In other words, why doesn't he just shut down the site and move on? Because writers, web servers, and domain names etc pay for themselves, correct?
Was your question a joke?
6Moons New Policy: Support us, with ad revenue, and we will review your product.
- Thread starter Andre Marc
- Start date
In other words, why doesn't he just shut down the site and move on? Because writers, web servers, and domain names etc pay for themselves, correct?
Was your question a joke?
jazdoc: "Our hobby is too small to be balkinized and given Andre's pithy observation above, I believe that this model may be the only potentially viable solution going forward. Good luck Srajan. I'm sure your competition will be watching with great interest. "
I think you could be right about the watchers. One probably shouldn't expect too many to participate unless/if there's some sort of consensus whether the general notion gets rejected as idiotic (best to leave Srajan catch that flak all by himself) or shows fledging support (in which case one can always join the parade when it's safe to do so).
And I also think you're right about the past tense relative to print media and how the Internet has disrupted business as usual. The problem I see is that we in the Internet publishing sector have inherited/taken on the ad-based model left over by print. We haven't yet come up with a model that's specifically tailored to the Internet.
Here's another aspect. Print magazines were never held to any hit/click-thru accounting. They couldn't really qualify or demonstrate reader reaction to their adverts. All they had were sell-thru figures and some population stats (average reader age, average reader income and such). But they were never asked to prove any direct connection between an audiophile sitting on the loo leafing thru a print mag; and picking up the phone to call a dealer or taking any other action upon seeing the ad. The whole thing was/is speculation about the effectiveness of such ads. It's quite vague and fuzzy. Yet print could command some pretty stout pricing for such ads.
With online ads, many supporters insist on tangible proof. How many hits will I get? How much will each hit cost me relative to the ad price? Not only is most online ad pricing a fraction of what it used to be in print (not sure about today's print rates), it is often held to a different/tougher standard of proof. Yet online mags have the real-time advantage, the global reach advantage and the near instantaneous connection of reader to manufacturer. Did a review make you curious? Click the link and presto. Direct reaction. Searching Goggle for a product? Presto, there's a list of links to online reviews all around the globe. In many tangible ways, web-based publishing offers more. But in general, we're still working with the same old business model that developed in print. Does that need to be set in stone?
I think you could be right about the watchers. One probably shouldn't expect too many to participate unless/if there's some sort of consensus whether the general notion gets rejected as idiotic (best to leave Srajan catch that flak all by himself) or shows fledging support (in which case one can always join the parade when it's safe to do so).
And I also think you're right about the past tense relative to print media and how the Internet has disrupted business as usual. The problem I see is that we in the Internet publishing sector have inherited/taken on the ad-based model left over by print. We haven't yet come up with a model that's specifically tailored to the Internet.
Here's another aspect. Print magazines were never held to any hit/click-thru accounting. They couldn't really qualify or demonstrate reader reaction to their adverts. All they had were sell-thru figures and some population stats (average reader age, average reader income and such). But they were never asked to prove any direct connection between an audiophile sitting on the loo leafing thru a print mag; and picking up the phone to call a dealer or taking any other action upon seeing the ad. The whole thing was/is speculation about the effectiveness of such ads. It's quite vague and fuzzy. Yet print could command some pretty stout pricing for such ads.
With online ads, many supporters insist on tangible proof. How many hits will I get? How much will each hit cost me relative to the ad price? Not only is most online ad pricing a fraction of what it used to be in print (not sure about today's print rates), it is often held to a different/tougher standard of proof. Yet online mags have the real-time advantage, the global reach advantage and the near instantaneous connection of reader to manufacturer. Did a review make you curious? Click the link and presto. Direct reaction. Searching Goggle for a product? Presto, there's a list of links to online reviews all around the globe. In many tangible ways, web-based publishing offers more. But in general, we're still working with the same old business model that developed in print. Does that need to be set in stone?
Not at all! If the content (and writers and servers and domain and administration...) is paid by the manufacturer, then why plaster the pages with advertising?
Are saying ask the manufacturers to pay a fee to have their products reviewed? Something reasonable? Maybe a yearly fee?
Believe it or not, that may actually be a better solution. List them as site sponsors.
