Slashdot Log In
Making a Buck Online - Without Ads
Posted by
Zonk
on Sun Dec 09, 2007 03:27 AM
from the juggling-act dept.
from the juggling-act dept.
A New York Times article hosted by C|Net looks at the unique position of the Consumer Reports website; they're one of the few online resources that gets by completely on subscription fees. They have no ads. One key seems to be valuing their online readers as much as their print readers - and charging both the same amount. "The New York Times and the Los Angeles Times tried charging for some online content, then abandoned the practice. For a decade, however, Consumer Reports has charged Internet readers the same price as print subscribers, currently $26 a year (or $5.99 for a month's online access or $45 a year to get the magazine both in print and on the Web). While the rest of the industry sees print readers as more valuable--because advertisers do--Consumer Reports actually makes more money from readers on its Web site, because it avoids printing, trucking, and mailing costs."
This discussion has been archived.
No new comments can be posted.
The Fine Print: The following comments are owned by whoever posted them. We are not responsible for them in any way.
Full
Abbreviated
Hidden
Loading... please wait.
Reputation counts too (Score:5, Interesting)
Content helps too (Score:4, Insightful)
Parent
Re:Reputation counts too (Score:5, Insightful)
News articles, on the other hand, are essentially stories. I like to read them, but I read them with my morning coffee on the couch. Newspapers nowadays have lost their reputation for relevance and timeliness (typically by chasing ad revenue with sensationalist stories rather than by doing real investigative journalism) and so while they are interesting and amusing, they are not worth paying for.
Subscription journals, on the other hand, I will still pay for, just like I would pay for Consumer Reports.
Parent
Re:Reputation counts too (Score:4, Interesting)
Parent
Re:Reputation counts too (Score:5, Interesting)
Exactly. I signed up for CR online when I was looking to buy a new cars in 2006 (and still had it when I bought another in 2007). To find the right car for me I spent the $30 to help read up on the cars I was interested in. It helped. I was able to read up on the past history of the cars, like the Toyota Corolla, and find it had a long history of excellent reviews. I was also able to knock a few cars off my list, like the Chevy Aveo, which had a recall in 2006/7 (I forget what year). Despite both cars having similar gas milage, the Aveo was a much smaller car (something my fiancee, who's French, felt more comfortable with given her European cars) with not as good reviews. In America, given the average size of a car is much larger, I felt safer with her having a slightly bigger car and she's adjusted to the size difference, given that roads here are also much larger.
That small amount of money I wrote off as part of the cost of a proper new-car purchase. And what's $45 when you're spending $15,000? However, I have no reason to continue until there's some other big name purchase I want to do so I canceled. I'll pick up their magazine at the gym when I see one laying around. I also found it more difficult than expected to cancel my account with CR.
Cheers,
Fozzy
Parent
Re: (Score:3, Interesting)
It's worth checking out. A very similar ethos to Consumer Reports... only the subscriber matters.
I thought so... (Score:3, Interesting)
I thought so, too. Then I read this [consumerreports.org] review of the EEE PC. I was with them right up until this bit:
First, what does "more advanced tasks" actually mean? I could use an EEE PC for programming, ssh access, and, I'm sure, many other things that this reviewer has never heard of.
Second, and most important: Why the fuck are they recommending Windows Vista? I was curious, so I found this othe [consumerreports.org]
Target group for review (Score:5, Insightful)
> access, and, I'm sure, many other things that this reviewer has never heard of.
And neither has the intended target audience for the review (or for the EEE PC).
> I'm not claiming the situation is good for Linux gaming. But to claim there are no sophisticated
> games for it, even if we're all willing to ignore Wine/Cedega, is factually untrue. By "factually
> untrue", I mean it's in the realm of 2+2=5. Even for very large values of 2, that statement is
> wrong, and always will be.
It refers to the kind of games the self-declared gamers want to use a box for, rather than the kind of games the intended audience is interested in (flash games, solitaire).
The statement is factually untrue in the sense that "the world is round" is a factually untrue statement in the context of people who believe in a flat Earth (since, to the nerd, only a mathematically perfect sphere would qualify as "round").
Congratulation, you have discovered that consumer report is not written for nerds with autistic tendencies.
> this whole Slashdot article is about them making a buck online, so are they even nonprofit?
Yes, non-profit is a legal term that doesn't involve giving away stuff for free.
And "expert" can also refer to the ability to explain complicated stuff in terms ordinary people can understand.
Parent
Re:Target group for review (Score:4, Insightful)
This is what's known as a strawman argument.
No, if someone came to me with that question, I'd suggest building their own, or buying a Dell (NOT Alienware), and putting XP on it. But people don't come to me with that question, they come to me with questions like "So I hear you're into Linux, should I use that for myself?" And the first thing out of my mouth is not "yes", but "What do you use a computer for?"
