Social Proof and the Challenges Facing Paywalls

These days it seems more and more publishers are opting to barricade their content behind metered paywalls. I'm not a fan of paywalls, not because I have any objection to paying for content, but because I just can't see how they can work over the long haul - at least not the way they're currently administered.

I've given a lot of thought to this, and while I understand the reasoning behind it (and will steadfastly support the right of content providers to be compensated for their intellectual property), paywalls as a solution to dwindling publishing revenues just seem so ill-conceived.

Consider:

• Syndicated articles, still the backbone of local news dailies, are found readily around the Internet. No need to reach for my wallet to gain access to that content.
• The culture of the internet is still centered around the idea of free information. Asking readers to pay for something they otherwise feel entitled to is actually perceived (rightly or wrongly) to be offensive in many circles. You're really swimming against the tide if you hope to convert that crowd into paying customers.
• Some advocate the uniqueness and value of local news, but doesn't Twitter do a much better job of covering that town hall meeting or car crash? In real time no less!

In making your content inaccessible to the masses, what does this do to your virtual circulation, and by association - your advertising revenues? Maybe they weren't that great to begin with, but I just can't see how this helps things.

Editorial pieces, once the exclusive domain of the op-ed pages can now be readily found on sites such as LinkedIn in the form of articles written by "Influencers" or "Thought Leaders". Blog aggregators and sites such as Huffington Post offer ready access to dozens of articles written each day by high profile contributors.

There was a time when verification of an article's value came from its association with a big name publisher. Any piece seeming to have originated from the offices of the Wall Street Journal, the Washington Post, the New York Times and a few other publishing heavyweights was always going to get broadly read (beyond their jurisdiction).

In the age of social media, verification comes from a new source - Social Proof.

Readers now have the ability, via sites such as LinkedIn and Facebook, to access articles written by their favourite business leaders, political leaders, sports and entertainment celebrities, authors and whoever else they might admire. If an article touches them in some way, tools are immediately at hand to "like", "share" and "comment". The most interesting and provocative articles are widely circulated in the form of a shared link. Occasionally, an article may even go viral. If an article appears to be garnering a large response, it will be deemed to be read-worthy. THAT's social proof!

And that's what paywall publishers are up against.

I'm not saying paywalls can't work at all. I'm of the opinion that some kind of all-access pass, one that that gives me exclusive access to all sorts of content, including news sites, might have some appeal. The price would have to be right however and the value proposition clearly spelled out.

In the meantime, I'll be getting most of my news from LinkedIn and the trending sections of my favorite social media sites.