Fast Company/Cale Guthrie Weissman: You Say Paywalls Are Back? For The FT, They Never Went Away

Fast Company

    01.12.18 platform wars

You Say Paywalls Are Back? For The FT, They Never Went Away

The pink financial paper has used online subscriptions since 2002.

After decades of diminishing ad returns, fellow digital publishers are
finally catching on.
You Say Paywalls Are Back? For The FT, They Never Went Away
[Photo: Flickr user Financial Times]

By Cale Guthrie Weissman 9 minute Read

Late last year, the Financial Times reached a pretty big milestone: It
exceeded 900,000 paying subscriptions, both print and digital–up from
780,000 in 2015. That’s no small feat for a media company that, like
all other media companies, is facing the constant perils and headwinds
of digital advertising.
advertisement

But for John Ridding, the FT‘s CEO, this announcement felt inevitable.
“We’ve been using our subscription business for the better part of a
decade,” he tells me. “People thought we were a little crazy.”

That’s no longer the case.

Every year publishers flock to business trends like moths to flames.
Most recently, the pivot d l’année was to social video, in large part
to please Facebook’s algorithm. This bet isn’t panning out as planned,
as Facebook tends to change its algorithm from time to time and throw
media brands’ best-laid plans off-kilter. Most recently came this
week’s news that Facebook is going to de-emphasize content from brand
and Pages to focus on posts from friends and family. As such trends
ultimately let publishers down, some media companies are going retro
and looking toward the age-old business model of subscriptions. Conde
Nast recently announced its plans to offer more metered paywalls for
magazines including Wired and Vanity Fair; the New York Times recently
lowered the number of free reads it allows every month in an attempt
to bring in even more paying customers; even digital juggernaut
Business Insider has begun implementing a paywall for select stories.

For many companies, going the digital subscription route is a somewhat
new plan–an attempt to reclaim old print-era strategies to drum up
revenue alternatives. This comes as publishers are faced with a
digital ad crisis. Media companies have historically relied on
advertising as a primary means of revenue, but have seen growth
sputter as Facebook and Google began sucking up the majority of the
digital advertising marketshare. But online subscriptions are old hat
for Ridding. He’s been building a series of business models to
counteract fluctuating digital ads. “We’re on a journey to sustainable
and dynamic growth,” he tells me, “and we’re having to swim against
some pretty strong tides.”

These strong tides, he says, are poisoning the media industry. In his
telling, quality news is on the decline and newsrooms are having to
adapt fast. Not to mention, tech giants like Facebook and Google are
controlling both the flow of information as well as ad dollars.
Meanwhile, print advertising has plummeted. The FT, says Ridding, read
the tea leaves very early on. Currently print advertising represents
only 17% of the company financial publishing division’s revenue–and
that division’s 2016 profit margin exceeded 45%.

“Our thinking right before this became a huge issue,” he says, is
“quality journalism isn’t going to survive on advertising alone.” The
FT‘s paywall, for instance, has been around since 2002. Trying to
build such a business now, he claims, is “somewhere between difficult
to impossible.”
advertisement

“I remember when we launched our subscription model,” he says, “we got
a lot of flak–people saying ‘the internet wants to be free.'” Yet, as
Ridding sees it, “the primary responsibility for any publication is to
its readers and not its advertisers.”
Financial Times CEO John Ridding [Photo: Flickr user ]
What Does The Future Hold For Digital Publishers?

If you were to aggregate all the news industry’s editorial product
moves of late, you’d find publishers have thrown dozens of
monetization strategies on a wall,  hoping one sticks. Take Mashable:
the site has seen numerous shifts over the last two years–going from
hard news to video to social–which ultimately resulted in its sale for
a fraction of what it was once worth. One of Mashable‘s biggest
problems was that it relied predominately on digital media
advertising–and its growth was slowing down at an alarming rate.

Ridding says building a captive audience is what helped differentiate
the FT from other, similar publications. Over the years, the media
company has amassed a trove of user data to both hone coverage and
direct product strategy, thanks to the information it can collect
about digital subscribers.

