Cyclingtips = Velonews, Pinkbike = Beta

[JSL]

Originally Posted by alexihnen

I’m sure that it takes a surprisingly small number of paid subscriptions to offset online ad revenue. Financially, a publication will be much healthier with a subscription model. The reach won’t be as big, but the old model is gone.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

^ this ^

Nothing worth having is ever free. Charge a fair price for your product and you'll do just fine if the quality is there

[jimoots]

It's kind of hilarious when someone says "I am no longer readying [xyz publication] because they've implemented a subscription model, TAKE THAT!".

Like, the CPM (cost per thousand views) for display ad units is hideously low. Like cycling tips might earn a few dollars for 1000 views on an article.

Your patronage to a given website might be worth a few dollars in ad revenue per year. They won't miss you.

As others have highlighted, the content creation business model has been seriously challenged by the migration of marketing dollars to Google and Facebook (and other social media, but to a lesser extent).

If you want good content, we are back to the days of having to pay for it like we previously did with magazines and newspapers. I'm personally fine with that, especially as this model has potential to give publications more independence.

If you don't think it's worth a few dollars a month, fair enough, but don't think that your quite literally ignorant and genuinely misguided sense of 'taking a stand' will even be a blip on the radar.

[HenryA]

Lotta good in Jimmy-moots post above.

Problem is, is the editorial content worth anything? All too often its not. Lots of it seems very shallow to me.

[jimoots]

Originally Posted by HenryA

Lotta good in Jimmy-moots post above.

Problem is, is the editorial content worth anything? All too often its not. Lots of it seems very shallow to me.

That's up to you to determine, and an entirely rational question that is very different to yelling at the clouds about having to pay to read something that someone has spent time writing.

I appreciate the CT take on racing, it's tangibly different to what else is on offer. Is it perfect? Certainly not. For one I don't really get into all of the gravel and MTB stuff they seem to be skewing towards. But I think it is better than what else is on offer.

Worth 75 cents a week? For me the answer is yes.

[HenryA]

Yeah, well now that everyone has sold their souls to Google and Facebook, they’re not left with much in the way of their own identity and personality.

I remember well, reading Car and Driver in bed under the covers with a flashlight. Way back then it was written in soot and oil on dinosaur skin, but the content was incredibly compelling to a young guy dreaming about a drivers license and a car. Today’s web version is lame in comparison, as is lots of the web.

When an almost torrential flow of new content is the ingredient that oils the treads of the machine, a lot of it is gonna be ****.

[eric01]

Makes a lot of sense when you compare it to buying or subscribing to a magazine.

[glepore]

Originally Posted by jimmy-moots

It's kind of hilarious when someone says "I am no longer readying [xyz publication] because they've implemented a subscription model, TAKE THAT!".



If you don't think it's worth a few dollars a month, fair enough, but don't think that your quite literally ignorant and genuinely misguided sense of 'taking a stand' will even be a blip on the radar.

Wow. No one said they were taking a stand, at least I didn't. The industry conditioned us to getting the content for free, and I think its going to be difficult for them to transition. I don't dispute that its a business, whether you write or publish, and that compensation is appropriate.
As to whether its "worth it" my answer is maybe. Velonews, no not in its current form. Outside +, no, too much content to sift through, which is unfortunate because some is excellent. Cyclingtips on the fence.

My biggest complaint about any of these services though isn't the price, its the auto renew. I'd much rather have to re-up on an annual or semi annual basis, as after a while you can spend a fortune on various subscription services of marginal use without seeing the real cost.

[Clancy]

Originally Posted by jimmy-moots

It's kind of hilarious when someone says "I am no longer readying [xyz publication] because they've implemented a subscription model, TAKE THAT!".

Like, the CPM (cost per thousand views) for display ad units is hideously low. Like cycling tips might earn a few dollars for 1000 views on an article.

Your patronage to a given website might be worth a few dollars in ad revenue per year. They won't miss you.

As others have highlighted, the content creation business model has been seriously challenged by the migration of marketing dollars to Google and Facebook (and other social media, but to a lesser extent).

If you want good content, we are back to the days of having to pay for it like we previously did with magazines and newspapers. I'm personally fine with that, especially as this model has potential to give publications more independence.

If you don't think it's worth a few dollars a month, fair enough, but don't think that your quite literally ignorant and genuinely misguided sense of 'taking a stand' will even be a blip on the radar.

I do not mind paying for quality content. I subscribe to a leading newspaper here in the states. I readily buy books, magazines, etc. I’ve subscribed to VN (mag) for many, many years.

