The Rise Of Reg-Only Media

cswiii writes "Following up his article a few weeks ago about the NY Times' loss of prominence across the online medium (previously discussed on /.), Adam Penenberg returns with a much wider assault on the lurch towards reg-only content by Big Media as a whole. I just wonder what Margaret Thatcher would think about purportedly living in Beverly Hills..."

Comments

So what?

[mccrew]

So what? It's their content. Why do you expect them to give it to you and get nothing in return?

If you want the NY Times content without having to give up any information, then hustle down to the newsstand and actually buy a copy.

Re:So what?

[mccrew]

This issue here is that people are giving them information, but its faked information. So if its invalid information, how good is it? Why even have registration anymore if there is nothing for publishers to gain from it?

Your points are valid. Certainly the quality of infomation that they collect is likely not very good, and as more folks become savvy, the quality will diminish further.

But that really isn't the issue. The publishers own the content, and can put up whatever barriers around that content that they want. As you have pointed out, the barriers don't necessarily have to make sense. And even when it doesn't make sense, it remains the sole prerogative of the publisher to conclude that their barriers don't make sense, or are alienating customers, or whatever, and make changes.

Hopefully the availability of less-intrusive alternatives, such as seeing the same content on Yahoo News, will bring sufficient competition to make accessing content less annoying and invasive.

Registration only Radio Shack

[192939495969798999]

Remember how Radio Shack used to always ask for your name/address/etc. whenever you bought anything? I could buy a germanium diode for $1 and get asked the same thing as if I bought a $1000 computer. Registration for news content is like making people key in their address to buy a newspaper from a vending machine. It's just completely ridiculous and unnecessary.
------
new t-shirts

Reg-only are annoying

[cephyn]

I still resent having to register for newspaper sites. I don't need to register to pick one up at the newsstand, why should I for the site? Demographics blah blah blah but its not like the Chicago Tribune is going to start covering Denver news if a bunch of people from Colorado start reading it. They're going to be about Chicago, no matter who reads it.

I'm just glad google news has a partnership where you dont have to register when you use their links.

Re:Reg-only are annoying

[gilroy]

Blockquoth the poster:

I don't need to register to pick one up at the newsstand, why should I for the site?

Of course, they're also giving you the news without asking for 50 cents, either... Registration is the "price" you pay for full access to the online newspaper. Is that too much? Fine, then don't read it... but don't adopt some holier-than-thou attitude just because the newspaper (gasp) asks for something back before it hands over its content.

If it's a bad business model, they'll go under. But there's no moral high ground here.

Conclusion is a bit weak

[Sheetrock]

Here's what I propose: Web publishers should get together to set up a one-stop registration process for everybody. We sign up once and would be done with it.

It exists, and is called Passport. There was a hue and cry over it because people were worried about a centralized source of information in control of Microsoft about who they are and where they're going.

Even if you fake the information, it'd be like a super cookie. The best way if he's concerned about privacy is the current way -- stop the computer from broadcasting its IP address everywhere he goes and give a different piece of fake information to every website.

How advertisers make money

[Marxist Hacker 42]

Maybe, but I don't even see advertising on the Internet. I tune it out, like, say, Yanni in an elevator. I also don't understand why publishers aren't more concerned about the integrity of their data -- unless, of course, all they care about is the illusion of accuracy.

That is EXACTLY all they care about- the illusion that they can target the ads properly, so that they can charge more money for "targeted advertising".

Re:Free Internet

[samael]

There's no 'idea' for the internet.

There's a bunch of computers all linked together. If people want to give away information they can. If they want to charge for it, they can try to do that too.

Re:A junk email address

[proj_2501]

in fact, several other media outlets may be carrying the exact same wire story or press release.

tell you what I could live with

[zogger]

if I go to a site where I don't want to register (vast majority of them),I *don't*, I don't even use any phony info, I just skip it, and they lose a potential viewer and customer maybe, but I WOULD check off a few boxes indicating any type of ads that I wouldn't mind having on the page. I'm a normal guy, some gadgets and services interest me, I *might* go visit some companys webpage from an ad, just not ads that have zero relevance. Let ME pick, then you don't have to guess! Just give me a quick list to scan, I make my selections, then poof on to the content. No registering needed then, no cookies needed, no transfer of email address, no hard feelings.

