Just change your web browser's User-Agent to the Google crawler?
IANAL, but this is probably a violation of DMCA anti-circumvention provisions.
Google Unveils Tools to Increase Subscriptions for Publishers
61–70 of 141 posts
Re: Google Unveils Tools to Increase Subscriptions for Publishers
#62Subscriptions are just the wrong model for news publishers. There's NO way I could possibly afford to subscribe to every news output I occasionally read news from, unless the subscriptions were so close to free as to be useless as a revenue source for the publisher. It's just not going to happen. What we desperately need is a real, useful micro-payments model where you can pay per-article. I'd be happy to pay you a f…
> What we desperately need is a real, useful micro payments model where you can pay per-article.
That would incentivize hit-and-run articles that cause sensation to milk micropayments, leading to a spiral of clickbait even worse than that caused by advertising.
Re: Google Unveils Tools to Increase Subscriptions for Publishers
#63Maybe non-subscribers should get a lite reader's digest type abstract of the article instead of the truncated/cloaked stuff that currently gets served on sites like WSJ. Most articles can probably be described in 50-100 words or less. The automatic truncation is often less descriptive than a good meta description would be.
Re: Google Unveils Tools to Increase Subscriptions for Publishers
#64Subscriptions are just the wrong model for news publishers. There's NO way I could possibly afford to subscribe to every news output I occasionally read news from, unless the subscriptions were so close to free as to be useless as a revenue source for the publisher. It's just not going to happen. What we desperately need is a real, useful micro-payments model where you can pay per-article. I'd be happy to pay you a f…
> What we desperately need is a real, useful micro payments model where you can pay per-article. That would incentivize hit-and-run articles that cause sensation to milk micropayments, leading to a spiral of clickbait even worse than that caused by advertising.
I don't see it. Clickbait headlines just need to get you to the page even if the article is crap. Microtransactions would require articles to be worth something to the reader.
Re: Google Unveils Tools to Increase Subscriptions for Publishers
#65Subscriptions are just the wrong model for news publishers. There's NO way I could possibly afford to subscribe to every news output I occasionally read news from, unless the subscriptions were so close to free as to be useless as a revenue source for the publisher. It's just not going to happen. What we desperately need is a real, useful micro-payments model where you can pay per-article. I'd be happy to pay you a f…
Unfortunately, micropayments encourage click-bait and pop-news (but that's not to say that advertising doesn't either). We've also have seen other failure modes with payment-per-article in academic journals, though payment is much larger there, so may not be a fair comparison. In general a la carte payments usually lead to overall higher costs (e.g. Classic Blockbuster vs. Netflix). My ideal system would be a Spotify…
That model effectively shuts down all news sites that don't make it into the News-Spotify program. Kinda of like how my telcom gives everyone "free Messenger/Whatsapp" so nobody is going to use anything but Messenger/Whatsapp.
Centralization is just going to get worse and worse until the internet feels like AOL back in 2000.
Re: Google Unveils Tools to Increase Subscriptions for Publishers
#66Earlier quoted context omitted.
> What we desperately need is a real, useful micro payments model where you can pay per-article. That would incentivize hit-and-run articles that cause sensation to milk micropayments, leading to a spiral of clickbait even worse than that caused by advertising.
I don't see it. Clickbait headlines just need to get you to the page even if the article is crap. Microtransactions would require articles to be worth something to the reader.
How will the reader know that the article is worth something unless they pay?
Re: Google Unveils Tools to Increase Subscriptions for Publishers
#67Subscriptions are just the wrong model for news publishers. There's NO way I could possibly afford to subscribe to every news output I occasionally read news from, unless the subscriptions were so close to free as to be useless as a revenue source for the publisher. It's just not going to happen. What we desperately need is a real, useful micro-payments model where you can pay per-article. I'd be happy to pay you a f…
> What we desperately need is a real, useful micro-payments model where you can pay per-article.
Former news editor here. I have spent a loooong time thinking about how to help my beloved news industry find a payment model that works. I've become convinced that a "cable subscription" model has more promise than a micropayments model.
Here's what's wrong with a micropayments model. Each microtransaction is an additional cost incurred by the user, and in many models that cost can vary based on the website visited and other factors. And so every single time you choose to engage in a microtransaction, you have to do some brief mental gymnastics to determine whether the transaction is valuable enough to you to proceed. It may be only a few cents, so for many people it's not a big deliberation, but the decision is always there, every time.
The benefit of this approach is that there's very little economic waste involved; you pay only for what you buy. But it encourages stingy, penny-pinching behavior, and that's horrible for adoption. If you want broad, mass-market support, it's a big problem.
Under the cable subscription model, you pay a fixed monthly fee for access to a large number of "channels," and in return you can access those channels as much as you want. Under the hood, that subscription fee can be doled out to each channel based on how much it's accessed, or divided equally, or by some other method in between. But to the end user, it's an all-you-can-eat buffet, and they just don't need to think about it. Part of the fee they're paying is for content itself and part of it is for the convenience of not having to regulate usage.
The downside of this approach is that there's more economic waste involved; some light users won't get their money's worth and will end up subsidizing heavy users. But it discourages stingy behavior, and that's great for adoption.
Later on down the line, once the cable-subscription model has been widely adopted, the market will eventually demand more a la carte payment models (we see this happening right now in the fairly mature cable television industry).
But for right now, widespread adoption should be the primary focus of any online payment model. Ultimately, a good number of the major U.S. news publishers would need to get on board, and to date they have been relatively unwilling to cooperate (which may be due to regulatory hurdles). But I'm pretty sure that's what needs to happen. Less sure whether it will be enough to save the industry.
Re: Google Unveils Tools to Increase Subscriptions for Publishers
#68Earlier quoted context omitted.
I don't see it. Clickbait headlines just need to get you to the page even if the article is crap. Microtransactions would require articles to be worth something to the reader.
How will the reader know that the article is worth something unless they pay?
Won't they pay after reading the article and decide if it's worth it?
Re: Google Unveils Tools to Increase Subscriptions for Publishers
#69Earlier quoted context omitted.
How will the reader know that the article is worth something unless they pay?
Won't they pay after reading the article and decide if it's worth it?
That's what I was thinking. And if not, they'll have to convince people like any other kind of media: reviews, previews, or even refunds.
Re: Google Unveils Tools to Increase Subscriptions for Publishers
#70Earlier quoted context omitted.
These news paid sources are usually only valuable for local content. My local news paper' only redeeming value is it is local but it isn't $4 a week valuable.
I agree that $4*52 is expensive, but it could cost less if more people were subscribing. Unfortunately, even at a more reasonable price per month or week, I think papers wouldn't see a surge in subscribers in the current environment. Short-term, I think people undervalue the value of local news. There are often a lot of info holes when it comes to local government and politics. I wonder if this has adverse affects th…
It is going to bot created I am afraid to say. My city has good local coverage, a wee bit biased but it is local people in a School Board meetings and City Meetings at least.
Google is funding the creation of software that writes local news stories
https://techcrunch.com/2017/07/08/google-is-funding-the-crea...