It’s been while since I’ve written about The Truth About Cars (TTAC). As you may recall, we were preparing to turn TTAC into a subscription site when we re-launched. When I discovered that our payment software wasn’t ready for prime time, and the site design needed tweaking, I put the move on hold. I’ve used the interregnum to ramp up our content, familiarize myself with the new site’s back end, commission a few improvements and… think. I’ve re-read all your emails, sent out a survey, talked to a bunch of financial folks and come up with a new plan. Here’s how I see it…
Imagine TTAC as a gated community. By closing the gates (making it members only), we can maintain the site’s high quality housing (our rants and reviews) while avoiding “outside” pollution and crime (advertiser influence). You can play (read and comment) with like-minded enthusiasts, safe from flame-throwers (flame throwers). After surveying our readers, I know a fair few of you believe that our mission is worthwhile, and that paying $5 a month for this little corner of cyberspace is a fair proposition. That said, timing is. Everything.
Before we changed the site design, TTAC had 22k unique visitors per day. When we made the jump, we lost 8k daily visitors, and our momentum. The drop happened for two main reasons. First, our New Content Notification system and RSS feeds went south. Some of the faithful lost touch. (Both systems are back on-line.) Second, our Google links evaporated, which accounted for about 20% of our previous traffic. (These too have been resurrected.) We’re recovering lost ground, one reader at a time. When we get back up to a large and healthy pool of potential subscribers, I can make the switch to subscription-only, confident that the take-up rate will make it worth our while. But–
Once the gates are closed, the chances of recruiting new members will diminish dramatically. Sure, automotive enthusiasts will still find their way to our door. But the vast majority will look at the fancy gates and click on down the road. And then I thought of a golf resort. The general public is free to hang out at the main hotel. If they choose, they can spend some time and money at the hotel’s restaurants and shops. But they’ve got to pay to play. And if they want to play golf on a regular basis, they have to become members. In other words, TTAC needs both an exclusive members-only section AND a less exclusive “free” section.
In practice, the new site’s member section would look and work much as it does now. I hesitate to call the free section “TTAC lite,” but one part of the non-members site would offer mini-reviews, much like the format I designed for Part Two of Jalopnik’s reviews (stars with a few descriptive sentences). Another, equally important aspect would be comparative data for car shoppers. At least initially, we’re talking price, options and reliability info. I’m currently negotiating with a gentleman who collects this kind of data. He's one with the TTAC brand: complete editorial integrity and total transparency.
So, TTAC would have a subscription-only “intellectual” side for passionate, witty and informed reviews and rants. And we’d have a free “practical” side for mini-reviews and useful buying information. The duality would allow BOTH sides of the site to grow and prosper, as the free side entices visitors into becoming paid subscribers while, at the same time, offering us new and exciting revenue streams (which I can’t discuss at the present time). Again, I can assure you that neither side would compromise our overarching commitment to honesty, ethics and public service. It is, after all, our brand. Without that, The Truth About Cars means nothing. Is nothing.
So, what do you think? Is there are a market for what I’ve described? Would a nuts-and-bolts aspect to TTAC cheapen our literary aspirations? Do you think we should hold off on turning into a subscription site until the practical side is in place? At the same time and in any case, how can we increase TTAC’s site traffic? I’m a writer/editor by nature, but now that I’ve got the posting down to a routine, I’ve got time to market this sucker. (NB: From now on, during the weekdays, I’ll be posting new material first thing in the morning, mid-afternoon and early evening.) Any help in this area would be most appreciated. Please leave your comments here.
Meanwhile, I want to take this opportunity to thank TTAC’s writers. I will be forever grateful for their time, talent, humor and integrity. Let no one say that the buff books’ have the best writers. The future of automotive journalism is right here, right now. Thanks guys, for telling the truth about cars. Working with you is an honor and a privilege.
The nuts-and-bolts aspect would strengthen your mission as a place for honest and unfiltered automotive content. You should try to develop both sides of this site (subscription and free) at the same time and release them simultaneously.
As a web designer and car enthusiast I have some (in my opinion) great ideas for a web application that deals with automotive data. If you need some brainpower on the subject I’d love to put my two-cents in.
Even as a poor college student on a limited income, I would be more than happy to pay a nominal fee to keep my TTAC intake at healthy levels.
Im in ,keep up the good work
I have been just exposed 2 TTAC for a few weeks n I m blown away by the candid writing style….since I have a good idea about the TTAC content, I probably wudn’t mind paying a nominal charge….having said that, I dont think a free preview section would be enough to attract new members(=revenue)….I mean..if the 1st time I saw TTAC n was asked 2 subscribe to have complete access, I might have just moved on
Robert,
Re: aakash’s comment. When you go to the Sirius site, you can sign up for a free 3-day pass to listen on line. After that, if you want to continue listening you have to subscribe. How about something similar here: Visitors can sign up for a 2- or 3-visit free pass for access to the entire site. After that, they have to subscribe if they want to keep full access. That way, they can find out what they’ll be missing out on if they don’t subscribe.