If, at any point, they mention some Windows-specific program, or that they're into gaming, I'll point out that they are going to need Windows, so the best they can hope for is dual-boot.
Actually, the most frequent question is "Can you fix my computer?" Second most frequent is "How do I stay secure online?" And while it's unlikely that I'll answer that without mentioning Linux, it's also unlikely that I'll recommend they switch -- I just let them know that if they do decide to switch, I'll be willing to walk them through it.
Bullshit, this is the Internet. Even if they don't have space, they can link back to Wikipedia or something. But like I said, I wasn't looking for "page after page". I was looking for some simple accuracy -- things like "Most games won't work with Linux."
That one's an ad-hominim attack, right there with your suggestion that I'm autistic (I'm not).
I develop HD-DVDs for a living. The very existence of my current job, and company, is dependent on Microsoft, and I have not, yet, been able to use Linux at work, even as a VM host -- nor have I spent a ton of time trying. I am not, by any means, a zealot.
Even if you're arguing Windows is the most optimal choice -- and I don't even want to get into that tired flamewar -- are you actually deluded enough to think Vista is a better choice than XP for those users?
Parent
Re:I thought so... (Score:4, Insightful)
Just because you think Linux/Mac should be mentioned in glowing praise next to every mention of Vista doesn't make it so. The point of Consumer Reports is to review things, not advertise the competitors to those things.
Parent
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)
Re:I thought so... (Score:5, Insightful)
To be fair, I rarely use Consumer Reports for anything having to do with computers or software, because I can get more reliable expert opinions elsewhere.
NOTE: I'm offering this comment based upon my personal experience with Vista (I eventually went back to XP) and my interactions with hundreds of computer professionals whose opinions I have come to trust. I do not hate Microsoft. I might hate Steve Ballmer, but mostly because he is a sweaty friggin' maniac. I do love how he dances to "Safety Dance" though.
Parent
Re: (Score:2, Insightful)
Why? Lots of people on Slashdot are willing to come up and state they like Vista, and while I personally don't use it I have used it in the past and could find nothing overtly objectionable about it. So, I'll ask again: why, when discussing Vista, does the concept of independent thought cease to exist, and instead anyone saying anything positive gets labelled as being paid by Microsoft? The article is from Consumer Reports, for christ's sake, widely held as putting independence and integ
Re:I thought so... (Score:5, Informative)
Granted, I waited until 6 months or so after the launch to get it.
I don't see a compelling reason for most people to move to Vista, but I haven't experienced a compellign reason not to yet either.
Parent
Re:I thought so... (Score:4, Interesting)
Then I went to copy her mail form outlook express to windows mail. I moved the proper files over from the other computer, and loaded windows mail. I pointed it to the files, and it spat out "file in use, or wrong file type" or some other such BS. I tried saving the DB in different formats etc. Eventually I discovered that what this error really meant was "Windows mail can't import user data as a user. Please re-run this program as administrator" why the fuck couldn't they just say that?
My experience with that box has continued in a similar vein. The computer is as slow as her old box, yet has 4 times the memory and at least that many times the processing power. I find it simply inconcievable anyone could run this OS.
That aside, people do. Smart people too, so there must be more to this equation. I'm not really sure what it is, but this polarized opinion is confusing.
Parent
Seems like reasonable advice. (Score:2)
That's pretty clear.
What CR is saying is that if you're smart enough to ask that question, then you should get a better laptop. That is pretty self-evident.
Theit advice is decent for people who are not knowledgeable about computers. It's like if you were buying a washer/dryer. You might not know much, so you just want honest advice that will suit you, not cost too much, and not get you a piece of junk.
If tht's not worth $20-40 a year, I don't know wh
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)
Except for computers. As another child poster says, they're writing for a different audience than the typical
Re: (Score:2, Funny)
Have you ever seen the threads about women around here?
CR not good for high tech (Score:2)
I've also seen them make major errors in their explanation of high tech appliances. About a CD burn
Re: (Score:3, Informative)
I know exactly what you're talking about because i remember going "WTF?" after reading the same thing. So I researched it, and sure enough it was correct -- the device they were reviewing was a turntable->CD device for converting old records to CD, and could be hooked up via USB to a computer as well. And yes, if you used it to make multiple co
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)
There's a difference between experts who make recommendations for other experts, and experts who make recommendations for casual users. CR has never pretended to care about anyone other than the average person looking for a good deal. I have yet to see any criticism of CR in the past decade (other than clear factual mistakes that CR corrected) that
Re: (Score:2)
That's why I mentioned Neverball, Neverwinter Nights, and Wesnoth.
