Financial Times Frees Some Of Its Content, Sort Of
from the set-it-free dept
Earlier this summer, we suggested that the Financial Times could beat the Wall Street Journal to the punch by differentiating itself by freeing up its content. Now that the WSJ is expected to remove its paywall, Financial Times has announced that it would remove the paywall for its online content by allowing casual readers free access up to 30 articles for free each month. First time visitors to FT are rewarded with freely available content. After five articles, registration is required, and then after 30, access is cut off. So, according to Pavlov, the Financial Times wants to discourage heavy users of its content by making it more difficult to use the more that they use it — not exactly a good business move.
So, sure, the FT has a loyal subscriber base today, but the current paywall model does not encourage growth. By offering all of their content for free, they can grow their reader base into avid readers, a percent of which can then be converted to subscribers. By no means should they give up on subscriber revenue; they just need to give subscribers a good reason to pay. FT already offers access to tomorrow’s paper as a benefit to subscribing — this is a good example of a premium good. Give subscribers more of these types of benefits: from custom reports to events and conferences, and they will continue to be loyal paying customers. As we’ve said time and time again, “free” is a vital part of an online media business model and not something to be feared, but rather, it should be embraced.
Filed Under: paywall
Companies: financial times
Comments on “Financial Times Frees Some Of Its Content, Sort Of”
Incredibly stupid
Delete the cookie and you are always a first time visitor.
My browser of choice will handle this as an automatic task, per site, if I tell it to. Possibly many browsers can do this, but a manual deletion of the cookie is easy in all browsers that I am aware of.
So all they will notice is a real jump in first time visitors, that seem never to come back again…
Reading this just
Reading this just makes me wonder who comes up with business models like this. Do they seriously think this will work well?
Most businesses in this area just seem scared to completely give up content for free without restriction.
Personally, if something only lets me get part of what I want without subscription, I go elsewhere for the full thing with no hassle
Financial Times Frees Some Of Its Content
Okay, so finally Financial times is pulling their head out of sand and freeing up its content online.
This is a no-brainer.
Most people including me get their news from online and most of the news sources are free.
So why would anyone pay Financial Times or WSJ for news it can get free. It is good they have finally woke up to the reality
A Business model based on increasing
irritation.
The more you visit, the more often you get an in-your-face fist-in-the-velvet request to join, sign-up, opt-in.
I smell BugMeNot.com intervention; oh and of course the cookie delete option works too.
I suggest a two-tiered approach.
Finance is different from general news in that people will pay for content that could help them avoid loosing money (and help make them money, but we are creatures that are more pain adverse than pleasure attract).
I still believe there is someone out there who will build a sustainable business on paid subscription services.
If you need a past model that was successful, look at cable television. HBO and their ilk grew rich on paid subscription of fixed no-choice service.
To make HBO subscription service money, you must have the cable TV playground. Only then can you charge for admission to the more desirable areas.
I'm a little a confused...
So, sure, the FT has a loyal subscriber base today, but the current paywall model does not encourage growth. By offering all of their content for free, they can grow their reader base into avid readers, a percent of which can then be converted to subscribers. By no means should they give up on subscriber revenue; they just need to give subscribers a good reason to pay.
Okay I’ve read this a part a few times and I’m still lost. You encourage the FT to offer all of its content for free in order to boost subscription revenue. But if its all free then what are they subscribing to?
Re: I'm a little a confused...
“But if its all free then what are they subscribing to?’
hmmmm…..maybe he is referring to huge pieces of paper with letters on them that are sold at newstands and in machines???
Re: I'm a little a confused...
Read the two sentences following what you quoted.
Yeah, that’s fine – I’ll go elsewhere, lol
No hate towards them, I understand what they want to accomplish, but usually finding an alternate source is as easy as clicking ‘back’ and hitting the next search finding.