Paying for what was free: Lessons from the New York times paywall

Jonathan E. Cook, Shahzeen Z. Attari

Research output: Contribution to journalReview article

14 Citations (Scopus)

Abstract

In a national online longitudinal survey, participants reported their attitudes and behaviors in response to the recently implemented metered paywall by the New York Times. Previously free online content now requires a digital subscription to access beyond a small free monthly allotment. Participants were surveyed shortly after the paywall was announced and again 11 weeks after it was implemented to understand how they would react and adapt to this change. Most readers planned not to pay and ultimately did not. Instead, they devalued the newspaper, visited its Web site less frequently, and used loopholes, particularly those who thought the paywall would lead to inequality. Results of an experimental justification manipulation revealed that framing the paywall in terms of financial necessity moderately increased support and willingness to pay. Framing the paywall in terms of a profit motive proved to be a noncompelling justification, sharply decreasing both support and willingness to pay. Results suggest that people react negatively to paying for previously free content, but change can be facilitated with compelling justifications that emphasize fairness.

Original languageEnglish (US)
Pages (from-to)682-687
Number of pages6
JournalCyberpsychology, Behavior, and Social Networking
Volume15
Issue number12
DOIs
StatePublished - Dec 1 2012

Fingerprint

Newspapers
willingness to pay
Longitudinal Studies
Websites
Profitability
subscription
fairness
manipulation
newspaper
profit

All Science Journal Classification (ASJC) codes

  • Social Psychology
  • Communication
  • Applied Psychology
  • Human-Computer Interaction
  • Computer Science Applications

Cite this

@article{f052e1b293c248b29e950d6711e0b58f,
title = "Paying for what was free: Lessons from the New York times paywall",
abstract = "In a national online longitudinal survey, participants reported their attitudes and behaviors in response to the recently implemented metered paywall by the New York Times. Previously free online content now requires a digital subscription to access beyond a small free monthly allotment. Participants were surveyed shortly after the paywall was announced and again 11 weeks after it was implemented to understand how they would react and adapt to this change. Most readers planned not to pay and ultimately did not. Instead, they devalued the newspaper, visited its Web site less frequently, and used loopholes, particularly those who thought the paywall would lead to inequality. Results of an experimental justification manipulation revealed that framing the paywall in terms of financial necessity moderately increased support and willingness to pay. Framing the paywall in terms of a profit motive proved to be a noncompelling justification, sharply decreasing both support and willingness to pay. Results suggest that people react negatively to paying for previously free content, but change can be facilitated with compelling justifications that emphasize fairness.",
author = "Cook, {Jonathan E.} and Attari, {Shahzeen Z.}",
year = "2012",
month = "12",
day = "1",
doi = "10.1089/cyber.2012.0251",
language = "English (US)",
volume = "15",
pages = "682--687",
journal = "Cyberpsychology, Behavior, and Social Networking",
issn = "2152-2715",
publisher = "Mary Ann Liebert Inc.",
number = "12",

}

Paying for what was free : Lessons from the New York times paywall. / Cook, Jonathan E.; Attari, Shahzeen Z.

In: Cyberpsychology, Behavior, and Social Networking, Vol. 15, No. 12, 01.12.2012, p. 682-687.

Research output: Contribution to journalReview article

TY - JOUR

T1 - Paying for what was free

T2 - Lessons from the New York times paywall

AU - Cook, Jonathan E.

AU - Attari, Shahzeen Z.

PY - 2012/12/1

Y1 - 2012/12/1

N2 - In a national online longitudinal survey, participants reported their attitudes and behaviors in response to the recently implemented metered paywall by the New York Times. Previously free online content now requires a digital subscription to access beyond a small free monthly allotment. Participants were surveyed shortly after the paywall was announced and again 11 weeks after it was implemented to understand how they would react and adapt to this change. Most readers planned not to pay and ultimately did not. Instead, they devalued the newspaper, visited its Web site less frequently, and used loopholes, particularly those who thought the paywall would lead to inequality. Results of an experimental justification manipulation revealed that framing the paywall in terms of financial necessity moderately increased support and willingness to pay. Framing the paywall in terms of a profit motive proved to be a noncompelling justification, sharply decreasing both support and willingness to pay. Results suggest that people react negatively to paying for previously free content, but change can be facilitated with compelling justifications that emphasize fairness.

AB - In a national online longitudinal survey, participants reported their attitudes and behaviors in response to the recently implemented metered paywall by the New York Times. Previously free online content now requires a digital subscription to access beyond a small free monthly allotment. Participants were surveyed shortly after the paywall was announced and again 11 weeks after it was implemented to understand how they would react and adapt to this change. Most readers planned not to pay and ultimately did not. Instead, they devalued the newspaper, visited its Web site less frequently, and used loopholes, particularly those who thought the paywall would lead to inequality. Results of an experimental justification manipulation revealed that framing the paywall in terms of financial necessity moderately increased support and willingness to pay. Framing the paywall in terms of a profit motive proved to be a noncompelling justification, sharply decreasing both support and willingness to pay. Results suggest that people react negatively to paying for previously free content, but change can be facilitated with compelling justifications that emphasize fairness.

UR - http://www.scopus.com/inward/record.url?scp=84871093383&partnerID=8YFLogxK

UR - http://www.scopus.com/inward/citedby.url?scp=84871093383&partnerID=8YFLogxK

U2 - 10.1089/cyber.2012.0251

DO - 10.1089/cyber.2012.0251

M3 - Review article

C2 - 23113665

AN - SCOPUS:84871093383

VL - 15

SP - 682

EP - 687

JO - Cyberpsychology, Behavior, and Social Networking

JF - Cyberpsychology, Behavior, and Social Networking

SN - 2152-2715

IS - 12

ER -