2006-03-13
You can't be half pregnant
"Alan Burlison":http://blogs.sun.com/roller/page/alanbur?entry=bypassing_those_annoying_website_registration
point's out how publishers are just not getting it, and how trusting a HTTP client to be truthful is just a bit naive.
Either you have a wall and only let paid subscribers in, or you don't.
This we'll let 'google' in is a losers game for a couple of reasons.
* You alienate your potential subscribers.. they came looking for info which they probably could have found in several other places. Your site pushing a registration screen on them will make them hit the 'back button' quicker than register (and never click on your site again)
* They come up with 'interesting' techinques like bugmenot and useragent switchers to work around it. (which means the site needs to spend development time protecting against them instead of on revenue generating projects)
* You exclude new entrants to the search game, and all their potential readers. (google isn't the only horse in town guys)
* In Washington post's example, I can see thier news story if I came in via google news, but not if I click on the link on their front page.. So I feel like a second class citizen for actually going to your site directly instead of via a aggregator.. Thanks guys!
Personally I like "McKinsey's":http://www.mckinseyquarterly.com/article_abstract.aspx?ar=1747&L2=13&L3=11&srid=17&gp=0 model much better.
When you click to read a story fo theirs, you get a quick abstract to read (and which google can index) and then you decide if you want to go through the pain of registering to read the full version.
now in McKinsey's case.. they have *unique* content, "unlike most media organisations ":http://feh.holsman.net/articles/2006/02/01/dont-google-us so they could charge or force you to register, but they know their content is valuable, and once you read an abstract you'll be hooked.