If you are a $2 billion company, people will pay for your content - if you are losing money and not making a profit, claims a paper published today in Cyberpsychology, Behavior, and Social Networking.
The New York Times has giant revenue and a reader base that knows exactly it wants and gets in its content. Over 100 million readers per year online, they say. It doesn't just own NYT, it also owns the Boston Globe, various websites attached to its newspapers and the content farm About.com. While its advertising (and overall) revenue went down this quarter, its circulation revenue went up - probably because it is losing money, say psychologists.
Since this is psychology, it used online survey statistics and those showed that New York Times readers who were led to believe the newspaper’s paywall was motivated by financial need - as in, bleeding money - were generally supportive and willing to pay, while those who believed it was motivated by profit were generally unsupportive and unwilling to pay.
An online survey conducted shortly before the newspaper introduced its paywall found that most readers did not want to pay for access. The same people were surveyed 10 weeks later and the researchers randomly assigned half to read a justification for the paywall based on financial need and half to read a justification for the paywall based on profit motive.
They found that most readers did not pay for content., they simply never read articles after their free number of articles cap was reached.
Readers devalued the newspaper, visited its website less frequently, or even used loopholes to read New York Times content. However, the researchers also found that readers’ attitudes and behavior could be changed by providing a compelling justification that emphasizes fairness. Those readers who were given the justification for the paywall based on financial need said they were more likely to pay for New York Times content.
It doesn't mean they did, they just claimed they would. Thus, psychology surveys are not a business model the New York Times should adopt just yet.
Citation: Jonathan E. Cook and Shahzeen Z. Attari, Cyberpsychology, Paying for What Was Free: Lessons from the New York Times Paywall, Cyberpsychology, Behavior, and Social Networking, doi:10.1089/cyber.2012.0251 (free to read)
- PHYSICAL SCIENCES
- EARTH SCIENCES
- LIFE SCIENCES
- SOCIAL SCIENCES
Subscribe to the newsletter
Stay in touch with the scientific world!
Know Science And Want To Write?
- Sexual Fantasies: Threesomes Are Normal, Golden Showers Not So Much
- Ghost Light From Dead Galaxies - A Hubble Halloween
- Mediterranean Diet Linked To Better Kidney Health
- Greenpeace Says Its GMOs Are Better Than Science's GMOs, Still Hates Golden Rice
- Cyclone Nilofar Looks More Like A Comet
- Game Theory: When Are Groups Social? Or Insufferable?
- Coulrophobia: Are Clowns Scary? Ha Ha Aaaargh
- "Ah - sorry, but regardless that this may be taken as disdain again by you, you seem to simply have..."
- "Twelve years in a major urban public school system, and I couldn't once bring myself to eat a school..."
- "Hardly a day goes by without some creative new take on the eternal Evil White Man meme. Without..."
- "There would be no controversy if it were all balloons and ponies stories like that. But I hope..."
- "Let's talk about this disaster: I lost a course at the university where I work and became ineligible..."
- Battle of Britain: NGOs and scientists clash over proposal to loosen EU GMO restrictions
- Genetically modified clean energy from bacteria
- Designer babies: You can screen for cystic fibrosis but intelligence is a ways off
- Science as profane: What superstition of 1752 and 2014 share in common
- What’s so “natural” about “natural crop breeding”?
- Worried you have cancer? Take a Google pill!
- Report examines health care challenges for pregnant women enrolled in covered California
- NYU research: Majority of high school seniors favor more liberal marijuana policies
- ESA Frontiers November preview
- Sexual fantasies: Are you normal?
- Synthetic lethality offers a new approach to kill tumor cells, explains Moffitt researcher