Skewed Mac

If We Bill Them, Will They Come?

© 2-4-02 Dean Browell

In the last while, several key Mac web sites have begun to ask for money in exchange for ad-less content, and in some cases specific content and features. From Macfixit to MacObserver to MacSurfer, the trend does seem to be swinging towards more charges and less free roaming. At the same time, non-Mac specific Google.com made a very different but bold stand to swear against pop-up ads. What in the heck does this mean for us as web surfers? Should I just leave my credit card next to the keyboard?

Doom, Despair, and Pay Sites On Me...

I'm not sure how John Q Public is supposed to feel about any of this. When one of my favorite sites went pay (Salon.com) it took me awhile, but I eventually bought in because I read thousands of words a day from that site, and 30 bucks a year for the combined content of a hundred magazine issues wasn't bad. I also treated it like a magazine subscription, which I had an open slot in my budget for since Imagine Media's NextGen magazine folded (which in itself was a heads up for the readers of another Imagine Media title: MacAddict ).

But the problem with even smaller market sites than Salon.com asking for money is that after a certain point, there is no way John or Jane Q can afford their daily dose of sites if they all cost 30 bucks a year. To add it all up, in order to read MacSurfer, MacObserver and MacFixIt for a year with the new schemes, it will cost you $80 a year.

Now, I am certainly aware that you can still access some of these sites for free, as long as you stomach the blaring ads, but how long will that last? I can't remember ever hearing anyone complain about the ads on those sites to begin with. And if they were losing revenue based on the low attraction of a banner ad that cost nothing to click, why would potential clickers shell out any money for what they used to ignore? My guess is most sites will either have to drop the free content, or drop some features and the pay routine. Time will tell.

The natural possibility is that sites that do not go pay will suddenly jump in readership ("Wouldn't that be nice!" Dean says, as writer and editor in two such sites). But I would bet that change will be the constant, as some sites halt the pay scheme, others redefine it, and still others merge sites or content in order to give the most to subscribers and encourage us to buy. Offering a yearly subscription now may be premature, since some sites may not even exist in their current form in a year, much less have the exact same content or pay scheme.

The Link Sites

One interesting effect will be the way Macsurfer, MacMinute or MacCentral (and similar sites) report the news on these pay sites. The fact that the New York Times requires a free registration even repels some surfers, so what reaction do you think a "Paid Registration Required" tag will invoke? (Again, this is presuming that paid-for content becomes the norm.)

These sites could become the Napster of the news industry; Creating a hub of content that, while summarized, provides what readers feel is all they need to hear and saves them the cost of subscriptions. Or, if the news sites can't do it or are challenged, you better believe the less-visible e-mail lists could become the peer-to-peer alternative to paying for exclusive content. For now, the news sites will have to negotiate the invisible lines drawn in the Mac web sand.

Macminute, I predict, will be fine. While they must still stay afloat somehow with ads, they have very straightforward, informative newsbites that quickly yield to the original content. Plus, they have a trustworthy air about them and would no doubt deal with the issue of paid-content thoughtfully.

But what will this mean for MacCentral's "clip-and-report" style? It seems to preserve it: Why go pay for the content when I can read the pseudo-reporting on MacCentral for free? But it could have a backlash with content providers and cause legal issues for the quote-heavy "reporting" MacCentral tends to provide. Fine for press-releases, not fine for copywritten, for-purchase content.

Macsurfer is surprisingly the first of these to decide to offer a pay-for, ad-less version of their daily link site. How they are able to sustain that, considering the ease people overlook site ads anyway (thereby choosing not to pay in two ways) will be interesting to watch. The reaction could turn sour on them: Why should we pay for the opportunity to see a link page filled with links to other pay sites?

If We Bill Them, Will They Come?

One expectation I can't imagine pay sites can take seriously, is how they expect to increase the general readership. Maybe they know something I don't (which is likely when it comes to business) but I'd say that raising prices never drove anyone to a product. Especially when your original price was free. Mac users could be considered already used to paying for premium by our choice of computer, but I'm not sure asking them to pay more to read about said computers will fly.

Let me say this to ensure I'm not misunderstood: I certainly don't wish any of these sites ill in their quest to try and stay alive. Their demise would wound us all, and I respect them for staying in the game, no matter how they do it. But it is a tricky business to negotiate when you're trying to solve whether your site is one for profit, or one solely for purpose. I wish them all the luck in being both. Obviously I'm no stranger to the decisions, running SkewedPerspective.com at a $200 loss, with not only no pay scheme, but no ads. It is a fine, and sometimes painful line to walk, and I'm not independently wealthy so it is not a decision I make lightly. I might be a fool, but I'm a happy one. But I'm also not dependent on any of the .coms I work with for income.

Beyond Our Walls

Outside of the Mac community, the practices and reactions to pay sites are mixed. Once the main operating trick of AOL and porn sites, in addition to paying your ISP you might be paying for individual web site content. I don't fully buy the argument that this is the giant evolution of the once-free Internet... too much change has taken place to call any business anomaly a true permanent step in any direction. Who is to say that in less than a year paying folks will be barking for some cash back as their once subscription site reverted to just a content-trimmed ad site? It puts the burden of true business savvy on the shoulders of content providers who must decide not only how much to charge for content or access, but also decide what it is that users would even be willing to pay for, if anything.

Soon, popular financial advice site Motley Fool will begin charging for: (*get this*) JUST the message boards. Now, while I do believe they have a fascinating and technologically bright community with the ability to convey and commune in ways that help all who encounter it... But don't you think these same people are smart enough to know they could take their chat hundreds if not thousands of other places that are entirely free?

