What we should be aware about pay-walling broad public information is that we&#x27;re not talking about some pure and simple business model here, with a publisher providing information as good for consumption (for which the clients pay). The act of information dissemination and the ability to reach an audience has value in itself. Interested parties will gladly step in to fill the void left by &quot;independent&quot; publishers gone pay-walled. Will the pay-walled information be of higher quality compared to the free one? Maybe! Actually it&#x27;s safe to assume that the free information will be &quot;free&quot; only as in &quot;free beer&quot;, but who cares? Then there is this bitch called &quot;the network effect&quot; which erodes that pool of &quot;loyal customers&quot; day by day making the pay-walled publishers gradually slipping into obscurity¹. Pay-walling information channels addressed at the broad public is a loosing strategy in the long run, no mater how one twists it under a study or another, and that is exactly because information is not in the same category with the tea lights or some other &quot;IKEA pack&quot;.<p>¹ The publishers are aware of this, that&#x27;s why they are using pay-walling only per article, after it reaches a number of views. By this they try to balance the the opportunity to get new clients (i.e. monetize the contents) with the risk of a complete audience drain (i.e. loss of relevance).