Andrew Sullivan über die geplante Paywall für sein bald unabhängiges Blog:
Basically, we've gotten a third of a million dollars in 24 hours, with close to 12,000 paid subscribers (at last count). On average, readers paid almost $8 more than we asked for. To say we're thrilled would obscure the depth of our gratitude and relief.
[..]
That's still only 1 percent of our total monthly readership - so we have plenty of room to talk more of you into subscribing before the meter hits. And the current number is misleading because of that. We really won't know how effective this is going to be until we actually have the meter in place.
Mittlerweile sind sie nahe der 400.000 US-Dollar.
Sullivan versucht sich an einer porösen Bezahlschranke (die mehr einer Navigationsgebühr entspricht), wie sie die New York Times eingeführt hat und mittlerweile unter anderem auch von der NZZ eingesetzt wird. Mehr zu den Details bei Stefan Niggemeier.
Felix Salmon über das Modell, das eher nur auf dem Papier eine Bezahlschranke ist:
If you want absolute proof that this is not a paywall, just look here: “our RSS feed won’t be affected by the meter”, he says. Sullivan has, from day one, always served up a full RSS feed, and that is not going to change. So if you want to read every word he writes, without paying a penny, that’s easy: just subscribe to his RSS feed. The purpose of what Sullivan calls “a freemium-based meter” is emphatically not to keep people out: it’s not a wall. Rather, it’s a mechanism for allowing Sullivan’s most loyal readers to pay him for the content they love. So far, about one third of them are paying more than the $19.99/year headline price: they want to support this project, he doesn’t need to threaten them with some kind of if-you-don’t-pay-me-you-won’t-be-able-to-read-my-stuff pitch.
The real parallel here is not media paywalls so much as it is Kickstarter projects. It feels good to support something you love and admire — it feels much better, indeed, than paying some kind of sticker price for the same thing.
Ein konsequent verfolgtes Mitgliedschaftsmodell würde mir erfolgversprechender erscheinen, aber anscheinend fährt Sullivan mit dem gewählten Ansatz recht gut. Der komplette Verzicht auf Werbung dürfte die Zahlbereitschaft massgeblich erhöht haben.
Man sollte bei all dem nicht vergessen, dass Andrew Sullivan selbst für die USA ein Sonderfall ist. Felix Salmon:
And when it comes to income and expenses, Sullivan’s in a pretty unique and special place. His income, for starters: there’s a long list of publications which is happy to pay him top dollar to write for them. And I’m sure he could sell a book any time he wanted, too.
Nichtsdestotrotz zeigt Andrew Sullivan, dass die Wege zu wirtschaftlichem Erfolg mit dem Netz vielfältiger werden.
(Und in der FAZ erscheint hierzu nur redigierte Missgunst.)