The Exodus problem may be one that many, even Mac-based sites, have to face. And if everyone does move and you tank after alienating your audience, watch as your remains are picked over by the slightly bulkier corporations you originally formed to spurn, and your .com is purchased for a song merely due to the glimmer of name recognition it provides.

Virtually all of these sites are throwing around offers to make you a "Charter Member" (in a site that's been around for years?) and nearly every single site is offering services for around $30 a year. In fact, it's becoming the new $19.95, and all tired marketing arguments about how much pizza, coffee or soda that works out to per week are being trumped out. (Hey, didn't Apple use the pizza one for their loans ten years ago?)

Sometimes, it does make sense. Like I mentioned before, I did buy in and subscribe to Salon.com. But it's worth noting that I only did so after writing a stern letter detailing the uncomfortable position I felt I was in. And guess what? I was written back immediately by the Editor at Salon. We corresponded for a bit, and once I was thoroughly convinced that I either A) did rely on the site enough to treat it properly like a magazine subscription of content I respected and enjoyed, pages and pages a day read at least 4 days a week; or B) Salon had improved what was offered behind the subscription-curtain enough that it was truly worth my while. They sold me on both counts. "A)" was easy to point out. "B)" was Salon's way of proving itself in ways that I'm not confident the current pay-testing Mac sites can. With the subscription I also got all sorts of exclusive stuff like music and literature MP3's and more... Things that were never available before, and would literally be immediate bonuses. So perhaps a deal can be struck with a shareware or major developer to provide a nice software bonus to those who subscribe to a particular Mac site? A clear positive we can sink our teeth into would help us not feel cheapened by the move.

So, will the grand experiment pass or fail? I'd venture to say it just won't work in the current form for either the user or the seller. Things will change or end as everything on the web continues to morph. But the Mac pay sites will have more to contend with than simply getting users to bow to a financial concept; They'll have to compete with the already finicky, passionate and clever Mac audience that made them what they were before the Mac public had to shell out any extra for anything. And time and our wallets, none too full in this time of recession, will tell...

- Dean Browell

• Stuffit 7 (10-18-02) Dr. Neale Monks. What purpose does file compression have in this day of 100 GB hard drives? Is version 7 worthy of the upgrade fees?
• Fireworks MX (10-8-02) Dean Browell. Fireworks is more than just a pretty face; The last app I needed to convert entirely to OS X delivers in upgrades and features as well...
• Dreamweaver MX (10-8-02) Joel Davies. Not being satisfied with just carbonizing it's product, Macromedia made sure that Dreamweaver MX was the killer app for web design.
• SliMP3 (9-6-02) Pat St-Arnaud. The SliMP3 is a small, simple and elegant network devices that connects to any audio component with RCA inputs and lets you browse, search and play music directly from your computer's MP3 collection.
• Voyager III v.3 (8-16-02) Dr. Neale Monks. Carina's Voyager is the grandfather of Mac planetarium programs, but does it still have what it takes to keep up the current generation?
• CodeWarrior 8 (8-16-02) Douglas A. Welton. Doug dives into the latest version of this robust multi-platform programming tool.
• STM Sports Backpack (8-9-02) Pierre Igot. How will this backpack designed for the "global digerati" stack up when Pierre puts it to the test with his mobile digital lifestyle?
• Scope Driver (8-2-02) Dr. Neale Monks. An alternative to the 'point and click' telescope control paradigm: a powerful list-based utility for Autostar and LX200 telescopes.
• Apple Final Cut Pro 3.0 (7-19-02) Michael Tate Jones. Tate reviews the video-editing powerhouse Final Cut Pro 3 and sizes up its competition. Does Final Cut Pro 3 hold its ground?
• Strata DVpro RME (7-16-02) Matt Frederick. Matt Frederick. Matt takes a comprehensive look at Strata DVpro, Strata's pro-level non-linear editor for digital video.
• Stargazer's Delight (6-28-02) Dr. Neale Monks. Looking for a viable shareware alternative to the big commercial astronomy software packages? Neale may have found one.
• TheSky (6-21-02) Dr. Neale Monks. Neale takes a look at the easiest to use planetarium program for the Mac.
• NI FM7 (6-21-02) Matt Frederick. Matt takes this software replica of Yamaha's DX7 synthesizer for a test drive.
• Griffin's iMic and other USB audio devices (6-14-02) Pierre Igot. Do Griffin's promises of significantly superior audio input and output performance ring true?
• The Digital Universe (6-14-02) Neale Monks. Planetarium program, astronomy encyclopaedia and space flight simulator all rolled into one - could The Digital Universe be the ClarisWorks of astronomy software? Neale Monks takes a look.
• After Effects 5.5 (5-31-02) Michael Tate Jones. Tate reviews the OS X native version of After Effects and likes what he sees.
• InDesign 2.0 for Non-Professional Designers (5-24-02) Pierre Igot. In the second part of our review of Adobe InDesign 2.0 for Mac OS X, Pierre Igot looks at InDesign from the point-of-view of the non-professional designer - and finds plenty to like.
• Corel Graphics Suite, Part 2 (5-24-02) Dean Browell. CorelDraw returns in full force and Corel R.A.V.E makes its debut.
• Corel Graphics Suite, Part 1 (5-17-02) Dean Browell. CorelDraw is back, and it's brought some powerful friends that makes this Suite worth the look...
• OmniGraffle 2.0 (5-10-02) András Puiz. Analog napkins are so 20th century -- this gem from OmniGroup knows (almost) all about diagramming. András Puiz wishes all Mac developers developed a similar understanding of Aqua, and of Mac OS X in general.
• Watson (5-03-02) Michael Tate Jones. Tate discovers a 'Swiss Army Knife' for OS X... it's called Watson.