Farewell first-click free

Google has abandoned its divisive ‘first-click free’ (FCF) policy that required subscription-based publishers to offer readers up to three free articles per day before they encountered a paywall.

Publishers had complained that the policy forced paywalled content to be given away for free, with Google offering higher search result visibility in return. But the search engine behemoth has decided to ditch FCF in favour of a flexible sampling model, where the publishers get to decide how much content they dish out for free in future.

Google’s VP for news, Richard Gingras, wrote in a blog post: “Google is ending its first-click free policy in favour of a flexible sampling model where publishers will decide how many, if any, free articles they want to provide to potential subscribers based on their own business strategies.”

And News Corp CEO Robert Thomson said during a September conference: “If you don’t sign up for first-click free, you virtually disappear from a search. Given the power of the Google platform, that is disadvantaging premium content of great provenance.”
His argument that publishers can completely disappear from search is not just a matter of opinion; the Wall Street Journal (WSJ) opted out of FCF earlier this year, only to report that traffic from Google fell 38%, while year-on-year referrals from Google News dropped 89%.

The switch to a flexible sampling model demonstrates that Google is willing to sympathise with the financial struggle faced by news outlets, as Gingras added: “While research has shown that people are becoming more accustomed to paying for news, the sometimes painful process of signing up for a subscription can be a turn off. That’s not great for users or for news publishers who see subscriptions as an increasingly important source of revenue.”

Change of heart

Google hasn’t made the announcement lightly. The tech giant trialled the new system with The New York Times (NYT) and Financial Times (FT) before deciding to end FCF for good. “The Financial Times is welcoming of Google’s input and actions to help this critical sector of the media industry, and we’ve worked very closely with Google to aid understanding of the needs that publishers have and how Google can help,” read a statement from Jon Slade, chief commercial officer for the FT.

The news was also welcomed, perhaps unsurprisingly considering earlier statements, by News Corp chief Thomson, who believes the new strategy can also help to tackle the fake news epidemic. “The felicitous demise of first-click free (second click fatal) is an important first step in recognising the value of legitimate journalism and provenance on the internet,” he said.

But there are those who aren’t associated with profit-driven, multi-billion dollar news corporations that have reservations about Google switching lanes. Martin Calvert, marketing director at BlueClaw Digital Agency, is concerned that if the top three news stories in a search are being hidden behind a paywall, users won’t get the information they require, which could potentially make Google unfit for purpose. Not that the search engine would ever leave it long enough to reach such dire straits.

“Google has always focused on search quality. It’s everything to them and that isn’t just talk. It’s action because if they fail on that, people lose trust and ultimately they’ll be at risk of being blindsided by some other search or technology,” says Nick Garner, founder of bitcoin casino Oshi.

A far more likely scenario is that users will encounter paywalled content more often, as a result of Google no longer forcing publishers to provide content for free, and readers will simply look elsewhere for their news consumption.

“It’s a difficult situation for any modern publisher in that people value their content but they don’t want to pay for it in any way whatsoever,” says Calvert. “The question is, how can they make money without turning people off? If you hit a paywall, you are very likely to find the same stories from a different provider for free.”

Paywall problems

In terms of general news, where almost all stories are covered for free by the likes of BBC News and Sky News, is there ever a situation where paywall works? In what circumstance would consumers be willing to pay for a publication where the information can be found elsewhere, and for free?

Calvert believes one method that could see publishers drive subscriptions is by playing on the social conformity pressures that have developed since news began to move online and social media became an integral part of people’s lives.

“It’s a big shift and one that publishers are struggling to get around but if they can tie it in with wider personal branding and identity politics, they can hang on and create clusters, so that it’s not just about the news but it’s about a lifestyle,” says Calvert.

Put simply, consumers tend to create their own news consumption based on their likes and dislikes. Twitter has become perhaps the most instant source of online news, whether it has been verified or not, but how can the content be considered neutral when users have specifically chosen which accounts to follow and which ones to ignore?

Calvert summarises with this analogy: “Publishing has become more of a product and a lifestyle thing. If you read the Guardian, you probably recycle and like David Mitchell because he’s left-wing and a bit posh and that fits your own idea of self.”

Many publications pay substantial fees to guest column writers such as Jeremy Clarkson in the Daily Mail, or Frankie Boyle in the Guardian as their names are a draw. Readers will be more tempted to subscribe if they like that individual but their writing is only available in one publication. Even with Katie Hopkins, who viciously divides opinion, it’s the individual writer that is for sale. Otherwise all content is replicable.

Google’s game

The news has been welcomed by publishers, presumably because they will be able to implement a greater degree of control over their content and make researched business decisions. Premium content will be offered at a price, while content that could potentially drive subscriptions will be given out for free, to keep Google happy.

Oshi founder Garner, who used to run SEO agency 90 Digital, described Google’s decision to abandon FCF as a “huge precedent” because it would be the first time the firm has degraded its search results in response to pressure from private publishers.

However, he believes that not all is as it seems, insisting that Google could potentially punish paywall-hungry publishers by failing to rank them in search results. Gingras reportedly told Search Engine Land that “publisher decisions about how much content to sample to search users will not impact rankings in any way”, but Garner believes that statement is open to interpretation.

“If publishers think Google is going to rank publications that slap people in the face with a paywall and degrade Google’s overall user experience they are delusional,” he says. “After getting slapped by a paywall the first few times then you would just look elsewhere, so eventually the publication won’t get ranked because there will be no user engagement.”

In theory he has a point, because search results are driven by user engagement, and Google has a huge amount of data based on clicks to make a balanced judgement on what should rank where. Google, at least publicly, has put an arm around publishers and is even offering to make the subscription application process easier with a one click payment option for existing Google account holders.

Garner though, still isn’t convinced. He adds: “Publishers will get greedy and think of course we should rank because we are wonderful. They will go behind a paywall and nobody will engage so they’ll lose their rankings. Then they’ll have to fend for themselves and start by giving their content away for free again if they want traffic.

“I think Google’s underlying assumption is that if you want the Financial Times, then you know where it is, but otherwise there are plenty of other places you can read this story.”