Jason Pontin's blog

Technology Review's Strategy for Paid Editorial and Subscriptions

What we'll charge for, and why.

Jason Pontin 05/17/2010

  • 13 Comments

One year ago, I wrote a much-linked and discussed blog that prescribed "How to Save Media."

I conceded that the modes of business that had sustained publications for 300 years were vanishing, but I rejected the notion that no one knew how to turn contemporary media companies into sustainable businesses. I wrote:

"There are plenty of stupid publishers and editors, and their publications will die; but there are many smart, technology-savvy leaders, too, and their publications will prosper. While the details are still debated, the broad outlines of tomorrow's media are becoming clearer. Consumers must pay for more of what they read; publishers and the media buyers who purchase advertising must be given technologies that will make online display ads more competitive with the keyword ads that search firms sell."

I was very specific about the kinds of editorial for which readers would pay:

"Editors can charge readers for content that is uniquely intelligent; that relies on proprietary data, investigation, or analysis; that helps readers with their jobs, investments, or personal consumption; or that is very expensively designed. Everything else should be available for free, because it is news or opinion, which are commodities and must be offered up to the aggregators, social networks, and feeds. Such content can be monetized (to use the ugly jargon of our industry) only through traffic, which drives ad impressions."

I promised we would implement new strategies and create new products based on the principles I described.

For the last year we've experimented with a pay-wall for archived editorial, and we've learned a lot. Based on how our readers used that pay-wall and the principles I described in "How to Save Media," we've devised a strategy for paid editorial and subscriptions. I'm pretty certain that what we're developing will work for niche, thought-leader media companies like Technology Review (I make no claims that our strategy would work for general-interest newspapers). But I lay out Technology Review's new policies below because I want to know what you, our readers and colleagues in publishing, think. We'll amend our policies based on what you tell us.

We plan to launch the new strategy (and the products with which it is associated) in the late fall of this year.

Here is what we're going to do.

Our overarching philosophy is simple:

1. News, news-like editorial such as blogs, and multimedia should be "Free Editorial."

2. Editorial that has a higher value to readers and a longer currency is "Premium Editorial" and must be paid for by readers.

3. Editorial that is free on one platform should be free on all publishing platforms.

4. Editorial that is paid on one platform should be paid on all platforms.

5. Subscription and per-story prices should be comparable across all platforms.

Some further words on this distinction between Free and Premium Editorial. One way to think about it is: if Free Editorial will be our daily news, blogs, photo essays, and video (around 70 to 80 percent of our editorial), then Premium Editorial will be everything else. It's important to understand that Premium Editorial is not a fancy way of talking about the print magazine or the digital magazine on our various electronic platforms. Both Free and Premium Editorial stories will be individually spotlighted on all our electronic platforms in a variety of ways, and will appear in story scrolls such as the "Rivers of News." Finally, there will be Premium Editorial that can be read on our electronic platforms, but which will never appear in our print magazine or digital edition--for instance, the company profiles, econometric data, charts, and infographics of the Business Channel.

Premium Editorial stories will be clearly distinguished with icons and graphical design cues like fonts and layouts.

Each publishing platform demands a slightly different implementation of our strategy. I describe them in detail below.

The Web: A flexible meter, allowing readers access to a variable number of Premium Editorial stories for free per month. The metered number will be adjusted according to the relative strength of demand by advertisers for page impressions versus audience demand for Premium Editorial. When a reader clicks upon the link to a Premium Editorial story, if he or she is not logged in or has never logged in before, he or she will be prompted to log in to technologyreview.com by providing a minimal amount of information: a username and password. After a reader has reached the monthly story limit, he or she will be asked to pay for the story, a package of seven stories, or a digital subscription (see below).

The Mobile Web: As above.

Digital Subscription: Access to all the Premium Editorial on the Web, plus e-mail delivery six times a year of the digital edition of Technology Review magazine, plus access on the Web to all our archives, dating back to 1899. Digital subscribers will be counted as part of our circulation "rate-base," because the larger our rate-base, the higher the return from the advertising sold next to Premium Editorial stories.

Print: Delivery six times a year of the print edition of Technology Review, plus access to all the Premium Editorial on the Web, including our archives, dating back to 1899. Print subscribers will not be e-mailed a digital subscription to the magazine unless they pay an additional sum.

iPad: The app, available through the iTunes store, will itself be free. Readers will have access to all our Free Editorial. When a reader attempts to read a Premium Editorial story, he or she will be prompted to log in to technologyreview.com, and will be asked to pay for the story, a package of seven stories, or a digital subscription. On the iPad, the digital magazine is not delivered through e-mail, but directly to the platform. Readers will have access on the Web to all our archives, dating back to 1899.

iPhone: As above for the iPad, except: On the iPhone, when a reader chooses to read a Premium Editorial story, we will deliver it in the iPhone news format: no one is going to read a long story on the iPhone in a traditional Web or digital magazine layout. But for the sake of consistency, and so that we can count our iPhone readers as part of our circulation rate-base, we will still deliver a digital magazine to the iPhone. As with the iPad, on the iPhone, the digital magazine will not be delivered through e-mail, but directly to the platform. Readers will have access on the Web to all our archives, dating back to 1899.

