Cyclingnews website limited access….thanks future group

[Eldron]

22 minutes ago, Danger Dassie said:

Go into your local workshop every day and ask to use their tools. Eventually you'll be told to pay a usage fee of sorts. Or to just FRO. 

#truthbomb

I have had a customer or two that milk me for information then buy online. Once they develop a trend I politely tell them to check the net for reviews and information rather than ask me for my opinion.

Whether we like it or not time IS money in all industries. Someone is doing the work that you want for free.

[Eldron]

17 minutes ago, Jewbacca said:

Rule of diminishing return.... Do all the work and get nothing in return/run at a loss or change the business model and hope to pull it in the right direction.

Or close it down and focus the attention/effort on things that create return.

Guys can hardly say they have 'supported' the website when the second they say 'have some free use, but pay us for unlimited access' everyone says 'I'm going elsewhere'. 

I don't work for free and the parts of business that use effort and have little to no return get canned or phased out.

I guess I just get triggered by the whole 'give it to me for free or die and I will still be super critical'

Ahhhh I remember the hatestorm when lehub asked us for money.

Good times.

[tubed]

The trend for me seems to be poorer content and then the paywall goes up in an attempt to procure better content to put online to remain competitive. But I think by then the users have shifted. A really tough space to be in.

I purchased two items via bikehub last week, the choices, info and connection with sellers was of real value. I'd be happy to have a mandatory transaction cost levied on the purchases or be required to be a paid user. I know there is bikehub pay option, which I have and would use in a large purchase, but for smaller issues I simply deposit the cash and trust the seller and my homework.

 

[Matt]

3 hours ago, Eldron said:

I would guess ad revenue has dropped steadily over the last few years - there are millions of platforms for advertisers to use these days. My guess is that they're trying to make up the loss/difference in sub fees.

That said I have no experience in this field at all - is there anyone from the industry that has a batter idea?  @Matt  @Danger Dassie

 

 

You're not wrong here on declining ad revenue, it's definitely a factor in paywall moves like this one, but not the only factor. And as others have pointed out... in some cases it may be too late to save the "patient". There's a whole lot to this discussion that's difficult to cover in a short post.

The reality is that the global advertising duopoly that is Google and Facebook has lead to a dramatic decrease in ad revenue for media outlets. The scale and control these two juggernaughts exert is near impossible to compete with and in many cases independent media and small groups like Future (relative to the tech giants), are now earning cents in the rand for every 1000 subscribers / viewers / eyeballs vs. what they were able to earn 10 or so years ago. 

As much as it pains me to acknowledge, Google and Facebook both offer easy-to-use ad platforms with rich targeting capabilities, DIY facilities and the ability to spend R100 or R100 million depending on your budget. Publishers have tried to compete with bespoke offerings, content partnerships and other exclusive opportunities with some success. But ultimately more ad spend continues to move to the big platforms. Moves like Apple's anti-tracking and regulation like GDPR has slowed their growth, but they'll find new ways to track and identify users.

It's easy to place the blame on the big tech monopolies and call it a day though. But in part, internet media and platforms are their own worst enemies when it comes to creating a culture of free. Only to later alienate users with increasingly invasive advertising and progressively weaker content. In that space it's a race to the bottom in both quality of the content / offering and the ad revenue that can be derived from it.

The business model of purely ad-supported content is broken. And personally I don't think it should be or can be fixed. The industry is in the midst of a big, much-needed reset.

In think that in time economics will prevail, but that's not going to happen overnight.
In an ideal world, if you as a reader / member see sufficient value in a publication or platform you should be willing to pay a reasonable fee for access to it. If you and enough others don't see sufficient value then perhaps it wasn't worth producing in the first place (economically speaking). Those that are low-quality and don't deliver value will falter in time.

In the cycling media space there are some stand outs like GCN+ and CyclingTips as some have highlighted here who produce great content and have a subs fee deemed "worth it". But then even a platform as abundantly pervasive as Strava is struggling to convert free users to paid subscribers. There's some work to be done by many.

In the case of CyclingNews, I see some chirps about the capitalistic, money-driven owners. While I'm sure shareholders and quarterly performance has driven many decisions, I'd hazard a guess that this is more of a last-ditch (and likely too late based on comments here) effort to stay viable rather than some super-car driving mogul looking to fund their next play toy. 

[porqui]

Yep they have to generate income somehow.

$5 here and $7 there is very doable per subscription but by the time you add up all the subscriptions at the end of the month it becomes unaffordable.

Would love to know the effect the subscription for Strava had on numbers and revenue. Suspect they lost a lot of users and not generating that much income.

[SwissVan]

2 hours ago, Jewbacca said:

I want the best coverage, articles, commentary etc but it must be free!

