I made [broken link! FIXME] two predictions when Andrew Sullivan announced he was taking his blog independent: 1) that I would end up paying a subscription, in appreciation for what I get from his website, which I visit every day; 2) that once the meter kicked in, my use of the site would decline, out of annoyance at being pestered to log in, having to remember yet another username and password.
The first prediction came true – I subscribed. The second prediction hasn't come true – but not for the reason one might expect.
I was worried I would find the need to repeatedly log on annoying. I expected the need to repeatedly log in would arise because I clear cookies from my computer every time I close my browser, and I assumed the meter would rely on cookies to track log-on status. I think this is true, but I failed to take into account another aspect of the cookies thing: the meter also keeps track of (makes use of) cookies in order to work at all. So by clearing cookies, in effect I reset the meter every time I close my browser. I tested this, yesterday (and again this morning), and found that if I do, in fact, click seven "read on" articles in a row in one sitting, the meter kicks in and asks me to log on. But all I need to do to bypass the meter is close my browser and re-open it. Voila – I've hacked the Sullyblog, without even intending to.
That solves my problem, neatly, but I suspect it reveals one for Sullivan. He was puzzling, recently, about the seemingly large number of subscribers who have never used their log on. I'm one of them. Are we the technically sophisticated, internet-security-conscious crowd (which is probably overly represented in his libertarian and educated-leaning audience)? The ones who sweep cookies in their browsers?
I think this reinforces my earlier point – I think Sullivan would be just as well off under a strictly voluntary, "donate here!" model, rather than a meter wall as clearly permeable as his is. The meter just creates a sort of sense of exclusivity and annoyance in some subset of his fan base, without really technically preventing parsimonious fans from accessing his content without paying. A pure donation-driven model seems risky, but it works – look at Wikipedia or NPR, which both, in their highly different ways, produce extraordinary content (and I've personally donated to both).