Plastic Logic Que: As demanded by the vendor.

Google Android: We don't know enough about Android as a publishing platform to make many definite plans, but our app is likely to be informed by our experiences with the iPad. We'd hope to launch an Android app early in 2011.

A final note about friction: when readers encounter the meter, there should be as little difficulty as possible. We will collect the minimum information we need to manage the meter. When a reader pays for Premium Editorial, we will prompt him to more fully complete his profile as a member of the Technology Review community, and we will use the information we collect for smart, targeted marketing purposes.

Readers, colleagues: tell me what works and doesn't work about this strategy.

Print

Close Comments

To comment, please sign in or register

Forgot my password

grhaff

1 Comment

  • 633 Days Ago
  • 05/17/2010

Observation

This isn't a comment so much as an observation. I'm not sure what the implications are although a suspect they *may* argue against cross-platform equality. That observation is, as you touch on when talking about the iPhone, is that not all products have the same value on all platforms.

I have digital subscriptions specifically in mind. Not a lot of incremental value on a PC IMO. But on an iPad I could imagine perhaps having only a digital subscription with no print version.

Reply

Christopher Mims

24 Comments

  • 633 Days Ago
  • 05/17/2010

How will the uninitiated online reader discover the value of Premium Editorial?

I'm probably just missing this mechanism in your very detailed blog post, but perhaps there is a critical difference between online and print that this scheme overlooks: the pass-along factor.

I think everyone who falls in love with a print magazine does so because he or she picks it up on a newsstand or flips through a friend's copy. How will that happen for a generation of readers who may never see TR premium content in print? Are we to assume that they will like the free content so much that when they hit a paywall, they'll be ready to shell out? Perhaps, if it's business-critical information. But in other cases?

On the whole, I think this is an admirable attempt to thread a number of needles when it comes to balancing advertising and subscription revenue. I also think that in the future, advertising will become more sophisticated, and overall, ad revenue will go up...

Reply

jpontin

70 Comments

  • 633 Days Ago
  • 05/17/2010

Re: How will the uninitiated online reader discover the value of Premium Editorial?

The short answer is: readers will discover the value of Premium Editorial through reading their allotment of metered stories, which they may read without charge, and which can still be linked to by other publications, bloggers, and readers.

One of the most important features of our proposed meter system is to preserve Technology Review's living presence in the link economy - which is the  electronic equivalent of "pass-along" in new media.

Reply

ilamont

1 Comment

  • 633 Days Ago
  • 05/17/2010

"Higher value"/Why so Apple-centric on mobile?

Your strategy seems reasonable, and I hope it proves to be a model that can support the excellent articles, features, and analysis in TR.

However, I have two questions:

1) "Editorial that has a higher value to readers": Is this referring to higher editorial quality relative to the commodity news and opinion (and other free online information that people like to read, including social networking pages)? Or is it about how much the content costs to produce? Or is it something else?

2) You described how the iPhone and iPad will tie into the TR subscription plan. While the iPhone is certainly one of the dominant mobile platforms, the iPad has sold far fewer units -- about one million as of the beginning of this month. Shouldn't TR be taking a closer look at other, more popular mobile platforms out there, such as the Kindle and Android?

Ian Lamont (@ilamont)

Reply

jpontin

70 Comments

  • 633 Days Ago
  • 05/17/2010

Re: "Higher value"/Why so Apple-centric on mobile?

1. "Higher value" means both. Premium editorial is higher value because it is relevant and useful to readers for longer than commodity news, and because we invested more of our own time and resources in creating it. An example might be illuminating: a long investigative feature with accompanying infographics and data charts based on upon original research, and multimedia like videos and photo-essays.

2. As for other platforms, we will additionally support the Plastic Logic Que and we are already on the Amazon Kindle. I am sure we will also support the Android app - but we plan to do that in the New Year of 2011, and I would guess we will base its features on our experience of the iPad.

Reply

ArtInvent

67 Comments

  • 633 Days Ago
  • 05/17/2010

Please, stop with the apps.

You know, I actually have an iPad, but I don't really like the app model for specialized content. Why do I need to download and maintain an app on just that one device when I can just read things online? App's are being misused in such cases. I know it's very fashionable but still. You should not have to have a special app just read content from one source. I don't want a NY Times app just for NY Times content and a TechReview app just for that content etc. etc. ad nauseum. I will have screens and screens full of idiotic apps. That's what the web and bookmarks do so perfectly well and infinitely more elegantly. The people behind TechReview should be more intelligent than to follow all the other lemmings down the rabbit hole, to mix some metaphores.

Reply

jpontin

70 Comments

  • 633 Days Ago
  • 05/17/2010

Re: Please, stop with the apps.

You're in luck, then: If you prefer to read the Free or Premium Editorial on the Web, then you can - on any electronic device. My aim is to give our readers as much choice as makes economic sense.

