Cyclingnews website limited access….thanks future group

[ChrisF]

11 hours ago, Eldron said:

#truthbomb

.....time IS money in all industries.....

 

Number of articles popping up in the financial papers about the shift in add revenue ....  the old business models certainly no longer applies.

 

Most of us earn a living by selling time, whatever product we link to that time.

 

Seems I am one of the few on this thread using a paid subscription to read Netwerk24.  It is no better than any of our mass media, but at least I know their bias and read that into their stories .... cross check with other sources for a more balanced view.  Their current news feed is actually pretty handy ... often you read news here 2 to 3 days before it gets to printed media. 

 

 

Back to cycling .... if I was to pay, then it would be for GCN+ .... but paying and then still having to deal with a VPN is something I have not come to grips with yet ....

 

 

As another poster pointed out .... all these individual subscriptions can add up to a significant monthly amount, especially with our exchange rate

Edited April 26, 2022 by ChrisF

[Wayne pudding Mol]

3 hours 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'

You live in the wrong country to be annoyed by the “give it to me for free” culture 😂

[Eldron]

6 minutes ago, ChrisF said:

 

Number of articles popping up in the financial papers about the shift in add revenue ....  the old business models certainly no longer applies.

 

Most of us earn a living by selling time, whatever product we link to that time.

 

Seems I am one of the few on this thread using a paid subscription to read Netwerk24.  It is no better than any of our mass media, but at least I know their bias and read that into their stories .... cross check with other sources for a more balanced view.  Their current news feed is actually pretty handy ... often you read news here 2 to 3 days before it gets to printed media. 

 

 

Back to cycling .... if I was to pay, then it would be for GCN+ .... but paying and then still having to deal with a VPN is something I have not come to grips yet ....

 

 

As another poster pointed out .... all these individual subscriptions can add up to a significant monthly amount, especially with our exchange rate

I guess we need to pick or  passion/poison these days. 

Same with Netflix, Prime Video, HBO etc. There is free to air stuff out there but I pay for the above because the content, menus, options and experience out do the free stuff significantly.

I also do GCN RacePass but still use Cyclingnews to check results. I probably won't pay for the premium experience though. 

[Shebeen]

2 hours ago, Matt said:

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. 
 

If I take my small/medium business as an example, the only option for marketing/lead generation is to play the google adwords auction game. It is the only viable way to find customers who are looking for you.

This is incredibly depressing as I would much rather support a local outfit, but there is no local ad based service that will find customers. The whole ecosystem that relies on ad supported content generation must be a very desperate scenario.

I saw the other day in the supermarket till line that M24's GO! has now hit a sticker price of R100, this is combined with it moving to bimonthly but still quite a chunk of change. I was a subscriber not that long ago and a vocal supporter of their quality travel journalism, but it just doesn't make sense anymore. This is a quality magazine that is surely bleeding its existing customers/die hard supporters on it's way to some sort of slow death. I don't know how the remaining paid cycling mags make it work, I half chuckle everytime i see they still have issues for sale because surely no one still buys these? If the fundis at M24 can't get their ad/subscriber model right then the rest stand no chance.

 

[Shebeen]

3 hours 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'

What you're saying makes sense, until you realise we're talking about an online news website.

 

The people who have been freeloading on it for 28 years are the ones who collectively made it successful till now. Without them the thing closes down in 2002.

[Danger Dassie]

23 minutes ago, Shebeen said:

If I take my small/medium business as an example, the only option for marketing/lead generation is to play the google adwords auction game. It is the only viable way to find customers who are looking for you.

This is incredibly depressing as I would much rather support a local outfit, but there is no local ad based service that will find customers. The whole ecosystem that relies on ad supported content generation must be a very desperate scenario.

I saw the other day in the supermarket till line that M24's GO! has now hit a sticker price of R100, this is combined with it moving to bimonthly but still quite a chunk of change. I was a subscriber not that long ago and a vocal supporter of their quality travel journalism, but it just doesn't make sense anymore. This is a quality magazine that is surely bleeding its existing customers/die hard supporters on it's way to some sort of slow death. I don't know how the remaining paid cycling mags make it work, I half chuckle everytime i see they still have issues for sale because surely no one still buys these? If the fundis at M24 can't get their ad/subscriber model right then the rest stand no chance.

 

Because they offer quality of content, if someone doesn't like it, then they're not the market. And here is the rub, content is king, if you're in print then quality paper/repro stands alongside content.
And sorry, but many a "fundi" don't understand that because they only look at business unit ledgers. Especially within the larger media groups. The larger the group, the higher the costs of bureaucracy. 
As far as print goes, going independant makes more sense and generates a return. BicyclingSA and Runners World are a case in point. 
The only other cycling print mag in SA is Mountain Biking and Road/

R100 for something like Weg/Go is actually damn good value considering the IP.  
Less than the average spare tube. 

[Nick]

1 hour ago, SwissVan said:

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

I was specifically referring to Strava in my comment. As Matt explained above, they had not succeeded in finding a revenue model for free users. In this case, servicing free users is likely a cost to the company, not a gain.

As you say, CyclingNews has existing methods to try to monetise non-paying customers; advertising, affiliate links, advertorials, etc.

To assume that an unchanging business model will continue to be fruitful forever is risky, in any industry. 28 years is a long time on the internet. Matt went into a bit more detail about some of these changes above.

But in essence, it is far harder to make an income from advertising now than previously. For example, there is more competition for ad spend (e.g. social media) and advertising rates have plummeted. It's not a case of figuring it out after 28 years, it's about evolving a model over 28 years to the challenges of the present.