“For us, the whole digital strategy is rebuilding in digital what is
happening in print,” he says. “We want to recreate that brand loyalty
and brand habit.”

Hidden in that jargon is the goal of figuring out what makes a person
either pick up a newspaper or navigate to an article–and what content
makes them return. “We’ve become quite precise about this,” Ridding
says. Each subscribed reader has what is called an “engagement score,”
which triangulates how recently that subscriber or trial member
visited the FT‘s website with how long they stayed and their frequency
on the site. This data is used to understand which stories work best
and why, to retain and grow subscribers. For example, a user who stays
on the site for long periods of time and reads many different stories
in full is more engaged than a reader who only visits the FT once in a
while.

The Wall Street Journal has implemented a similarly data-driven
system, one that focuses heavily on future customers. It uses
identifiable data, like cookies, to rank how likely someone who
navigates to an article will purchase a subscription to the site.
According to Karl Wells, the Wall Street Journal‘s general manager of
membership, subscription sales, and marketing, he and his team have
spent the last few years building a data-driven strategy to try and
wrangle in more subscriptions–“customers,” in his parlance. Metered
paywalls, which give all readers a set amount of free articles per
month regardless of how often they visit, he argues, are “very one
dimensional.”
advertisement

“What effectively we created was an intelligence layer [that] looked
at all the factors that might influence someone to buy a
subscription,” Wells says. In essence, every time you click on a
Journal article, you are given a score based on an algorithm that
ranks how likely you are purchase the subscription. Wells says there
are three degrees of reader engagement–cold, warm, or hot. A cold
reader doesn’t visit the site very often. A hot reader probably visits
more frequently. “If you’re cold, my greatest asset is to get you to
subscribe to our content,” Wells explains, so he gives that reader a
guest pass to the site. If you’re a frequent visitor and therefore
hot, you’re very likely to subscribe if you’re forced to–so why give
away the content for free?

It should be said that both these examples have been in the making for
years. Now more media companies are changing their models, finally
perhaps recognizing the writing on the wall about digital advertising.
Both the FT and Journal strategies, however, require a longsighted eye
for the future–and a certain finesse. Audience building and quality
journalism, says Ridding, “requires years of experience.” Ridding’s
words suggest that if your media company doesn’t yet have a long game,
it’s may be too late in the digital era to build one.
Fighting The Headwinds

The biggest issue facing digital newsrooms these days is the
ever-growing Google/Facebook duopoly. Current estimates place the two
companies as controlling around 73% of the United States’ digital
advertising marketshare. This has made for a news market that
prioritizes frequent churn and sensational headlines in order to
satisfy these platforms’ algorithms and newsfeeds, which favor content
that is more likely to be popular (as opposed to high quality).

The way these platforms operate, believes Ridding, creates “a flood of
low-quality information [that make it] very hard to get traction.”
There’s a deluge of news–fake news, poorly reported news,
sensationalist news–that has been, sometimes quite successfully,
competing against the voices of legacy players. This problem exists
because of the digital advertising landscape. When Facebook hints to
publishers that a certain type of content (like video) is preferred,
many companies have no choice but to conform. We need only look at
examples like Upworthy, which saw huge success with its clickbait-y,
Facebook-friendly headlines–and then faltered once Facebook tweaked
its algorithm.

Things may be changing a bit. Facebook has been working on its own
subscription platform for articles, which might help organizations
like the Journal and FT remain viable on the platform. Similarly,
Google has begun listening to publishers’ needs, says Ridding,
pointing out that the tech behemoth no longer requires media companies
to make content free when a user accesses it from Google search
results.

