Often paywall-protected news organisations allow their registered customers to send links to unregistered friends, and do *not* make those new customers register to read the recommended content. They are in essence entering on their registered friend's coattails.
The thinking behind this must go:
Publisher: We don't want to annoy Jane Customer's friend for a single article; rather, we hope that John Friend trusts Jane Customer enough to click on the link, and then likes the free taste of our content enough to register themselves. Plus, we've already got John Friend's contact info from when Jane Customer sent the link - so we can try to track him that way.
The FT doesn't think that way -- rather, they seem to think:
FT: WE are the FT. Everyone knows who we are anyway, so if Jane Customer has sent a link to John Friend, it's not fair to Jane Customer (or Jim Customer, or Rufus Customer, etc) to let John Friend have a free ride. So before John Friend (or in this case, er, I) can read this article, they must register.
And not any quick email registration - no! They must choose a subscription level and provide additional mandatory information.
And this is where Sign-UpFAIL 2 comes in -- the mandatory fields. There's already questionable value in forcing the capture of this information, vs. annoying potential subscribers, but I can see why the FT might want the customer insights that could be gained.
So WHY, FT, do you narrow the choices allowed -- to assume they are working or an MBA student. Do no unemployed people subscribe to the FT? No homemakers? No retired?
As a result of forcing entry and then restricting choice, I bet you get a lot of subscribers with random descriptions like mine below:
I *might* be the owner of an aerospace firm with trader responsibilities. Erm, sure.
FT advertisers, think twice about those subscriber stats you're getting!
No comments:
Post a Comment