Metered, Hard and Freemium Paywalls Explained

You’re reading a news site and you’ve spotted a story you want, but you can’t see the text. You’re behind a paywall. But which kind?

The basic models

The first category is a hard paywall. A hard wall requires you to take out a subscription simply to attempt the first article. No free articles are permitted before the ask is made, and unless you are already a subscriber, you can’t proceed deeper into the site without subscribing first.

Much more common is a metered model. A typical meter might allow you to read three, five or ten articles at the publisher's discretion—typically 3–10 per month—before prompting for a subscription.

The essential content is then gated, as either a 2nd-tier metered set, or hard.

Most published works that explain this system use a mixture of terms. A freelancer might call the basic meter a “soft paywall,” describing the freemium model as a hybrid involving metered access too. A handful of sellers report a registration wall, asking for an email address. and even a phone number before permission to read.

None of these descriptions are synonyms, however. Instead, they appear to cover nuanced differences, generally describing optional layers that can sit on top of the three basic patterns of control.

What a free article limit actually is

The tightly-defined quotas include rules for when the meter starts running, and when it resets.

Others use cookies, clearing your counter when you close the browser.

The best known example of metering is The New York Times, which counts your free articles across all your devices, resetting the meter at the turn of the month.

Registration walls and hybrids

A registration wall, on the other hand, asks for an email address and waits for a lot more routine demographic data than usual site visits might demand. At this level, a newsletter subscription might also open the gates. You might find this at the top end of a freemium site, sometimes combined with a meter-to-read more.

Some email sign-ups take multiple devices to connect with, so important news often goes unread.

Publishers are working on a tight mid-point between the extreme security of the hard wall and the 100% open site, letting their subscription product service come to life quickly. On some free publication sites, you may be able to advance to a registered email address, subsequently to a free subscription, and finally to the hard paywall.

Finally, there’s a more complex but somewhat unusual hybrid. You’re put behind a registration wall, this one set up to capture email and a few markers to target your news preferences directly. You’re notified when new articles in your area pop up, and told which stories make up the premium set. You can still read the news you most follow at a basic level—nay, be driven to it—with renewal and gift subscription offers appearing.

What the reader is being asked to do

What does your choice actually mean, for the quality of your news?

Some sites, like the Financial Times, hold out nothing at all for the fence-sitter. Nothing is free. Some, like The Times of London, have shown a willingness to let readers put a growing toe in the water. Usually, the pricing options mutate from month to month, often seeing a spike in subscriptions for that month for big breaking news.

For the subscriber, it’s always been about trade. Why do those stories belong behind a subscriber gate, and what’s the moving brick wall line?

They rightfully remain frustrated to see their ability to read progressively fracture their focus. Yet hard-wall sites at least give careful consideration to which news is factual and which news is opinion: a badge of quality in a time of overflow of online sensationalism.

Without knowing which news is being shown to whom, we’ve sought an explanation that allows us to say more. Fly-by-night publishers certainly lock up key factual reports from crisis events, but they lack the systematic rulemaking masthead news have traditionally tried to pursue. That’s probably better than the 100% free approach, which readers have shown they just can’t remember to pay for.

And why do some publishers feel their cap-shouldered editors should need to exert legal muscle? Some of this is editors trying to play in a sandbox on archive material that isn’t their own. We’re probably just aching for more time to reflect, more rushing to look through the lens of monthly margins.