Re:Don't

[poot_rootbeer]

They are after all driven by the number of eye balls that grace their sites.

Common misconception -- they are driven by the number of dollars that advertisers are willing to pay to get their message into some number of eye balls.

Online advertisers don't care as much about reaching the widest audience possible as they are about reaching the segment of the audience most likely to result in sales. A site operator can make more money with 10,000 users he knows everything about than he can with 10,000,000 users he knows nothing about.

Re:Cue theme...

[garcia]

I don't just enter it I routinely give it out in person as my zipcode. The Minnesota Twins have no business knowing my zipcode and telephone number when I buy tickets. 000-000-0000 and 90210 usually gets a chuckle from the ticket salesperson sometimes it gets a scowl and a question. "I'm from Beverely Hills, our area code is 000."

The companies might not think it's all that intrusive but I feel that it is my god given right to give them whatever I want just as they feel it is there to ask me whatever they want.

I disagree....

[Seraphim_72]

Right now in Minneapolis you can get 13 weeks of the StarTribune for $1.00 a week. $13 for ~3 months of the weekly paper. To buy it from the paper box or the store will run you 50 cents a copy. Now even at the higher rate I don't see 50 cents as actually paying for the content. I would hazard a guess that the .50 is for paper, printing, delivery and a small cut to the seller. The content, I would surmize, is paid by ads. There are ads on the paper site regardless of whether you reg or not. What they want is to sell higher priced targeted ads. What I think we are saying is "Hey, I will look at your background noise, but could we do this a little less personally - after all you can't do this in print, and it is the same information - why is it that online you get more out of me?"

Sera

Inaccuracy Factored In

[tabdelgawad]

Even if only 25% of registrations are relatively accurate, that's still 25% better targeting of ads than purely random. The papers know this, the advertisers know this, and the pricing of ads reflects this.

Can I have my 5 minutes reading this article back?

For the nytimes yes, for others no

[asv108]

The nytimes is a great resource that provides excellent content free of charge. I registered once probably eight years ago and it hasn't been an annoyance since then. I am accessing their content free of charge, what is wrong with registration. Especially considering they don't even force you to verify the information?

Now for other sites, I would probably avoid depending on the amount and quality of content. I would certainly not waste the time to register for my local paper's website or something of similar value to me. If you don't think getting access to the nytimes for free is not worth the "hassle" of registering, boycott the nytimes. Otherwise, don't complain.

bugmenot's popularity will kill it

[Heisenbug]

The problem is that bugmenot-type services work better the more people use them -- having one such service is ten times as good as having ten individual services. That means it's centralized, and that means it's vulnerable. Stopping such services in theory is difficult, but stopping any particular such service is easy:

What'll happen once sites catch on? They'll hire someone like me to spend half an hour writing a script that queries bugmenot for logins to their site, and disables those accounts. Making bugmenot useless won't be very hard.

Perhaps what we need is a more anonymous version of Passport -- a site that knows how to sign up automatically to a large number of free-reg-required sites, with information that you give it one time. Then when you want to read the New York Times, you go to RegItForMe.com and say "please create an account at [www.nytimes.com] with my (possibly fake) info," which doesn't take any longer than using bugmenot. This way the pan-internet super-cookie privacy concerns of Passport are neatly avoided -- as far as each reg site knows, you're using a local account with them. RegItForMe.com knows which sites you've requested a login for, but not when or how often you go.

Does that sound feasible?

Re:A junk email address

[Pharmboy]

Is a very small price to pay for free content. Besides, with portals like Google news, if there is a story you are interested in, there is a good chance that several other media outlets have written a similar article.

I agree, and would add that it would increase diversity, not decrease it. Everyone has a throwaway email account they can use for free regs, or can get one in 30 seconds. Its is *free* regs we are talking about, after all.

Yes, information wants to be free, but someone has to pay for it and if targeting ads is the price, so be it. I can always not visit the site. It's amazing how people will raise so much hell over registering to get free content, and then bitch about the ads. Holy Christ, its free, but its not "free enough"? I guess they would like to get unemployment benefits even tho they have never had and will not seek a job, too.