Subscriptions, not paywalls

Originally published March 2013, when "paywall" was the standard industry term. Updated January 2026 after publishers learned this lesson the hard way.

Thirteen years later: Language won

The 2013 prediction proved correct. Publishers largely abandoned "paywall" language in their marketing and reader communications. By 2026, successful publishers talk about "subscriptions," "memberships" or "reader support."

What changed: The New York Times, Washington Post and other successful subscription operations carefully avoid "paywall" in their messaging. They offer "digital access," "unlimited articles" or "membership benefits"—positive language emphasising what you get, not what gets in your way.

Why it mattered: Language directly impacts conversion rates. A/B testing confirmed what seemed obvious in 2013: "Subscribe for unlimited access" converts better than "Get past our paywall." The difference can be 20-30% in signup rates.

The economics: This wasn't just marketing spin. Subscription economics are fundamentally different from paywall economics. Subscriptions imply ongoing value and relationship; paywalls suggest barriers to overcome. Publishers learned that framing matters as much as pricing.

The holdouts who still talk about "our paywall" tend to be struggling publications. Language reveals mindset.

Don't call it a paywall

Karen Fratti thinks publishers need to stop using the word ‘paywall’ to describe ways online sites charge readers. She prefers we talk about subscriptions.

Fratti writes:

 let’s stop talking about putting up walls to keep people out. The paywall has only led to griping from consumers who’ve reached their monthly article limit, and unique ways to get around them. We’re wordsmiths, we know words matter, and ‘paywall’ is another relic of the old media-new media debate. Knock it off.

Fratti also talks about paywalls being "a quick fix to make balance sheets look better." This casual approach to reader relationships partly explains why so many publishers failed in the digital transition.

"Paywall" has dark imagery

I agree with Fratti on this, rightly or wrongly paywall makes me think of the watch towers and armed guard that patrolled central Berlin during the Cold War.

The paywall is the new media’s equivalent of Cold War thinking. And it is about exclusion at a time publishers need to think about inclusion.

This proved prophetic—publishers who embraced inclusive language like "supporting quality journalism" or "join our community" built more sustainable subscriber bases than those focused on barriers. By 2026, we see the full spectrum: from The Guardian's voluntary contribution model (no "wall" at all but still annoying pop-ups) to hard paywalls with confrontational language. Guess which approach built more loyal readers?

Can’t We All Just Subscribe? Why ‘Paywalls’ Won’t Get Us Anywhere – 10,000 Words (Ironically the story is behind a paywall).

There's an interesting riff on this at Evolok, which looks at: The Etymology Behind “Paywalls”.

According to Wiktionary (don’t judge me on my research, you should try googling “etymology behind the paywall”), the origin is composed of “pay + wall, by analogy with firewall”. A logical enough conclusion, especially back when paywalls were a simple “pay or leave” concept, but it’s unacceptable now that such a term still evokes the emotion of being a fourteen-year-old with a fake ID in front of a smug, grinning bouncer.

The blog concludes:

Do us a favour: next time you’re reading news online, when you hit the article limit, don’t think about whether you would pay to get past the “paywall”. Instead ask whether the articles are good enough for it to be worth your time to subscribe.

Publishers spent a lot of time and energy attempting to finesse the digital transition, including, at one point, hoping the iPad would be their savior, though that optimism proved misplaced.

How language shaped subscription success 

The shift from "paywall" to "subscription" reflected deeper strategic thinking: 

Successful approaches: - The Guardian at its best: "Support journalism" (voluntary contributions) - New York Times: "All access subscription" (unlimited value) - Local papers: "Community membership" (belonging + support)

Failing approaches: - "You've hit your article limit" (confrontational) - you'll see this kind of message at The Guardian despite the news being theoretically free. "Subscribe to read" (transactional) - "Unlock premium content" (still barrier-focused) 

The digital subscription economy became fiercely competitive. Publishers competing with Netflix, Spotify and dozens of other monthly charges couldn't afford negative framing. Every word matters when you're asking for recurring payments. New Zealand publishers who learned this lesson early—like the NBR—built sustainable models. Those who didn't struggled as subscription fatigue set in.

More on journalism and media: 

This post is part of ongoing coverage about journalism business models, subscription economics and sustainable publishing: 

• Online subscriptions: the second digital divide.
• Ad-blocking threatens online publishing.
• Lack of local technology news damages industry.
• Why I'm a technology and business writer, not a geek.
• IndieWeb offers independence to journalists.
• Journalists too mean to tech companies.