Re: ::scr Paying for It

[Simon Batistoni <simon@xxxxxxxxxxxxx>]

On 02/05/02 13:05 +0100, Alex Robinson wrote:
> 
> How about (using cookies or ip address or inflatable halibuts - it's not
> important right now) simply limiting the number of pages per session that
> can be viewed and then pulling down the shutters with a message saying that
> to continue viewing actual content right now  you need to subscribe (and
> have a model of subscription so that it can be as short or as long as the
> punter wants - a la loot). This way searchability and openness are
> maintained but in the best tradition of (annoy|cripple)ware, the user is
> prodded in to doing the "right" thing if he or she wants to carry on using
> it without having to restart their browser / delete their cookies etc . And
> you don't need horrible urls either.

This, I like. I know Simon's already suggested that it's the wrong way
to think of things, but for sites who want to charge content, there's
no getting away from the fact that they want to behave like magazines.

And what you're actually suggesting here is rather like flicking
through a magazine in the shop, before you decide whether you want to
buy it or not.

I know, it is possible to take this metaphor too far, but the fact is,
paying for newspaper and magazine content is behaviour that most
adults are used to, and there's no easier way of getting someone to do
what you want than getting them to do it via their own established
behavioural patterns.

Technically, this solution might be a bit of an arse - IPs are out
because that really screws with people behind large-scale corporte
firewalls, and as you say, cookies can be deleted, but I'm sure there
are Clever Combinations Of Things that could make for a best possible
solution (handwave). And as I've said before, it's not about shutting
everyone out religiously, it's about making enough people pay to
sustain you.  And maybe (gasp) make a profit too.