Menu Close

Paywall or adverts - which is better/worse?

Advertisement

Many sites, such as digital magazines, need to earn an income for the content they produce. Paywall or adverts - which is better/worse?

Tweet
Share
Share
Pin
Share
Share

How should a newspaper finance its activities?

It's easy to imagine what it was like in the old days. A newsagent would stand in the street and shout out that the latest news was on sale. You gave the vendor a coin, and you got your paper.

Over time, the range of newspapers and weekly magazines expanded, but people continued to pay for their physical copy, in a shop.

Then came the internet. Suddenly it became free of charge to read - apart from paying for a computer, electricity and internet, of course, but that didn't benefit the newspaper. So how would the newspapers make money? Well, adverts of course! And then: a paywall.

Pros and cons of the paywall

A paywall means that you only see a small part of a site for free, and then you have to pay to see and read the rest, for example in the form of a monthly subscription. Sometimes you have to pay for pretty much everything on the site, and other times there is a "premium section" for paying readers. Or you can read a certain number of articles before everything is locked...

In a way, a paywall can be reasonable. You pay for something you want to read, and at best it means you get to read your favourite newspaper without intrusive ads. On the other hand, it has become more and more common to see adverts behind the paywall as well, in so-called 'hybrid business models'.

A challenge for readers is that they may want to read many different newspapers and websites, and it becomes expensive to add up all the different subscription costs. A challenge for the newspaper (and advertisers) is that readership is declining, because of course not everyone is prepared to pay.

Advantages and disadvantages of adverts

If a site runs adverts instead (without a paywall), this may mean that there are more adverts, which may be perceived as disturbing to readers, especially if the adverts are 'flashing' or irrelevant.

On the other hand, the advantage of an ad-only site is that the reader does not have to pay anything to read. The advantage for the site owner (and advertisers) is that readership will be higher, as those who do not want to pay will not be scared away.

How do we think?

We understand the idea of a paywall and think it may be reasonable on some sites, especially large and well niched sites/newspapers that have a very loyal readership. However, we believe that most people are prepared to pay a subscription fee only on a limited number of sites, so if a very large number of sites are locked, we believe that people will read in fewer places.

For our part, we do not pay for any site at the moment. We read on so many different places, and if we hit a paywall, we usually google further and find the information elsewhere. That said, we may of course change our minds in the future, depending on how things develop.

As for our own magazine, we will (at least for the foreseeable future) continue to produce open content that is free to all readers, and funded by adverts. This is partly because we want our site to be open to all, and partly because we believe it is the most reasonable way for us to fund the site.

How do you think?

How do you think? Are you bothered by adverts? Do you subscribe to sites with a paywall?

Subscribe to our newsletter