Reply

Advertisement

gfinlay

1 Comment

  • 516 Days Ago
  • 09/11/2010

Re: Please, stop with the apps.

Jason,
I agree with the previous reader who is tired with iPad app proliferation. The idea of one app for each magazine is ridiculous! But I also believe that the alternative of reading the TR digital edition through a web browser fails to take advantage of the great features of the iPad user experience. In my view, I would much prefer to read the Technology Review through the Zinio app which (a) consolidates all the users favorite magazine subscriptions under the umbrella of a single app, and (b) provides an application which provides an amazing interface which is customized to take advantage of the iPad for magazine reading.

Reply

GaryB

119 Comments

  • 632 Days Ago
  • 05/18/2010

micro-payments

Isn't micro-payment the real solution to publishing survival?

Reply

jpontin

70 Comments

  • 632 Days Ago
  • 05/18/2010

Re: micro-payments

Historically, they've not been shown to work.

Reply

jdhouse4

2 Comments

  • 632 Days Ago
  • 05/18/2010

A Sound Plan

After reading your editorial, I was inclined to forward it as a letter to the editor of the NYTimes. While possibly not all of your plan is appropriate for a mass media outlet like the Times, poor folks need to do something to stem the flow of red.

Some iPad owners like app while others do not. I do. And even if I didn't, it's clear that I have good deal of freedom in how your content is presented, which is really the name of the game.

I'm looking forward to the continued stream of great news and content with Technology Review.

Reply

flared0ne

395 Comments

  • 458 Days Ago
  • 11/08/2010

For the sake of your (industry's) plans

I have to hope I am an extreme outlier...

Understand, I'm not expecting you to ANSWER the following questions, but they do have a point.

How do your advertisers get "metric" from you about what ads viewers have seen?? Is it strictly by virtue of "adjacent traffic", like estimating eyeballs on billboards along the side of the road?? Is it more immediately obvious, re click-based traffic visibly "referred" through your pages to advertisers??

MAYBE it's just as simple as your mention of "rate-base" -- your advertisers understand your statistical traffic load, and settle for that -- in which case skip the next several paragraphs. Or not; they MAY still be pertinent.

Point: how do you and your advertisers handle the fact that SOME of us out here (re: "outliers") have, on a regular basis, captured the URLs of many ad-servers and placed them into HOSTS files -- so that what YOU see as a "scenic drive nicely landscaped with a variety of billboards" WE see as packaged content laced with "page not found" blank windows in place of ads.

Granted, it is possible to detect (and thereby trigger acrimonious discussion) since YOU register some amount of page-load activity while THEIR ad-servers don't see the same numbers.

And not that I really SHOULD be "shooting myself in the foot", but I have seen cases where "just passing through" traffic was blocked by forcing some client-side process to link through the ad-server URL(s)... Which is cumbersome and unwieldy, introducing a significant chance of reduced QoS, insecurity, and load delay times -- but does mandate "if you can't see our ads, you can't get through"...

Next: a bigger concern for most people turns out SHOULD be that 3rd-party ad-servers (being outside of your control) are typically going to be the highest-risk linked-in content on your pages -- malware delivery rates through ad-servers (all that scripting going on) rank inordinately higher than for almost any other delivery mechanism (depending on who you ask and what day of the week it is -- it goes in cycles). If you don't have absolute faith in your business partners' "partners" (which you may not have much choice in), you had certainly better have robust faith in your internal capability to monitor and "crack down on" malware activity leaking THROUGH you.

We all know -- everybody out there is vulnerable occasionally. But to be perceived as "not doing due diligence" can be a reputation killer -- ~I~ certainly have a short list of places I never go back to anymore...

I'm sure you've contemplated most if not all of this before. Like I said earlier, I don't assume you are going to reveal "gameable" details, but your ongoing viability and security ARE of interest, because I do appreciate and enjoy your content and hope that it DOES continue to adapt and evolve and survive in these irritating times of ongoing socio-techno-economic transitions (a.k.a. "Desperately Seeking an economically viable content distribution model").

--------------------------------------------------
Oh, yeah -- Any breaks for MIT alumni/ae?

Reply

flared0ne

395 Comments

  • 458 Days Ago
  • 11/08/2010

There is ALWAYS "another thought"...

I trust you've considered the obvious "since it's a tax-write-off as an expense of your profession" professional membership billing option -- which MAY be justified by access to articles shared by the various journals that I see in the arXiv blogs, at least.

A little more coherently: I'm comparing and contrasting with the deliverables structure used, for example, by the IEEE organization. Where membership is a basic fee, while deep-research-access has a significant increment in cost. Or how about the typical "library access rights" granted to college students via collegiate licenses, providing access to the whole range of journaled publications out there... I miss that. A lot.

Reply

Bio

Jason Pontin is the Editor in Chief and Publisher of Technology Review.

Subscribe to the Jason Pontin's blog RSS Feed

Advertisement
Advertisement

Facebook

Advertisement