I love cycling so much, I love reading about cycling and I expect everything I touch to be top notch but if they expect me to pay for it then they are obviously stupid/trying to scam me/looking for a piece of a pie they are definitely not entitled to, despite the fact that so many people go there first thing......

I mean, don't get me started on how I will have to pay for XCO/CX/DH coverage now that Red Bull have decided it was too much to keep giving it away. How dare they!

FREE!

I don’t think it’s unreasonable to question this kind of change after 28 years, Redbull still have another 18 years to go if they follow Future PLC’s model of evolution 😁

 

 

1 hour ago, Danger Dassie said:

Go into your local workshop every day and ask to use their tools. Eventually you'll be told to pay a usage fee of sorts. Or to just FRO. 

No one is asking cyclingnews to use any tools or anything like that, CN are actually the ones doing the asking…. 

CN have provided an internet based news platform free of charge for 25+ years. I’d hazard a guess that the original intention was to do just this this and not through subscribers, but then the  ownership has changed a few times since then.

If times have changed so much that they now need a paywall, well I suppose that’s their right and gamble to take. My gut feel is that they will loose a lot of readers (hits) and eventually become just another cycling website, instead of in their current words “ world's leader in English-language coverage of professional cycling “

[Jewbacca]

17 minutes ago, SwissVan said:

I don’t think it’s unreasonable to question this kind of change after 28 years, Redbull still have another 18 years to go if they follow Future PLC’s model of evolution 😁

 

 

No one is asking cyclingnews to use any tools or anything like that, CN are actually the ones doing the asking…. 

CN have provided an internet based news platform free of charge for 25+ years. I’d hazard a guess that the original intention was to do just this this and not through subscribers, but then the  ownership has changed a few times since then.

If times have changed so much that they now need a paywall, well I suppose that’s their right and gamble to take. My gut feel is that they will loose a lot of readers (hits) and eventually become just another cycling website, instead of in their current words “ world's leader in English-language coverage of professional cycling “

I don't think they haven't considered this.

Things have changed dramatically and everything costs more. Time and effort especially. 

The fact that they have lasted 28 years without really changing tack is phenomenal AND the fact that they (and a host of other long standing 'free' news sites) are now suddenly asking for subscription and assistance is just as telling.

I'm 100% sure it's a question of pay or the site folds or don't pay and the site folds.

STAB magazine (surfing) initiated a content paywall and they are thriving. Their video footage and content is quality. Their 'stab in the dark' series and 'Electric Acid' series is banging since the paywall.

Anyway, I don't really have skin in this fight. I don't read their articles or go there more than a few times a year when my phone suggests an article.

I'm a weird outlier who loves being entertained by sport but couldn't care who married who, what they said to Blinky Bloggs or how their feet hurt if they don't rub bio oil on their ears.

[Fred van Vlaanderen]

1 hour ago, Matt said:

You're not wrong here on declining ad revenue, it's definitely a factor in paywall moves like this one, but not the only factor. And as others have pointed out... in some cases it may be too late to save the "patient". There's a whole lot to this discussion that's difficult to cover in a short post.

The reality is that the global advertising duopoly that is Google and Facebook has lead to a dramatic decrease in ad revenue for media outlets. The scale and control these two juggernaughts exert is near impossible to compete with and in many cases independent media and small groups like Future (relative to the tech giants), are now earning cents in the rand for every 1000 subscribers / viewers / eyeballs vs. what they were able to earn 10 or so years ago. 

As much as it pains me to acknowledge, Google and Facebook both offer easy-to-use ad platforms with rich targeting capabilities, DIY facilities and the ability to spend R100 or R100 million depending on your budget. Publishers have tried to compete with bespoke offerings, content partnerships and other exclusive opportunities with some success. But ultimately more ad spend continues to move to the big platforms. Moves like Apple's anti-tracking and regulation like GDPR has slowed their growth, but they'll find new ways to track and identify users.

It's easy to place the blame on the big tech monopolies and call it a day though. But in part, internet media and platforms are their own worst enemies when it comes to creating a culture of free. Only to later alienate users with increasingly invasive advertising and progressively weaker content. In that space it's a race to the bottom in both quality of the content / offering and the ad revenue that can be derived from it.

The business model of purely ad-supported content is broken. And personally I don't think it should be or can be fixed. The industry is in the midst of a big, much-needed reset.

In think that in time economics will prevail, but that's not going to happen overnight.
In an ideal world, if you as a reader / member see sufficient value in a publication or platform you should be willing to pay a reasonable fee for access to it. If you and enough others don't see sufficient value then perhaps it wasn't worth producing in the first place (economically speaking). Those that are low-quality and don't deliver value will falter in time.

