Commentary
The Crumbling Bypass: Alliance Brings Down Paywall Avoidance Site
- by Ray Schultz , Columnist, July 17, 2025
A blow was struck for publishers this week when the News/Media Alliance brought down the paywall bypass website 12ft.io (aka “12ft Ladder”).
According to the Alliance, the 12ft Ladder site
offered “illegal circumvention technology that stripped paywalls, allowing users of the technology to access otherwise restricted copyright protected content without paying the required
fee.”
The website went down on Monday, July 14, and was not available at deadline on Thursday.
The Alliance did not
provide details on how this was achieved.
This, of course, does not eliminate the problem of paywall bypass sites. There are others, and some consumers might applaud
their efforts, given the annoyance with paywalls.
advertisement
advertisement
Typically, they offer to bring users to archives. Surely, other such sites will pop up given the ubiquity of
paywalls.
But the News/Media Alliance vows to take similar actions against other bypass purveyors.
“This takedown is a
win for publishers and a win for anyone who cares about quality content,” says Danielle Coffey, president and CEO of the News/Media Alliance. “Publishers commit significant
resources to creating the best and most informative content for consumers, and illegal tools like 12ft.io undermine their ability to financially support that work through subscriptions and ad revenue.
Taking down paywall bypassers is an essential part of ensuring we have a healthy and sustainable information ecosystem.”
Ray Schultz is the former editor of DM News, Chief Marketer, Direct, Circulation Management and other marketing titles.
Commentary
PR Flacks And Journalists Get Personal: What They Don't Like About Each Other
- by Ray Schultz , Columnist, 6 hours ago
Our colleagues at PR Daily have published a list of gripes public relations people have about journalists.
My first thought was, who has the time for this? But let’s take a look at some of them in the interest of promoting civil discourse:
- When a journalist responds favorably to an exclusive offer on a timely matter then goes silent or decides after the fact not to cover it.
- When journalists show up for interviews unprepared, with no basic understanding of the subject.
- When the reporter asks for written responses to questions instead of doing an interview.
- When journalists insist on creating some abstract figure around funding or company size, etc. And when their coverage focuses only on larger companies.
These points are well-taken, and I’ve probably been guilty of all of them at some point. But now let’s respond with a few complaints that journalists may have. This list is longer.
- When PR Flacks fill our inboxes with pitches that have nothing to do with the beat. This is spam.
- When press releases are so badly written that it is hard to figure out what they’re saying.
- When the person making the pitch can’t answer even a couple of simple questions, or when the pitch email contains different facts from those in the actual announcement.
- When the PR agency pitches an exclusive, then goes dark, probably because they’re giving the scoop to somebody else.
advertisement
advertisement
Want more? We’ve hardly exhausted the subject:
- When press announcements start with the daunting word EMBARGO in the subject line. I get many of these each day, some promoting such groundbreaking stories as the 10th anniversary of a supplier company. I suggest that Gmail set up a folder called “Embargo,” right next to Promotions.
- When they’re pitching a report of some kind, then make it impossible to access. For instance, you sometimes have to prove you’re not a robot, picking out the CAPTHA pictures that have stairs or motorcycles in them. I’ve concluded that this is some kind of digital dementia test.
As PR Daily acknowledges, all of these perceived lapses are the result of overwork. That’s true from both sides. The one unforgivable thing, from either direction, is misinformation. Let’s not lose sight of the incredible help journalists get from public relations people—why, they even spot our typos in real time.
Ray Schultz is the former editor of DM News, Chief Marketer, Direct, Circulation Management and other marketing titles.
Commentary
Skipping The Deep Dive: Google Users Are Not Clicking Through In AI Overviews
- by Ray Schultz , Columnist, July 24, 2025
Publishers can hardly be blamed if they lack warm and fuzzy feelings for Google. Some say they’re trapped within its walled garden, and others complain that Google’s new AI Overviews is not delivering the traffic they expect.
But things may be changing. As reported Tuesday in MediaPost, Google is planning a pilot program that will deploy artificial intelligence to drive monetization and compensation for publishers. Details are scarce thus far, but Google is looking to work with 20 national news organizations.
That’s very good news. But some of the veneer was rubbed off the announcement when Pew Research reported that “users clicked a link under an AI summary once every 200 times.” This was based on a month-long survey of almost 69,999 Google searches.
Pew also found that Google users who see an AI summary are much less likely to click on links to other websites than users who do not see one.
advertisement
advertisement
According to Pew, here’s what Google users do when they encounter search pages with AI summaries:
- Click on a link in the AI summary—1%
- Click on a link from the search results—8%
- End browsing session—26%
- Continue to search Google—32%
- Leave Google to browse a different site—34%
Google responded that the survey was based on “flawed methodology and skewed queryset that is not representative of search traffic.” And at least one critic has questioned Pew’s methodology and its sample size—900+ adults and 66,000 search queries.
Maybe, but these findings have led to protests in the UK. Owen Meredith, the chief executive of the News Media Association, said Google is trying to keep users “within its own walled garden, taking and monetizing valuable content – including news – created by the hard work of others.”
And even before the Pew report came out, the Independent Publishers Alliance filed an antitrust complaint against Google with the European Commission, accusing Google of “misusing web content for Google's AI Overviews in Google Search,” Reuters reported. The group also charges that Google is placing its AI Overviews above traditional search results, causing loss of traffic and revenue loss to publishers.
Now another report has emerged. An analysis by Authoritas determined that a site previously ranked first in a Google search result could lose 79% of its traffic if an AI Overview delivered the query results, the Guardian reports.
We can’t confirm that finding, and once again Google has issued a very hearty defense, saying the report was based on flawed assumptions and analysis.
This is no time to get sentimental about the all-powerful Google, but let’s be fair: it has acted more reasonably than Meta, say, cutting a deal with the state of California last year to provide funding for local newsrooms. (Of course, California announced that its planned $30 million contribution will be cut by $20 million during the state’s 2025-26 fiscal year. Google followed suit, reducing its $15 million commitment by a third.)
In the interest of full disclosure, this reporter is a heavy daily user of Google search, Gmail and YouTube.
Ray Schultz is the former editor of DM News, Chief Marketer, Direct, Circulation Management and other marketing titles.
Google agrees to governmental forced-news media-payments schemes, like in Canada and California, because they need traditional media links in their core search product. Meta is willing to reject the same schemes because they don't need news media links in their main social media services. They appear to be getting along just fine in Canada. The content and engagement gains from traditional media content brings some real negatives too, likely increasing divisiness and reducing the focus on TikTok-style entertainment and whimsy. When it comes with a tax, too, it's apparently not worth it.