The NZ Herald, like legacy media everywhere, is trying to get creative in order to increase their revenue. I received the following email from them yesterday.
Hi Juana
Commenting is back on nzherald.co.nz and our Apple and Android apps!
As a Registered user, you’re able to join the conversation by viewing and commenting on selected articles.
Okay, that’s interesting, especially since they previously allowed people to comment on their articles but then took away the privilege altogether with a long-winded explanation as to why it was all too hard. It seems that now that revenue is tight they are rethinking their decision.
Commenting is available to you until the end of November, when it becomes a subscriber benefit. You’ll still be able to follow the conversation by viewing the commenting section on selected articles.
Oh, dear. Now, this is where it all comes unstuck. First of all the NZ Herald is right to finally realise that allowing readers to comment on articles adds a lot of value to their content. A well-moderated commenting system drives traffic to content and when it is done well it helps create a sense of community on the website. However, there is a very good reason why it is a very bad idea to link a paid subscription to the ability to comment.
A paid subscription should only be for content because that is a very black and white transaction. To keep their access to the content all the subscriber has to do is to keep paying. If the subscriber decides that they no longer like or want the content they can cancel. Very simple. Once you add the right to comment to the mix, the headaches will be ongoing. The NZ Herald is going to end up losing subscriptions hand over fist with this decision for the following reasons.
- Existing customers who value the NZ Herald‘s content will cancel their subscription when they get censored or banned from commenting because they will expect the rules not to apply to them because they are paying for the privilege.
- New customers who subscribed more for the right to comment than the content will cancel their subscriptions once they either discover that only certain opinions are tolerated or that the comments are poorly moderated and abuse of others is tolerated.
- The NZ Herald will experience all the same issues that caused them to take away commenting on their articles in the past and will backtrack once again resulting in mass cancellations from customers who only subscribed for the ability to comment on the content.
I know from my involvement in sites like The BFD that commenters who get short term, long term or permanent bans often react with anger and if they are subscribers, will sometimes cancel their subscription despite the fact that their subscription was only for content and had NEVER been linked to access to the comment section.
I have read many e-mails from subscribers who basically said that they were entitled to break the rules because they were financial supporters of the site through their subscription. Many attempted to blackmail the site by stating that it would lose their subscription if the moderation team were not instructed to remove their ban. They had a sense of entitlement even though the right to comment had NEVER been a feature of their subscription.
Given my experiences, I can only imagine how bad it will be for the NZ Herald now that they have decided to effectively sell the right to comment. The sense of entitlement will be on steroids. Having paid for the service readers will react with outrage if they are censored or banned.
Given the NZ Herald‘s history with comment sections, either people will be censored and banned all over the place, or the comment sections will become abusive cesspits with little or no moderation. Either way, they are going to rapidly create a whole heap of angry customers.
The New Zealand Herald‘s Community House Rules
Welcome to the New Zealand Herald community. Your comments are a vital part of the experience at nzherald.co.nz.
We want our forum to be safe, civil, and respectful. We encourage thoughtful, insightful debate – the best comments bring fresh ideas and perspectives. Humour is good. Be concise. And don’t abuse our journalists – they’re working hard to keep you informed.
When you submit a comment on one of our stories, it is sent to a moderator to review. Comments will not be posted if they are insulting, offensive, harmful or break the law. And you could be suspended or banned from commenting if you break our House Rules.
At busy times, there may be delays posting comments. Our moderators work across a range of stories, so comments are not necessarily published in the order they are received. Comments will be closed once the debate wanes, or it moves off-topic. Comments will not be open on all stories.
And, remember this is a public space. What you say can be viewed by others – be safe and don’t post personal details about yourself or others.
The Rules
Lively debate is encouraged but please be courteous and respect other viewpoints.
Keep it relevant. Off-topic comments won’t be published.
Please don’t swear, shout or use threatening language. Don’t make comments that are discriminatory on the basis of race, religion, gender, sexual preference or disability. Your comments must not contain defamatory, obscene, pornographic, or otherwise illegal material. Don’t use derogatory or misogynistic nicknames.
Please don’t spread misinformation.
The best way to get your voice heard is to make your point well. Repeatedly submitting your comments (what we call flooding) won’t get you a response. Flooding is akin to spam – and we won’t publish that either.
Don’t break the law by submitting defamatory comments, or anything that breaches any court orders or injunctions.
We won’t publish links, Gifs, pictures or videos in our comment streams. Needless to say, any links to explicit content won’t be published.
Commenters must do so under their real names – no nicknames will be accepted. This is to encourage authentic, on-topic debate.
Don’t try to slip in some free advertising. This isn’t the place for that.
By contributing to this page, you agree to allow the New Zealand Herald to use your content in any manner without any obligation or compensation to you. One example may be that we use a comment you make and publish it as reader feedback in an online or print story.
The content posted by readers on this site does not reflect the Herald’s views or opinions, or those of Herald staff.
It is not much of a bargain is it? Not only do they decide whether your comment or view is “misinformation”, they can also use your comment (that you are forced to make under your real name), as the basis for an article which might open you up personally to online or real-life abuse. I certainly wouldn’t feel safe publishing any opinion on the NZ Herald under my real name. Would you? They do not allow you any privacy, and even if you are respectful and polite, ‘wrong think’ will not be tolerated. It’s not what I would call value for money, that’s for sure.
Please share this article to let more people know about The BFD
