Globe and Mail pay wall comes down

by Mathew on June 2, 2008 · Comments

I don’t do this a lot, but I just thought I would point out for those who might be interested that the Globe and Mail — which happens to be my employer — has removed the pay wall that used to block access to a lot of the paper’s online content. All of the columnists are now free to all readers, as are the horoscope and the crossword puzzle (which, as most journalists know, are the features that most readers really want). As the announcement on the Globe’s home page describes it, this means that all of the paper’s columnists “can join the fray and add their talented voices to the freewheeling conversations of the Internet era.”

Why did the paper decide to drop the wall? Without going into too much detail, my understanding is that we did it for the same reason the New York Times did: while the Insider Edition (as we called it) made money for the paper, the number of subscribers who were opting to pay for that content wasn’t growing, or at least wasn’t growing quickly enough to make it a very attractive business. Eventually, I think, senior editors decided that we would be a lot better off opening the doors and allowing people to link to our pay-walled content.

I haven’t seen recent numbers, but within a few months of the NYT dropping its wall, traffic to the site appeared to have surged. Whether the Times has been able to monetize all of that new traffic — and thus make up for the lack of a pay wall — is something I don’t know. But at least now they have a chance to grow that instead of managing what had become a slow or no-growth business, and so do we (the Globe continues to have a subscription product online, now known as Globe Plus, which includes the finance site GlobeInvestorGold and an “e-Edition” of the paper; access to the archives will also still cost a fee).

It’s interesting to look at some of the more than 180 comments that have been posted on the story since it went up first thing this morning: while most are of the “thank God you finally saw the light” variety, there are some who are less than enthused. One commenter says:

“I’ve long since found online alternatives to the Globe’s old ‘insider’ features. You can’t shut us out for a few years and then expect us to come back just because it’s free. You’re not the only game in town, and you’re going to have to offer us something genuinely new and original to get us to come back on a regular basis.”

Some commenters wish that we would go even further.

Share:
  • Digg
  • del.icio.us
  • Facebook
  • E-mail this story to a friend!
  • Ma.gnolia
  • NewsVine
  • SphereIt
  • StumbleUpon
  • CyndyA
    It's cool, but your commenter is on the money; is it to little too late? Some days I can't remember the hack to get around the WSJ pay wall and I look elsewhere for a source. It gets so you just work around them as a source at all.
  • as nice as this is and done in the typical Canuck "follow the south of the border" fashion :) do you know if they will be opening the RSS feeds to full text as well or are they going to stick with the current headline fashion ala CNN?
  • Well, as far as the following goes I guess we followed when it came
    down, but the NYT followed us in putting it up -- we had a
    subscription model first (if that's anything to be proud of). I'm
    afraid I can't say whether the full-text feed wall will be the next to
    fall or not, Steven :-)
  • I'm going to miss the messages that if I want to pay to access a particular archived article....:)
  • I was at a conference the other day where the NYT R&D guys were speaking. They said that while providing content for free increased users, they still saw that people were willing to pay for archival content. Even when they upped the price they saw no decline in users. So their model is evolving into Current=Free, Old=Pay.

    What do you think?
  • That's interesting, Rahaf. I can't speak for the Globe on this point,
    but 'm not sure whether paying for archives makes much more sense than
    paying for the current news and commentary.

    I think if you want to re-use or re-publish the content in some way
    then maybe we should charge for that, but when it comes to just
    reading and/or linking to archives I don't know why we wouldn't make
    that free as well -- the assumption being that by making them freely
    available we increase the value to advertisers and benefit from the
    "long tail" effect.

    Of course, I have no way of knowing whether that would compensate for
    the money that we currently make from charging for access to the
    archives :-)
  • Mathew, ironic that we were speaking about this at Mesh. Looks like your lobbying paid off.

    I personally never paid for the premium content and never intended to - but tell your G&M gang they count on one more eyeball now.

    George
  • Thanks, George -- just one eyeball though? :-)
  • I fail to see how the Globe will experience a "surge" in uniques when the archives are still blocked. I find it seriously unlikely that new readers will surge in for Blatch and Simpson. So, I find it unlikely that it was done for the same reasons that the NYT did it.

    Also, what the hell do senior editors know about the web? Not much, if they think that linking to stories that will be blocked after some period of time is something bloggers (or others) will want to do.

    The locks are most certainly NOT off.
  • Tim, for what it's worth I think that unlocking the archives would be a great idea, and have promoted that idea as much as one human being possibly can :-)
  • I know...and applaud...but that's why I was surprised to see you adding to your company's rhetoric. "The locks are off" - no they aren't. "Globe and Mail pay wall comes down" - no it doesn't. "Why did the paper decide to drop the wall?" It didn't.
  • I'm not sure that's totally fair, Tim. The locks are off and the wall
    is down for the columnists and other content that was previously
    subscription only -- I don't think that's insignificant, especially
    for an organization like the Globe.
  • Granted. I feel you may have increased the likelihood of conflation, though, by comparing what the G&M did with what the NYT did. Taking the pay wall off some current columns is a far cry from opening up the archives, with dramatically different business reasons behind each move and wildly different results to be expected.

    And anyway, you have to admit the headline is hyperbolic. "Some of the locks are off" would be accurate. "The locks are off (of some stuff we thought people would pay for but they wouldn't)" would also be accurate. "The locks are off" is quite plainly false. It's like saying "The oil is in Alberta."
  • Chris
    It sounds like that the "market" (the public) is demanding access to information timely or otherwise in order to make informed decisions and participate in this experiment called, 'quasi-democracy'. I can't help but hope that some of the Globe's executives asked themselves the question, "Do we work for the bottom line or do we work for ourselves as citizens in a state where ultimately all our fates are tied together and the smarter we are the better for all!" Oh how painfully idealistic of me, however I do believe that as a twenty something, with tattoos and skateboard in hand we heed the words of Noam Chomsky and Howard Zinn and want what's best for our planet as a whole not just what's best for the shareholders of large corporations.
    Good for you Mathew Ingram for holding to the ideal that free access to varied sources of information is key to our country, in fact our planets future. If you think that is too far ranging and too wide of scope to be considered, rendering it useless remember... if millions of Chinese and Indian consumers buy cars, does that not affect the air my child will breathe? We are one planet. We need many sources of data to come to rational choices for our path forward.
    ME
blog comments powered by Disqus

Older post:

Newer post: