This is a guest post written by @jimmynotjim
On Monday my feeds, as I’m sure yours as well, blew up with the launch of BostonGlobe.com. It’s been a much anticipated launch both within and out of the design community. I was excited to get home and check it out on a browser other than my iPhone just to see how (and to try and decipher why) they handled the content. It didn’t take long for the Negative Nancy’s to start complaining and cut into that excitement.
A few were unimpressed. With all the hoopla surrounding ‘Responsive Design’ lately the Globe fell short of their expectations. Most though complained about the subscription requirements. The number of people expecting free access was outstanding. One tweet read “The future of web design is behind a paywall, something not quite right about that…” and another “A holy screw you to The Boston Globe for paywalls” and even “I’ve always craved something between a newsletter and an AOL keyword that I can’t show my friends” from one ‘web star’.
Surprisingly, I wasn’t shocked. I myself am a child of Napster and have ‘shared’ more music, movies and software than I care to mention, but at some point I grew up. I realized that if I want to get paid for my hard work, I should be paying for someone else’s. I guess some people never grow up, but I digress. I’m not here to add more noise by complaining about the complainers, but to point out what I believe they are missing in hopes of opening their eyes.
First, this is more than just a responsive layout for a blog. A newspaper as large as the Globe has multiple layers of content, a wide spectrum of readers, and who knows how many stakeholders with their own opinion on what’s important. I think @simplebits tweet said it best, “Congratulating @beep, @scottjehl, & @filamentgroup on their groundbreaking work with 1,659,230 requirements for the new http://bostonglobe.com.”
The fact that they were able to pull this off is frankly a miracle. Did anyone else happen to sign up for a free account and explore the site? If not you really should. You can easily and intuitively access back issues, save articles for later, use swipe gestures on mobile, and connect with the writers and editors directly. I’d like to see these naysayers examples of ‘dime a dozen’ responsive sites that offer as much for as large of an audience, I can think of only a few who come close.
The second issue, about the paywall has really gotten under my skin. When Apple came out with the first iPhone and announced they had changed the game, did everyone complain about the price of admission? No, they stood in lines for hours and shelled out hundreds of dollars for that precious piece of design. Should we expect the people that spent who knows how much time and effort on this project (and all the writers and editors who will publish to it) to go unpaid? We’ve all read the quotes about the average person being more likely to get struck by lightning/eaten by a shark/in a plane crash than clicking an ad, I’m willing to bet everyone at the Globe has too.
How is a paywall any different than a subscription to Netflix, Hulu Plus, Rdio, etc? Why is it were willing to throw our cash at entertainment services (or Apps and even Apple themselves) but aren’t willing to squeeze out a few bucks (basically a large coffee) for well researched, thought out, written and edited news? I’m sure this question was asked and researched at the Globe, I doubt they spent all this effort and said, ‘eh, lets just do a paywall’. I would hope Ethan et al. would have put up a decent fight if it wasn’t.
As I stated before, this isn’t just a responsive layout, it’s a multi-layered service offering a well thought put and executed experience. A premium news service like that deserves a premium price. After all, if all we want is sound bites that barely scratch the surface, we have plenty of crappy sites from AOL, Yahoo and the other failing web giants to look to, or we can always just visit the Globes free version Boston.com (that’s right, they do offer free content).
Just so it’s clear, I’m not saying the Globe site is perfect for me or anyone in particular, but with as broad a viewership and the number of moving elements they had to work with I think they did an exemplary job. So what’s your take? Did the Globe’s design fail to meet your expectations or are you in the “it should be free” camp? Are you as happy with the results as I am? I’m curious to hear everyone’s opinion.
About @jimmynotjim
My name is James, but you can call me Jimmy (and even Jim if you like). I’m a 29 year old carpenter turned web nerd, living and working in Boston MA. In addition to design I enjoy photography, drawing, cooking, camping, hiking, and of course spending time with my loving family.
Twitter: @jimmynotjim | Web: JimmyNotJim.com
Share This Article
@AwesomeRobot says:
I completely disagree on paywalls, though I see the point you're trying to make.
In my opinion, good news shouldn't be a luxury to those who are able to pay the price of admission – it should be on par with public services like public transportation and running water. Our culture already suffers from a massive amount of anti-intellectualism, class-warfare, and generation bias – and if anything media sources should alleviate that, not contribute to the problem. Everyone knowing more about everything benefits everyone.
