I don’t like the idea of excluding any readers of any content, based on their willingness to spend. It doesn’t only collide with my conviction that all information should be free. It also contradicts some basic logics of how the internet culture works.
First, integrating this kind of paywall is costly – either in time or money. Ok, that’s only short time costs if it would wokr afterwards. Still, it raises the necessary investments for your thing – something I despise.
Second, it’s a google world – if people aren’t willing to spend money on your content, they for sure are able to use their searchbar in the top corner of their browser, instead of changing their mind and paying for some small benefits. I can’t think of any clever and exclusive things that I want and can share only with a paying audience on a regular basis.
Third, I think it is very hard to produce content that would still be great, if it is scaled down. And you can only attract people to your stuff, if it is great.
Fourth, how should people know they want to pay for great stuff, if they can’t easily experience it first hand?
All in all I think the idea of this kind of paywall suffers from quite similar flaws as the Rupert Murdoch-bullshit that right now lays a quite good newspaper to waste. It just devaluates the great stuff one does, making it more average to a broad audience.
I really prefer the idea to convinve people, that they want to give something, because what I do is valueable to them.