“This is very welcome,” says Ridding. “I would regard it as necessary
but not sufficient.” He points to the fact that Facebook isn’t giving
enough preliminary reader data to the publishers. “We have to
understand the readers, we have to have the data on the readers,” he
says, arguing that the digital media landscape today is “not a
publisher system, it’s a Facebook-friendly system.” More importantly,
Ridding believes, Facebook’s algorithm needs to stop de-ranking
paywalled content like the FT‘s.
advertisement

“There are things the tech and social media platforms can do to help
the quality of the news industry as a whole,” Ridding says. For one,
he thinks these platforms need to be more open with user data–tell
publishers who their readers are and how engaged they are on these
outside platforms, or what kinds of content they like looking at. Two,
the companies should create easier ways for media companies to
implement subscription models on outside platforms–something Facebook
has begun testing. Lastly, tech companies should allow publishers more
flexibility around how readers can access their content through those
platforms, rather than make their work conform to systems like
Google’s AMP or Instant Articles. In action, this simply means: don’t
hurt publishers’ rankings because they don’t use your proprietary
tool.

But these changes are all incremental and still require a reliance on
the platforms for distribution and revenue. If there’s anything to
learn from the last few years, it may be that publishers shouldn’t
tailor their programs toward the technology platforms’ whims, but
instead begin weaning themselves from the duopoly. Both Upworthy and
Mashable are helpful bellwethers–and maybe even BuzzFeed, which has
been considered a digital and social media success story for years but
missed many key revenue goals in 2017, resulting in a round of
layoffs. Ridding doesn’t mince words: “anyone who thinks advertising
alone is going to get them through should be disabusing themselves of
that notion.”

“It shouldn’t be that hard to make meaningful improvements to the
ecosystem which shift the needle toward sustainable quality
journalism,” Ridding believes.

Now, with Facebook’s most recent changes to its News Feed, Ridding’s
stance is even more firm. In a follow-up statement sent to Fast
Company in response to this news, Ridding said, “a sustainable
solution to the challenges of the new information ecosystem requires
further measures–in particular, a viable subscription model on
platforms that enable publishers to build a direct relationship with
readers and to manage the terms of access to their content.” He went
on, “Without that–as the large majority of all new online advertising
spend continues to go to the search and social media platforms–quality
content will no longer be a choice or an option. And that would be the
worst outcome for all.”

For Wells, he see an opportunity in changing consumption patterns.
“There’s huge huge growth in 18 to 34-year-olds who are willing to pay
for journalism,” he says. Wells describes this as a “macro trend
that’s helping publishers.”

Silver lining or not, change is on the horizon, and 2018 will be the
year when media can no longer rely on short-term changes to stay
afloat. With that, warns Ridding, “there will be consolidation, there
will be casualties.”
About the author

Cale is a Brooklyn-based reporter. He writes about business,
technology, leadership, and anything else that piques his interest.

More

Technology Newsletter
Receive special Fast Company offers.
See All Newsletters
Video
Sarah Jessica Parker On "Time's Up" And Why "Sex And The City"
Wouldn't Work Today
Ideas
Ideas
Denver’s Solution To Its Housing Crisis: Subsidize Rent For Expensive,
Empty Apartments
Ideas
In China, You Can Track Your Chicken On–You Guessed It–The Blockchain
Ideas
Want A More Innovative Company? Simple: Hire A More Diverse Workforce
Entertainment
Entertainment
“The Post” Screenwriters On Making A Movie About Exposing Presidential Lies
Entertainment
Time’s Up, Woody Allen
Entertainment
Here’s How Each Late Night Host Responded To Sh*thole-Gate Last Night
Co.Design
Products
The Aging Beauty Of Soviet Control Rooms
Cities & Spaces
These Adidas Sneakers Are A Functioning Free Pass On Berlin’s Subway
Innovation By Design
The Flashlight Is A Surprisingly Perfect Interface For AR
Fast Company
Leadership
LISTEN: The Most Successful Union Organizer in America Thinks
Traditional Organizing Is A Lost Cause
Leadership
5 Habits For Staying Productive In The Dreariest Months Of The Year
News
Supreme Court will weigh letting states collect tax on e-commerce sales

    AdvertisePrivacy PolicyTermsContactAbout UsSite MapFast Company &
Inc © 2018 Mansueto Ventures, LLCDigital Advertising Alliance (DAA)
Self-Regulatory Program
Quick Reply