No genre is represented well, but even if they aren't a fan of the FPS, it's damned sloppy to ignore them, or to use such a vague term as "Sophisticated 3D games."
Consumer reports MUST be standalone (Score:5, Insightful)
How good would it be if this edition of Consumer Reports (and its special report on Car safety) was brought to you in association with Ford?
Re:Consumer reports MUST be standalone (Score:4, Funny)
Parent
Re: (Score:2)
Independence (Score:3, Insightful)
While it would be nice if others were, I think I prefer paying less, and reading some ads.
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
I would rather pay money for useful information than get useless, biased, advertiser-influenced information free. I pay $100 a year for the Wall Street Journal, and about $600 a year for a bunch of science and professional magazines, because I want solid information, not the same AP or Reuters story 35 times over on Google News.
My time is too valuable to waste reading junk (with the possible exception of Slashdot).
Re:Independence (Score:4, Insightful)
However, independence has the implication that they are not being paid to say something. Now, some of the things CR says [slashdot.org] make me wonder if they're either paid to say it, or are complete morons. But the idea is what counts.
Today, I had a long talk with my dad about what he does. I'd been talking a lot about my new job, so I wanted to hear more about what he does. His company -- two corporations, actually, so they can legally do both stocks and commodities, but it's the same people -- they're, well, a financial company. As in, you can bring them a big pile of money, and they'll invest it, and you get to involve yourself at varying levels. One of the things that came out in that discussion was, he provides two options for payment -- either a commission, or a yearly payment.
Well, he recommends the yearly payment, even if it might (sometimes) cost a bit more. It's better for him, obviously, because the company then gets a stable income in the form of regular checks. But it also provides some assurance to the customer that there's never any motivation for a trade other than because it will benefit the customer.
That is, if there's a commission, a broker might encourage a lot more trades than the client wants or needs, because it generates commissions. If there's no commission, you'd think it encourages doing less, to avoid work, and that's partially true. But it also means that the motivation for everything they do is to make money for their customers, so they stay customers, and because of how powerful word of mouth is in that industry.
So yes, I would pay for Consumer Reports, and I'd pay more for that independence. Except that after reading their articles on various software, I'd never be able to shake the feeling that they were screwing me over with their other recommendations -- that their car recommendations, for instance, might sound as laughable to a mechanic as their software recommendations sound to me.
Parent
Re: (Score:2)
What?! Why? If they offer you an ethical way to remove ads and provide them with payment for the service, you specifically try to avoid using it? Makes no (ethical) sense.
Re: (Score:2)
No doubt they would. Does it really surprise you to think that a professional auto mechanic would have different priorities in their car purchase than a typical suburban housewife who doesn't know where the dipstick is? Does it really surprise you that the typical slashdot reader has different priorities when evaluating software than the typical AOL user? It doesn't make their e
Curious (Score:4, Informative)
Re: (Score:2, Funny)
I've always wondered about ad effectiveness (Score:2)
Exactly how effective is online advertising anyway? How many of you have seen an ad for something on a web page and thought "Fantastic! I must click this."
My brain just edits them out anymore - it's the white noise of the internet to me.
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)
micropayments (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2, Interesting)
Because now all of online payments are tied into your personal credit card and personal info. With identity theft, malware/spyware, etc., people are very leery about putting in a credit card number at every other website. If there was an anonymous credit/debit card with a 10 dollar value, people would be more inclined to pay 50 cents here and there for some extra content. If it was compromised, you be out 10 bucks, and that's it.
Do yo
PayPal Virtual Debit Card (Score:3, Informative)
What's wrong with PayPal? (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
And that is the problem! Why would I want to pay for something if half of it's going to go to PayPal?
I Know Why the Caged Bird Sings (Score:3, Insightful)
Re: (Score:2)
I offer this as my experience only.
No ads, how about no registration? (Score:2, Insightful)
I remember being frustrated at researching a purchase, only to find links to CR articles which I couldn't access. Sans web, I'd have forgotten about CR, or if I remembered, might not have bothered subscribing because the information I wanted was in a back issue, and libraries are free.
What I'd really like to see is a study or report on ad
Well, DUH! (Score:2)
So all in all what has been proven is that businesses do is look at their customers for income. The time has long gone that the consumer was the newspapers customer.
Stick it to the Customer? (Score:3, Interesting)
If I were an "about to commit" customer, and I have thought about becoming one recently, this would put me off, I would like a good share of the savings passed on to me.
One simple solution:
Print subscription comes with (either a CD version or) an online account, online version is stand alone.
I am sure there must be better possibilities. But if they're happy...
all the best,
drew
Re: (Score:2, Insightful)
If they were making a higher
Gouging online readers (Score:2)
CR Online is worth much more than print version. (Score:3, Insightful)
Re: (Score:2)