DoubleRecall

Some fantastic insights from Jeff John Roberts & Giuseppe...

Mon, 21 May 2012 13:56:00 -0400

Some fantastic insights from Jeff John Roberts & Giuseppe Granieri.

Thank you, guys!

DoubleRecall featured at paidContent

Mon, 21 May 2012 13:04:52 -0400

We’re really pleased to highlight a feature written about DoubleRecall by paidContent’s Jeff John Roberts - Publishers warm to DoubleRecall’s paywall buster,

Farazin is touting the technology as a “complementary solution” which means publishers can try it out alongside other revenue schemes like paywalls that may be in place already. This double-barreled approach is a good idea given that many readers will never accept a paywall at all — more and more, it looks like the future is not about “pay vs free” but instead about finding the right hybrid model in which publishers can reap subscription revenue from a core minority of devout readers while also topping up with ad revenue from casual visitors.

The future is most certainly not about “pay vs free” and we’re really pleased to see Jeff and paidContent’s continued support of the conversation.

Your paywall is leaving money on the table Over 113M uniques in...

Tue, 01 May 2012 12:52:27 -0400

Your paywall is leaving money on the table

Over 113M uniques in March 2012.

If you just read this headline without asking the source, you’d be pretty excited about the opportunity. After all, 113M uniques is over 36% of the entire U.S. population.

In March 2012, U.S. newspaper websites saw a total of over 113M unique visitors.

You’re not quite as excited about the opportunity now, are you. Everyone is aware that, despite this amazing reach, the economics of newspaper publishing remain seriously in peril. What should otherwise be viewed as a staggering growth play, newspapers have pretty much become a condemned opportunity.

We’ve been working extremely hard to help publishers reverse this trend - and we’re succeeding.

In March 2012, DoubleRecall publishers saw an average paywall engagement rate in excess of 50%.

You didn’t read that incorrectly. In excess of 50% paywall engagement.

We’re talking about serious economic benefits being delivered on a monthly basis.

How serious? Let’s take a look at two fairly standard paywall implementation models: 1) A monthly subscription model; and 2) a weekly pass model. For this simple analysis we’ll use a unique traffic model of 100K per month and a $10 / month subscription model and a $4 / week pass model for the economics.

First, let’s take a look at the monthly subscription model:

Monthly Subscription Model

Paywall:

- Uniques: 100,000

- Paywall Engagement Rate: 1%

- Paywall Revenue (Monthly Sub @ 1 Month): $10.00

- Paywall Revenue / 100,000 Uniques: $10,000

Now, let’s take a look at the same paywall implementation with DoubleRecall:

Paywall + DoubleRecall:

- Uniques: 100,000

- DoubleRecall + Paywall Engagement Rate: 50%*

- DoubleRecall Revenue (per engagement): $.35 **

- Double Recall Revenue / 100,000 Uniques: $17,500

That’s right. We’re talking about a 75% increase in paid content revenue per month.

However, we still have a weekly pass model to look at:

Weekly Pass Model

Paywall:

- Uniques: 100,000

- Paywall Engagement Rate: 1%

- Paywall Revenue (Monthly Sub @ 1 Month): $4.00

- Paywall Revenue / 100,000 Uniques: $4,000

Paywall + DoubleRecall:

- Uniques: 100,000

- DoubleRecall + Paywall Engagement Rate: 50%*

- DoubleRecall Revenue (per engagement): $.35 **

- Double Recall Revenue / 100,000 Uniques: $17,500

In this case it’s even more profitable - a 337.5% increase.

We’re talking about a material impact on a publisher’s monthly financials - all while staying directly inline with their stated paid content strategies.

This is just the beginning of a pretty amazing story we’d like to share with you regarding our company - and how we can help yours.

Footnotes:

* March 2012 DoubleRecall partner average paywall engagement.

** March 2012 DoubleRecall partner average cost per engagement was in excess of $.50

It’s Time to Change the Paywall’s Negative...

Wed, 25 Apr 2012 14:47:35 -0400

It’s Time to Change the Paywall’s Negative Perception

No matter how (or how often) you look at it, paywalls have delivered a negative impact on the public perception of news. The reason for this negativity is simple:

Paywall implementations are a mystery to readers.

Whether it’s a metered implementation or a completely locked subscription environment, readers have little to no idea when (or if) a paywall is going to be present.

Whether it’s search, Twitter, Facebook, LinkedIn or email, all readers are trying to do is access a recommended article. In return for their efforts they are met with the equivalent of a not open for business sign.

This is inherently a bad process:

The reader’s surprise at being unable to access the article leads directly to immediate dissatisfaction.
Immediate dissatisfaction leads to the reader immediately seeking readily available alternatives.
The publisher missing out on this revenue opportunity.

Remember the 99% rule!

In order to change the negative perception of the paywall, publishers must offer their readers an alternative - a way to access the select piece of content to which the reader was referred without having to break out a credit card.

Why not offer a single article “pass” that allows the reader to access what they came for - a single article - and then get on their way?

This is the whole premise of DoubleRecall - to enable access and engage readers while driving net new revenue streams for publishers.

Are we tooting our own horn here? A bit, yes - but this is because we have seen the positive impact this process can have on publishers.

Isn’t engaging a prospective subscriber better than having them tweet to thousands of people how readily available their alternative news sources are?

It’s definitely time to change the paywall’s negative perception - and it can begin today.