In the cycling media space there are some stand outs like GCN+ and CyclingTips as some have highlighted here who produce great content and have a subs fee deemed "worth it". But then even a platform as abundantly pervasive as Strava is struggling to convert free users to paid subscribers. There's some work to be done by many.

In the case of CyclingNews, I see some chirps about the capitalistic, money-driven owners. While I'm sure shareholders and quarterly performance has driven many decisions, I'd hazard a guess that this is more of a last-ditch (and likely too late based on comments here) effort to stay viable rather than some super-car driving mogul looking to fund their next play toy. 

Brilliant perspective!

[Sid the Sloth]

53 minutes ago, porqui said:

Would love to know the effect the subscription for Strava had on numbers and revenue. Suspect they lost a lot of users and not generating that much income.

Interestingly I had a look on my strava and the vast majority of the people I follow on the all are members. Like 90%, and the other 10% are my friends who do sports the app doesn’t cater to as much (rowers, gymers, and yogis)

[Nick]

1 hour ago, porqui said:

Would love to know the effect the subscription for Strava had on numbers and revenue. Suspect they lost a lot of users and not generating that much income.

They lose the users that cost them money and time for no return. And gain a few more paying subscribers. Lower costs, more profit. Might not be all bad.

[Jewbacca]

2 minutes ago, Sid the Sloth said:

Interestingly I had a look on my strava and the vast majority of the people I follow on the all are members. Like 90%, and the other 10% are my friends who do sports the app doesn’t cater to as much (rowers, gymers, and yogis)

You are hardly a great example of an average peer group though.... You guys are mostly racers or wannabe racers.

My STRAVA, as a hacker, has about 25% as subscribers (the real athletes) and the other three quarters are set to private, not subscribers and hack like I do

[Jewbacca]

7 minutes ago, Nick said:

They lose the users that cost them money and time for no return. And gain a few more paying subscribers. Lower costs, more profit. Might not be all bad.

This....

Not all users offer value to the platform. People like to think their mere presence is deserving of all the benefits, but in reality, sometimes those users are actually a freeloading pain in the butt.

[Nick]

1 minute ago, Jewbacca said:

sometimes those users are actually a freeloading pain in the butt.

He speaks from experience 😉

[SwissVan]

2 minutes ago, Jewbacca said:

I don't think they haven't considered this.

Things have changed dramatically and everything costs more. Time and effort especially. 

The fact that they have lasted 28 years without really changing tack is phenomenal AND the fact that they (and a host of other long standing 'free' news sites) are now suddenly asking for subscription and assistance is just as telling.

I'm 100% sure it's a question of pay or the site folds or don't pay and the site folds.

STAB magazine (surfing) initiated a content paywall and they are thriving. Their video footage and content is quality. Their 'stab in the dark' series and 'Electric Acid' series is banging since the paywall.

Anyway, I don't really have skin in this fight. I don't read their articles or go there more than a few times a year when my phone suggests an article.

I'm a weird outlier who loves being entertained by sport but couldn't care who married who, what they said to Blinky Bloggs or how their feet hurt if they don't rub bio oil on their ears.

Dinna worri its not a fight... 

Interesting that you mention STAB's video footage and quality content, how much do you pay for this? quick check revealed $72 per year

I subscribe to MotoGP which costs 106 Euro for the year which includes live coverage of every practise session, qualifying and race. Money well spent imo.

One could argue that cyclingnews subscription is a bit overpriced at 59 Euro just to read a few post race articles and race results

Anyway, had my say and time will tell 🥰

[Matt]

1 hour ago, porqui said:

Yep they have to generate income somehow.

$5 here and $7 there is very doable per subscription but by the time you add up all the subscriptions at the end of the month it becomes unaffordable.

Would love to know the effect the subscription for Strava had on numbers and revenue. Suspect they lost a lot of users and not generating that much income.

On @Nick’s point above, Strava’s revenue has only increased since introducing the paid tier. But the difference is, before the paid membership there was no other meaningful revenue. So, provided the paywall doesn’t collapse their ecosystem the revenue it provides is a net win. They’ve dabbled in advertising and offer some sponsored events etc., even hiring a few Facebook execs, but mostly they have been funded by venture capital to date rather than advertising revenue.

So they either needed to blast everyone with ads or put the most valued features behind a paywall…

 

Definitely agree on the point around the cumulative cost of subscriptions. Something’s gotta give there and certainly some consolidation will come, or at least I hope it will when it comes to things like streaming services.

[SwissVan]

7 minutes ago, Nick said:

They lose the users that cost them money and time for no return. And gain a few more paying subscribers. Lower costs, more profit. Might not be all bad.

How does changing to a paywall model lower their costs, genuine question from a tight assed free loader? And it took them 28 years to figure this out..... nah i don't buy that

This yes - More profit, but only if they get enough subscribers