PageCount - 7:21 am on Nov 5, 2001 (gmt 0)

Think of one top SE newsletter (we all subscribe too). It went from large deep content rich articles to basically content announcements. I'll bet it has made a 10 fold increase in traffic at that site.

“Hehe” as some would say. It’s also led to a market susceptible to the wiles of the marketing mind, a staunch collection of followers keen to glean every bit of information they can from that particular site. In other words, it’s a market likely to buy and promote expensive off-site publications emanating from those running the site.

Nobody said making money on the Web was going to be easy and this is one model that demonstrates and overcomes the obstacles separating the vendor from his or her market. Build credibility and visibility through content, build up a loyal following (through the myriad means available off site), suck your market closer to you, and then get them to ante up for all you’ve given them while adding value to the original product.

This way, you get to carry the freeloaders and profit, in a subtle way, from those keen to get their hands and minds on more. This particular example shows up the gauche strategies of publications such as Salon [salon.com] for the hit-and-run tactics they are. Their marketing of ‘premium content’ boils down to: “Pay up or p*** off.” I’m willing to bet Salon doesn’t generate as much business per viewer online or offline as the site we’re talking about.

In many ways, publications like Salon are still hanging on to the ad revenue-generating model. They’re chasing advertisers on the promise of subscription revenue but are using the advertising revenue they get to cover those readers they’re alienating by their ‘all or nothing’ approach.

The nut of it is that the move from ‘free’ to ‘pay’ has to be a subtle process of drawing in or bonding more closely with an existing market dependent, to a degree, on your content. As you point out Brett, it all stems from the slow process of increasingly using links to draw your followers closer to you by diminishing the content of opt-in freebies. The knack is to hold on to free subscribers like Ian :). To do this you need to offer - in your newsletter - enough content to be useful but promise (and deliver) far more on site…

”The article with the opportunity for feedback at the end of the article.“

This would be particularly useful for a site such as this, where users are familiar with interactivity. While many sites offer the option, few readers seem to go for it. This is particularly true of journalism or ‘new media’ sites. From what I’ve seen, a reluctance to participate has more to do with the subject matter than with anything else. If everything’s been said, what’s to add? The article has to raise questions rather than give answers.

Many content sites try to get around this problem by running forums from the main site. This has its advantages, but only if you generate enough traffic. There’s nothing sadder than watching the tortuous attempts of some to get their forums going.

Outdated posts make for depressing reading … they’re rather like voices in space – you know they’re trying to say something, but they’re speaking into a vacuum. Likewise, the forum that’s in irreversible decline is not a pretty sight. A downward trend can only be reversed through a change in that which generates the discussion, i.e. the site’s content.

On the one hand, and to use Salon as an example again, their readership is loyal and repeat visits are the norm. The publication’s Table Talk section provides a sustainable and busy forum where readers can sound off about content. It doesn’t serve a useful purpose though because most using it appear to do so in a way that suggests a need for therapy rather than public exposure. Here again, we have an example of a publication wherein the article tends to be closed ended rather than open to informed discussion.

On the other hand, Online Journalism Review [ojr.usc.edu]’s content comprises opinion, is open ended by nature, and offers a good example of a publication eliciting interaction and numerous informed responses from readers.

Like the first site alluded to, they're successfully forming a partnership with their readers.

I guess it all boils down to the old question of getting the mix right. In other words, when all else fails, go back to the basics…:)