I'm not barking or suggesting anything. Any idiot can tell they have a much larger consumer base. I asked a simple question of who/what subsidizes Consumer Reports. Guess you don't know.
Absolutely.
If reviews (and all administrative expenses) are paid for by manufacturer (or distributor or dealer), then why not clean up the layout and get rid of the Nascar syndrome? You don't even have to point it out. The reviewing process has been paid and is brought to the reader free of charge and free of clutter.
On paper..great idea...until the conspiracy theorists start throwing out accusations of payola and special deals.
I'll sign off now from this thread until someone has a direct question for me with this bit. The required buy-in of my new policy is less than our monthly health insurance payment; and 1/10th of what, when I still worked in the US as sales manager for hifi firms, a single-insertion full-page ad cost in a major US glossy. So riddle me this. Would I jeopardize 12 years of consistent work for such a trifling sum and treat reviews any different than I have all along? You're correct. Hell no! Credibility is far too hard to earn. Anyone who has built something from nothing will understand that. And if you haven't, nothing I could possibly say would make you understand, no offense. Now before the ever-green cynics inject "but what if they offered you 10 x more" (do you really think 12 years of consistency have that price or 100 or 1000 x more?), I ask you this: what manufacturer who right now has paid absolutely nothing and done so time and again would voluntarily offer to pay anything but the absolute minimum going forward? That's right. Not a single one. That's basic human nature.
Do I have to add just how many times manufacturers have told me that it was impossible for them to get into any of their domestic print magazines unless they took out a 1-year ad campaign - which they couldn't afford? Talk about separation of church and state. Not. Under my policy, I'm asking them to take out a small 1-month token ad in online not print money. Do you really expect that they will think that unfair and unreasonable given the current climate? No. They'll think it cheap. Which it is. So everyone can participate.
Thanks to Andre Marc for inviting me to this thread. I'd not known about it otherwise. I've said what I had to say before I turn into a broken record. We all hate that. Thanks to those who participated with feedback, from those with constructive ideas to those with none. It's all grist for the mill. And anyone who really wants to know more knows how to find me on my own site. Cheers.
Do I have to add just how many times manufacturers have told me that it was impossible for them to get into any of their domestic print magazines unless they took out a 1-year ad campaign - which they couldn't afford? Talk about separation of church and state. Not. Under my policy, I'm asking them to take out a small 1-month token ad in online not print money. Do you really expect that they will think that unfair and unreasonable given the current climate? No. They'll think it cheap. Which it is. So everyone can participate.
Thanks to Andre Marc for inviting me to this thread. I'd not known about it otherwise. I've said what I had to say before I turn into a broken record. We all hate that. Thanks to those who participated with feedback, from those with constructive ideas to those with none. It's all grist for the mill. And anyone who really wants to know more knows how to find me on my own site. Cheers.
I can't speak to CR's pay model, but the Consumer's Association in the UK (publishers of Which? magazine that at one time had more than a million subscribers) was funded by subscription alone. However, a significant proportion of the CA's revenue is now generated by its other businesses, including its legal and financial divisions, I believe. It's become something close to an NGO too, taking on consumer-advocacy roles.
I wouldn't be surprised if CR has a similar business model.
Well, I guess you can't please everyone
Nope. But I tell you what. The model could work if every manufacturer paid the SAME subsidy. No tiers. No bonus coverage
fees. Then there could no accusations of special treatment based on dollars spent.
I think this type of model has serious potential, if certain conditions are put into place.
Consumer Reports charges full retail for 100% of their subscriptions. and it's not cheap. they have zero advertising. maybe they get a few contributions....but not significant amounts. so maybe a couple hundred million annual budget. it's a non-profit so no stockholders and related admin costs.
i'm not a fan of their whole editorial approach and methodology and have zero use for their information, but i respect that they are true to their beliefs and have little compromise.
I especially appreciate the gentlemanly discourse. I think there has been a very above board exchange of views.
Actually Mike, it IS cheap. 15 bucks a year, 30 for online membership, 25 for both. Stereophile charges 15 bucks, WITH ads. The difference?
70,000 subscribers vs 7,000,000 plus.
 | Steve Williams Site Founder | Site Owner | Administrator |  | Ron Resnick Site Co-Owner | Administrator |  | Julian (The Fixer) Website Build | Marketing Managersing |