I do mind paying for web content when literally 70 percent or more of the page is taken up by ads, pop-ups, videos that pop up repeatedly as I scroll down the page, repeated pop ups for signing-up, ad nauseam

Often, a site takes so long to download because of all the ads that my iPad times out. Weather.gov takes a second, obviously no ads.

Every cycling website to an extent is publicizing and promoting the sport. The entities that benefit are the manufacturers, distributors, etc., involved with cycling. For continued growth, the industry might want to figure out how to better support publications (which ultimately websites are) that support the industry.

Example. Today Looking at Cyclingtips there is one major new article, a review of a Marlin flat bar bike. I’m only mildly interested in reading this. If I reached my limit, I wouldn’t bother. But w/o a limit, I might read it, be surprisingly interested and start down the path of perhaps buying one.

Pop ups, buy, buy, buy, sell my personal information, tailor ads to me, get me to buy, buy, buy. So tiring….

It’s not called click-bait for nothing.

It’s a new media world, one I see more dominated by ads and consumerism and far, far less then anything called journalism.

[herb5998]

I've subscribed to CT, it's been good, and the amount of reporting, as well as coverage of the women's racing has been worthwhile. I've looked at the Velonews/Outside + subscription, but at this point, I don't read their products as much.

While digital advertising has changed the landscape, the efficiency of digital advertising isn't as accurate as stated, even with the two big players (Google/FB) owning pretty much the entire market. As some of the new digital tracking technology (new google tracker/apple cross site tracking blocking) comes along, it will be interesting to see what happens.

In the end, the subscription model is where a lot of things are going, as long as people see value and the ease of use makes it worthwhile.

[rice rocket]

Bump. So where should I be reading?

I still subscribe to a half dozen print magazines, I'm not opposed to some more toilet entertainment.

I enjoyed Pinkbike content, their latest roundup was still entertaining, so I'm still a reader/viewer there.

Who's bearable to read for road/gravel bikes nowadays?

[mhespenheide]

I'm leaning towards subscribing to CyclingTips. I like their writers, they do some good long-form pieces, and their race coverage is good (but not as quickly updated as CyclingNews).

Then again, CyclingNews has now added a paywall.

[pasadena]

Pay a subscription to read advertising... we really are a society of consumers.

In all the articles i've seen on CT, the only actual cycling journalism I read was a really fantastic piece on this Australian anti-cycling troll that made up an elaborate disinformation site.

The rest of it is well-written reactionary op-eds and advertising, just like any other cycling media catering to advertising and product promotion.

It's shopping reinforcement or product curiosity... both of which can be found in plenty of other places. Exactly the same places the media looks at to write articles.
Middlemen are entertaining but not necessary. Any 'cutting edge' news or drama played out on twitter, IG or other platforms before the media wrote their pieces to "lay out what really happened".

I'm all for good advertising and product promotion. I'm just not paying a subscription for it.

[prototoast]

Originally Posted by mhespenheide

I'm leaning towards subscribing to CyclingTips. I like their writers, they do some good long-form pieces, and their race coverage is good (but not as quickly updated as CyclingNews).

Then again, CyclingNews has now added a paywall.

I feel like I need all of the different sites for different reasons. Lennard Zinn's column on VeloNews is probably my #1 read, but ever since VN switched to a "personalized feed" VeloNews is a terrible place to go to for race results.

In the past year, CyclingTips has really improved how they display race results, but supposedly they're going to focus less on that going forward. On the flip side, CT has a few too many "let's get outraged at whatever Patrick Lefevere said this week" articles.

CyclingNews seems to have the most race-related news, though their analysis tends to be quite superficial.

Personally, I pay for Velonews as part of the Outside+ bundle, because it offers a bunch of other perks that collectively make it worth it. For CT and CN, I just open in Chrome's "incognito mode" to bypass their paywall.

[lavi]

I'm sure the loophole will close, but reading CT on an iphone with the Apple news is not subject to the paywall. I can read all that I'd like.

Though extensive reading on my phone is not my favorite. I'm sure it works for an ipad too.

[mhespenheide]

Originally Posted by pasadena

It's shopping reinforcement or product curiosity... both of which can be found in plenty of other places.

I hear you, and you're not wrong. But they did write the article that came out and said that "Embarrassingly outdated bike works just fine, still shreds", and that is about the last thing you'll ever read in Bicycling or VeloNews. So they get points for that.