a paywall for content. “To pay or not to pay,” this is the question. Writer John L. Robinson tackles this question in a great article. If you don’t have time to read his writing, watch the clip:
I’m torn on this issue.
To be sure, overhauling websites, managing, writing and developing content all takes time and money. Putting up a paywall for online subscribers makes sense. There is still a hunger for long-form journalism. Many readers genuinely enjoy the experience of turning on the laptop (or smart device), grabbing a cup of coffee and sifting through their favorite web content. The very nature of the internet allows free access to just about any kind of information you could possibly want. So why would anyone willingly pay for it and what makes content worth paying for?
Well, without a paywall, I think it’s tougher for many independent writers & journalist to produce quality content. Without compensation, our favorite blogger/writer or journalist may not be able to attract quality advertisers. With a paywall, writers can also concentrate on unique or niche content. They can also post information that isn’t supposed to float around the public domain, like research or academic papers or in MY case, Nielsen ratings which we rely on for measuring audiences.
Remember – content is KING and you get what you pay (or don’t) pay for.
Gonna ask a few of the writers, journalist & bloggers I follow what they think – ironically, only ONE of them, Robert Feder, the media king of Chicago is doing a paywall.