But yeah, this doesn't necessarily mean it's the correct or best decision. Unless necessity is forcing their hand.

[Sid the Sloth]

1 hour ago, Jewbacca said:

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

you are right I am a terrible example... I just thought it was quite surprising that I was one of the only ones not keen to shell out so I can see how was fastest on the leaderboard that day. 

[SwissVan]

10 hours ago, Nick said:

I was specifically referring to Strava in my comment. As Matt explained above, they had not succeeded in finding a revenue model for free users. In this case, servicing free users is likely a cost to the company, not a gain.

As you say, CyclingNews has existing methods to try to monetise non-paying customers; advertising, affiliate links, advertorials, etc.

To assume that an unchanging business model will continue to be fruitful forever is risky, in any industry. 28 years is a long time on the internet. Matt went into a bit more detail about some of these changes above.

But in essence, it is far harder to make an income from advertising now than previously. For example, there is more competition for ad spend (e.g. social media) and advertising rates have plummeted. It's not a case of figuring it out after 28 years, it's about evolving a model over 28 years to the challenges of the present.

But yeah, this doesn't necessarily mean it's the correct or best decision. Unless necessity is forcing their hand.

Strava, cycling news …… it doesn’t matter which one.
Strava still provides a free service which allows users to track, share, edit, socialize etc 

[Jewbacca]

10 hours ago, Shebeen said:

What you're saying makes sense, until you realise we're talking about an online news website.

 

The people who have been freeloading on it for 28 years are the ones who collectively made it successful till now. Without them the thing closes down in 2002.

I would disagree. How would people using it for free make it 'successful'? 

Evidently it wasn't that successful as the business model is changing?

I see it completely the opposite. 28 years of freeloading and as soon as they ask for support everyone turns around and says 'the cheek of it!'

I also don't look at it as an individual thing. The trend with established news sites these days is to be moving away from free use to subscription based platforms. As a whole, this shows me that on a large scale, free use sites are struggling to continue on as they have done for (insert number of years here).

There could be linked to progress in many ways. For years sites could run using outdated/dating software, security was 'meh' and updates happened infrequently. 

These days a top use site is constantly under threat, has to update often, change platforms and evolve in order to stay current. This involves a Dev or a team of Devs as well as someone to put it all together. OR someone has to learn these skills and do it full time, which then translates to needing some form of income.

This costs significantly more than the 'old days' of someone running these things as a second interest.

 

[Nick]

1 hour ago, SwissVan said:

Strava, cycling news …… it doesn’t matter which one.
Strava still provides a free service which allows users to track, share, edit, socialize etc 

The one's a media publication, the other tracks personal fitness. They are very different businesses with very different value offerings and very different customers who use each in very different ways.

Strava's free service is subsidised by venture capital and paying subscribers. CyclingNews's free service leverages advertising. Again, very different.

All I'm trying to do is point out that there are real world challenges in this space that may explain why CyclingNews has made this decision.

[Frosty]

11 hours ago, Eldron said:

I guess we need to pick or  passion/poison these days. 

Same with Netflix, Prime Video, HBO etc. There is free to air stuff out there but I pay for the above because the content, menus, options and experience out do the free stuff significantly.

I also do GCN RacePass but still use Cyclingnews to check results. I probably won't pay for the premium experience though. 

ProcyclingStats is my go to site for live data and the stats and results.

[Shebeen]

38 minutes ago, Jewbacca said:

I would disagree. How would people using it for free make it 'successful'? 

Evidently it wasn't that successful as the business model is changing?

 

Do you know many people use whatsApp or Twitter or Instagram without paying for it?

I don't think this point will ever hit home, but let's give it one last try

*a website with 1000 users is not successful - no advertiser is excited by that.

*a website with 10 000 000 users is a success because they can pitch their market to advertisers.

Can you now see how the 9 999 000 extra users (who aren't paying anything) made the website successful?

[Shebeen]

8 minutes ago, Frosty said:

ProcyclingStats is my go to site for live data and the stats and results.

they are brilliant, a great story of cycling nerds filling a gap.

I am currently 1400th in their procycling game, it's not that good but at least I own Valverde and can sell him on a whim. I think it could become huge eventually, and generate some real ca$h for them. They took some weird decision to unlink it from the main page this year, but it has definitely grown. 

 

[The Ouzo]

As someone who earns commission as a tiny percentage of profit per sale in an industry where everyone bargains prices down to rock bottom, my comments and others comments on here have made me think about this.

When it comes to subs I think about the product, whether it be content or an app, and what the value is to me before handing over money. DSTV I'm on the cheapest package, that just enough to keep the family entertained, Strava I paids subs the first time, did not renew after that as the value to me did not justify the cost, there are a few apps where the free versions was so useful to me I paid for the full version.

I looked at websites and realised that if I could not access the content it would not make much difference in my life, therefore I wont subscribe. But I also realised that one needs to subscribe to multiple news/content sites in order to get a full picture. Perhaps if there was 1 site that had it all it might make it worth it, but then it might be to costly to subscribe. Catch 22 I guess.

 

[Jewbacca]

1 hour ago, Shebeen said:

Do you know many people use whatsApp or Twitter or Instagram without paying for it?

I don't think this point will ever hit home, but let's give it one last try

*a website with 1000 users is not successful - no advertiser is excited by that.

*a website with 10 000 000 users is a success because they can pitch their market to advertisers.

Can you now see how the 9 999 000 extra users (who aren't paying anything) made the website successful?

No, I really do understand that, but successful vs afloat..... The users likely kept the site afloat.

Afloat is not successful