Now, I can be realistic – people need to get paid.
This is all different from reading a 50¢ newspaper as well – all a physical copy requires is a quick 50¢ – no commitment; that's easily an impulse buy and fosters the idea that pretty much anyone anywhere can read the news. Adding long term subscriptions as the de facto standard for the website eliminates that impulse ability and just makes actual journalism less desirable to the average person vs. blogs or mainstream TV cable news (which isn't free, but guess which thing people will pick first when it comes to American Idol vs. Journalism).
If a paywall has to exist, I don't think it should be in a form of an "all-or-nothing" paywall. The New York Times allows unpaid viewers to at least see 20 or so articles before hitting them with the paywall, which in my opinion is not perfect – but is much better and more open than the Globe's current plan. Sure, they allow viewers to read articles shared via social media – but that's basically allowing subscribing members to control the external flow of news to non-subscribers… shouldn't that be the (supposedly unbiased) job of the publication?
Or, I'll go out on a limb – but what about a pay-what-you-want monthly subscription? Nag users after viewing X articles, or limit it on a rapidshare cool-down (read X amount of articles unless you donate more than a dollar) method.
A bit of a rant, but to sum up my opinion: news should be as open as possible to promote general intelligence and overall well-being, and subscription-based paywalls are the most closed-off and restrictive method of making a buck.
September 16th, 2011 at 11:42 am
@DaquanWright says:
I think that's messed up.
I don't mind paying for any news, but you should at least be able to view some articles (unless I misunderstood something).
I also think it's due to how content is distributed. Something like a newspaper is to people something you can get as you walk by stands and such, they emotionally feel it should be cheap based on experience imo.
Apps can or can't be free depending on who is releasing them (say OSS for a company), but apple has the branding and marketing behind them. Anyone who buys Apple products already know they will be paying money.
So, I don't think it's that people intrinsically don't want to pay for it. Just that past experiences and conditions reflect their way of thinking about "what" they should be paying for.
September 18th, 2011 at 9:33 pm
@jimmynotjim says:
I entirely agree on the importance of news being available to all, but isn't that why we have non-profits like public radio and public-television? The Globe is and has always been a private entity, for better or worse. While I would love to be able to get everything in life for free, this isn't Utopia, and the reality is these things cost money. Keep in mind, just two years ago the Globe almost had to shut it's doors. With $85m in losses and a 30% decrease in ad revenues, they couldn't afford to give it away even if they wanted to. The writing was on the wall that the current system was dying, and they made the leap to the future.
The new site isn't a newspaper, it's a web app that provides news as a service. It doesn't need to be an impulse buy as you walk down the street, because it's not. What it is, is a constant feed of well written and edited journalism. Combined with the fact that it's not tied to any specific platform and it's changing the entire paradigm of how and where we receive written (and possibly video and audio) news.
My enthusiasm doesn't mean I disagree that the current splash page is a bit in your face. It may very well put people off, but the Globe is making it very clear where they stand. Business wise this is usually the best way to usher in change. Apple has used similar tactics when making changes that seemed unpopular at the time (closed app store, closed system, no usb on portables, etc). They get away with it because they are Apple, we love them and we know they are looking to the future. The Globe may not have the same following as Apple, but they are regarded as *the* news source in New England and I believe they should also be able to get away with it. The deciding factor will be if the rest of the industry follows suit, continues with free content or even finds a new revenue model that people prefer.
As far as I'm concerned the failing here is in marketing. Instead of coming out strong saying "we think this is the future, it's completely different, we think you will love it," they went live with barely any announcement. I just woke up one day and bam, there it was. I think this may very well be their undoing. Only time will tell whether they did everything right or wrong.
September 20th, 2011 at 6:10 pm
@jimmynotjim says:
I do agree the hard line the Globe has taken with the paywall is extreme. As I said in the previous reply, I think they are making the right choice in making it clear where they believe the future to be. The new site isn't just a newspaper we pick up off the street but a high end, well functioning app that provides journalism. I hope they set the new standard and other publications follow suit, I'd hate to see good news disappear.
September 20th, 2011 at 6:18 pm