Breaking the paywall's 99% rule

Thu, 19 Apr 2012 16:57:27 -0400

When publishers put up paywalls they inevitably encounter what is not so flatteringly referred to as the 99% rule. This rule postulates that 99% of the readers who hit a publisher’s paywall are going to bounce out of the site, immediately.

This becomes the 99.9% rule when you look specifically at social referrals - those inbound links to a story on a publisher’s site that come from a friend’s email, Facebook post, Tweet or LinkedIn post.

As the image above from noted entrepreneur and investor Chris Dixon illustrates, the frustration readers feel relative to accessing quality media is very real. The friction of paying to read what is likely a single piece of content is simply too high for even a friend’s recommendation to overcome.

What’s missing from the process of paywalls (and social referrals to media) is simply choice.

The ability for a reader to access the protected / premium content without having to directly pay for it is critical - especially when it comes at their friend’s recommendation. Note we’re stating “without having to directly pay for it” not “without having to pay for it.” This is a significant distinction as it is imperative publishers receive payment for their premium content. No one is naive enough to believe publishers can continue to exist and create quality content without revenue.

Today, with any paywall implementation a reader encounters the paywall and has a single choice - pay or leave. That’s it. Break out a credit card and make a purchase for access to, again, what is likely a single piece of content. It’s way too easy for the reader to just leave the site so that’s what they do.

What’s missing from this process is choice. Not “paradox of choice” choice - but a simple choice. An alternative. What’s missing is the opportunity for a reader to engage with a single piece of content while having the access to the desired story funded by a third-party. A simple example of a third-party is an advertiser.

When presented with this engagement opportunity the reader takes < 5 seconds to engage via a simple action and gains access to their desired content. That’s it!

With one very simple option, the paywall’s 99% rule is shattered. Everyone wins.

Publishers receive revenue for their premium content via a unique engagement opportunity.
Advertisers receive direct engagement with readers and realize tremendous message recall.
Readers gain access to the premium content their friend’s suggested they read.

In a market of infinitely complex monetization strategies and highly nuanced business models, sometimes it’s the simple solution that can deliver the highest impact.

A brief look back at NAA mediaXchange

Tue, 10 Apr 2012 15:30:00 -0400

Last week we had the opportunity to participate in our first NAA mediaXchange event in Washington, D.C.

Whether it was listening to Robert Peck and Guy Tasaka talk about the effectiveness of various Paid Content Strategies or Emily Bell and Josh Quittner discuss the future of content delivery platforms and reading apps, there is no question that monetization and mobile are the topics of conversation for 2012 - and likely beyond.

As you would imagine, throughout the event we engaged in (nearly) countless sessions and discussions regarding the evolution of the paywall. Our take away from the event was really quite clear: with digital first, paywalls, one of the most critical components for monetization, need to be about engagement vs. purely restricting access.

When you place all of your hard work behind a purely restrictive paywall it becomes incredibly difficult for readers to find you. Worse, it makes it next to impossible for them to make an informed decision about engagement.

In an age of over abundance, there are too many alternatives which are too readily available to implement a difficult process for readers.

As mobile content demands and the need to make money from digital content increases, we will continue to innovate and deliver new and profitable ways for you to achieve your objectives.

A few things are perfectly clear:

Digital first is more than a mantra, it’s a necessity;
Mobile is here to stay (and perhaps dominate); and
Everyone needs to make money with their content, now.

We’re happy to be here and ready to help.

The DoubleRecall Story

Mon, 26 Mar 2012 10:19:46 -0400

On 2 November 2010, we (like many others) read in astonishment as it was announced that The Times (UK) had lost 62% of their website traffic and 90% of their page views within two (2) months of implementing a paywall.

This was insanity.

There had to be a way for publishers to provide the quality content readers want (but aren’t necessarily ready yet to pay for online) in a way that is beneficial for the publisher and their advertisers.

We saw this challenge and decided to take it head on by developing a way to make online news a win for publishers (profitability & engagement), advertisers (engagement) and readers (access).

After extensive research on the effectiveness (or relative ineffectiveness) of traditional paywall and ad unit implementations, we arrived at a solution - the first version of DoubleRecall. To test our theory we went to thirteen (13) of the top fifteen (15) publishers in Europe and ran a test. For fourteen (14) months we experimented with our publisher and advertiser partners on the best way to address each parties needs - while still meeting the needs of the readers. While it would be unfair to say we had it right from the start, it would be fair to say we were on the right path.

These fourteen (14) months contained multiple revisions and iterations (lots and lots of trial and error) as everyone involved threw their support, knowledge and data behind the experiment. When it was all said and done we realized we had landed somewhere valuable.

In a postmortem on the trial, we identified some staggering results.

On average, our publisher partners saw an:

85% visitor engagement with DoubleRecall (vs. less than 5% with just a paywall)
$0.90 in new new revenue per reader per month from digital engagement

On top of this, our advertiser partners saw an average:

11% increase in message recall
3.6% CTR with DoubleRecall (vs. less than 1% prior to DoubleRecall)

After this experiment we realized we had something that needed to be exported, quickly, to publishers around the world.

Today, after an invaluable stint with YCombinator in Palo Alto, we completed a seed round, located the company in New York (the center of the publishing world), and are pleased to be working with publishers and advertisers to help them increase the profitability and efficiency of paywalls by monetizing social, search and email traffic with simple engagement ads.

We look forward to sharing each step of the journey with you.

Regards,

Robert