.. but it’s still got to be paid for somehow
The other day, I clicked on a newsletter link to read an article.
It was on one of the news sites, but before I could start reading, a banner popped up:
Agree to cookies for advertising or pay for ad free browsing.
My initial reaction: that’s not fair!
But when you think about it, it’s not so surprising. Before the internet, if you wanted quality information, you had to pay for it—whether it was newspapers, magazines, or books.
We’ve become used to getting content for free, but in truth, it was only a matter of time before publishers needed to adapt.
So, is this “Consent or Pay” fair?
This has been a question for the Information Commissioner’s Office and they have recently issued their guidance.
Their view, which I must say was what we were expecting, is that it can be legal as long as:
- People have a real choice about using your service. If not, then their consent to cookies is unlikely to be freely given.
- The charge to avoid ads is not unfairly high, as people may feel they have no genuine choice but to consent.
- You offer the same core service whichever option the individual chooses.
- The choice between the two is presented clearly, with information on what each means and what’s involved.
This shift was inevitable. If you provide online content, it’s time to consider how you provide a genuine choice between agreeing to ads or paying to avoid them.
If you need some help to make this decision, you know where I am.