Comment by jchw | Hacker News Reader

Comment by jchw | Hacker News Reader

Parent Full thread

Understood.

However, it’s also not my problem to solve. That’s a problem for Wired to solve. How I feel about these UX patterns and business models is not negotiable; it’s an honest reaction. How Wired makes money and deals with free use is negotiable.

The internet has not been kind to many business models, particularly, it has been rough on paying for content. That’s just what happens when copying costs basically $0. You can pirate almost anything and people definitely do. Many people will immediately hop on archive.is if they hit one of these patterns. Personally I often just don’t read the article and leave.

In the end, it isn’t my problem if people don’t like my attitude. Wired is trying to sell to me, so it is absolutely their problem if I don’t like this pattern. And guess what? I am, in fact, a former Wired subscriber. Maybe they make more money now that they paywall, but I don’t even care. I’m still going to hate them for it.

Likewise, I will never like or respect being forced into advertisements. If I like something enough, I will pay for it. I pay for YouTube and it feels like a win/win for me.

Wired is not trying to sell to you.

You clicked a link to a Wired article that someone posted on Hacker News. Wired was not involved.

Digital properties aren't going to be groomed to meet your precise tastes. This is doubly so for general interest publications like Wired that have to appeal to a broad base of viewers and can't charge more than a few bucks for a subscription.

If the article is valuable but paywalled, there are ways to get around that. Try turning off Javascript or accessing the page in an incognito browser. archive.ph can also work.

> Wired is not trying to sell to you.

> You clicked a link to a Wired article that someone posted on Hacker News. Wired was not involved.

Well, to some extent, I'd argue they _are_ trying to sell to him. From everything I've seen the whole "display the whole page of content and then block with javascript" is done so that the whole page of content gets indexed by Google. If so, then they are intentionally trying to lure non-customers to their site with that content. Admittedly, coming from HN isn't exactly the same, but it's the same general audience of non-subscribers they want to come look at their content and subscribe.

lol, you think that they’re not measuring conversions on these paywalls? I can’t tell if you’re acting in bad faith or just naïve, but yes, trust me, Wired is in fact trying to sell to me (and also more directly sometimes, since I don’t know if I have unsubscribed from their emails.) The free marketing from having people share your articles and from showing up in search results is part of their funnel. You are mistaken sorely.

Of course they are trying to sell to you. Why else would they exist? Just for the warm fuzzy feeling in their heart? Then why are they asking for money? Oh, right, they're trying to sell their service. And part of that is encouraging people to use it & share it on social media.

>That’s a problem for Wired to solve. Yea, they solve it with a paywall that results in X% conversion.

That’s not a solution to the problem of people loathing your business model, that’s just a repeated statement of the business model.

If it works for them today, good for them. It works for some big publications. Let’s see how that continues to pan out as subscription fatigue increases and publications close up content almost entirely.

Reply on news.ycombinator.com