The Wall Street Journal tests closing the Google paywall loophole by Lucia Moses.
From the post:
The Wall Street Journal has long had a strict paywall — unless you simply copy and paste the headline into Google, a favored route for those not wanting to pony up $200 a year. Some users have noticed in recent days that the trick isn’t working.
A Journal spokesperson said the publisher was running a test to see if doing so would entice would-be subscribers to pay up. The rep wouldn’t elaborate on how long and extensive the experiment was and if permanently closing the loophole was a possible outcome.
“We are experimenting with a number of different trial mechanics at the moment to provide a better subscription taster for potential new customers,” the rep said. “We are a subscription site and we are always looking at better ways to optimize The Wall Street Journal experience for our members.”
…
The Wall Street Journal can deprive itself of the benefits of “fair use” if it wants to, but is that a sensible position?
Fair Use Benefits the Wall Street Journal
Rather than a total ban on copying, what if the amount of an article that can be copied is set by algorithm? Such that at a minimum, the first two or three paragraphs of any story can be copied, whether you arrive from Google or directly on the WSJ site.
Think about it. Wall Street Journal readers aren’t paying to skim the lead paragraphs in the WSJ. They are paying to see the full story and analysis in particular subject areas.
Bloggers, such as myself, cannot drive content seekers to the WSJ because the first sentence or two isn’t enough for readers to develop an interest in the WSJ report.
If I could quote the first 2 or 3 paragraphs, add in some commentary and perhaps other links, then a visitor to the WSJ is visiting to see the full content the Wall Street Journal has to offer.
The story lead is acting, as it should, to drive traffic to the Wall Street Journal, possibly from readers who won’t otherwise think of the Wall Street Journal. Some of my readers on non-American/European continents for example.
Bloggers Driving Readers to Wall Street Journal Pay-Per-View Content
By developing algorithmic fair use as I describe it would enlist an army of bloggers in spreading notice of pay-per-view content of the Wall Street Journal, at no expense to the Wall Street Journal. As a matter of fact, bloggers would be alerting readers of pay-per-view WSJ content, at the blogger’s own expense.
It may just be me but if someone were going to drive viewers to pay-per-view content on my site, at their own expense, with fair use of content, I would be insane to prevent that. But, I’m not the one grasping at dimes while $100 bills are flying overhead.
Close the Loophole, Open Up Fair Use
Full disclosure, I don’t have any evidence for fair use driving traffic to the Wall Street Journal because that evidence doesn’t exist. The Wall Street Journal would have to enable fair use and track appearance of fair use content and the traffic originating from it. Along with conversions from that additional traffic.
Straight forward data analytics but it won’t happen by itself. When the WSJ succeeds with such a model, you can be sure that other paywall publishers will be quick to follow suite.
Caveat: Yes, there will be people who will only ever consume the free use content. And your question? If they aren’t ever going to be paying customers and the same fair use is delivering paying customers, will you lose the latter in order to spite the former?
Isn’t that like cutting off your nose to spite your face?
Historical PS:
I once worked for a publisher that felt a “moral obligation,” their words, not mine, to prevent anyone from claiming a missing journal issue to which they might not be entitled. Yeah. Journal issues that were as popular as the Watchtower is among non-Jehovah’s Witnesses. Cost to the publisher, about $3.00 per issue, cost to verify entitlement, a full time position at the publisher.
I suspect claims ran less than 200 per year. My suggestion was to answer any request with thanks, here’s your missing copy. End of transaction. Track claims only to prevent abuse. Moral outrage followed.
Is morality the basis for your pay-per-view access policy? I thought pay-per-view was a way to make money.
Pass this post along to the WSJ if you know anyone there. Free suggestion. Perhaps they will be interested in other, non-free suggestions.