Frank
aakash: TTAC’s free side won’t be a “preview section.” It’ll be a stand-alone part of the site offering need-to-know car buying info.
Frank: We’re planning on offering a free, three-day pass.
$5/mo is a done deal.
I dont even read my 5 car magazines anymore… its all the same old bullshit about new cars I dislike and have no urge to read about. My 5 monthly magzines go in to work with me for everybody at the dealership to read while I read TTAC. Bullshit for them, the truth for me… I’m a nice guy like that.
Honestly, I would pay more than $5 a month if you had some forums where this community could interact in a less structured way than simply commenting on articles. We all want to share our passion for cars- so, let us actually share. The sort of people who regularly visit TTAC are the sorts of people I’d like to talk to on a message board. There could be an area dedicated to commenting on front page items, and you could post a link on each article to “discuss this in our forums”. General discussion, industry news, car care tips, aftermarket product discussion, driving school recommendations- the works.
Of course, the difficulty with this is a). added expense of hosting a forum, and b). vigilant moderators. I believe that b. will be taken care of after a while, since you can promote mods from the community. I can’t speak for a., except to say that I would gladly pay $10 a month for a smart, fun place to share.
I am also a college student. $5/mo is, in my opinion, reasonable for the amount of content.
Any package deals Mr. Farago? I would be much more inclined if I could pay for a years worth and get some kind of discount.
seriously… hear hear for martin.
I used to be a total postwhore on a certain audi forum. I need a change of venue… tho I would be shocked if the cat didnt drag in some old names & faces.
I’ll drink to that.
I think $5 a month is fair, but like a previous poster suggested, there should be a 6 or 12 month reduced rate.
I moderate (and postwhore) a small-ish forum with 8000 members; its a lot of work and server bandwidth is very expensive. (member funded in this case) I for one know that babysitting a forum is a full time job in itself.
I see a TTAC forum helping things out in the future, but for now I’d like to focus on TTAC’s free/pay content to make sure the site’s foundation is strong.
Robert, I think you have the right idea in this article (I sent you an email about this a while ago), it’s important to have a method to grow membership. I’m certian that once you turn subscription, you’ll have a number of us join beause we know how great it is. There may be a small amount of word-of-mouth growth, but I can’t imagine that will be very much. I’m sure that no one doing a google search would pay for content, they’d just hit the next link. So a “TTAC lite” or as you say practical info would be good to keep new visitors visting. In addition, maybe once a week or so have a public rant for people to read. Reviews are good and all, but the main draw (at least for me) of this site are the witty rants. If people get a taste of a weekly rant knowing that you can get daily rants if you subscribe, that may help keep turning people into subscribers.
I like the free/pay model, but would like to offer a suggestion.
How about having the most current articles/reviews/rants open to all; and have archive access (and maybe forums) restricted to paying members. That way potential members could see full-length pieces.
M
Farago: Thanks for letting us know what’s going on.
One request – Can we get TTAC Podcasts back on iTunes for now? I don’t know what your plans are for when you close the gates on your little club, but listening to your podcasts is what got me to TTAC in the first place.
I would also like the idea of having a discussion forum, and I think it would also help increase traffic levels to the site. Sure moderation would be an issue, but if you made the forum available to paying members only – it would weed out a lot of potential problems.
When TTAC goes to paying content, I do not, honestly, see myself ponying up the $$ to read your articles. This has little to do with the quality of the writing on the site – I like it a lot and find it to be a breath of fresh air from most of the crap that you find out there. Plus, there’s a lot to be said for an information source that doesn’t straddle the line between truth and corporate-sponsored prostitution. By having a pay site, you can continue to ensure your “no advertising” policy.
The reason I probably won’t pay is because I know myself and I go for long periods of time without returning to a site – if I invested, I would find myself obligated to visit the site. It’s not really a situation I want to get myself into.
I think that there are probably other people out there like me. Happy to take advantage of your free site, but less than likely to pay. Call me cheap, call me a freeloader, whatever, that’s the way it is.
By reading the comments, it does seem like there are people who will pay a premium to continue to receive your entire catalog of reviews and editorials. I am happy for you. However, as a commenter mentioned previously, I think you have to do something to ensure that non-members coming to your site for the first time receive an intitiation into what TTAC is all about. Just offering car-buying information and “mini-reviews” may not be enough. You need to keep the people who pass through on your site long enough to start to appreciate what TTAC does. Maybe the mini-reviews section will be enough to get some people, but I think that your brutually honest editorials are the strong point of this site. The “reviews” (for me) are basically creative-writing examples for cars that most of us will never drive. They are good for a laugh, but for the most part do nothing for me other than pass some amusing time away from work. Your insight into the automotive industry is what your strong point is. You have to give non-registered visitors a peek into what you are all about. I don’t know how you do this – maybe one editorial per week, but the full editorial, not some castrated version. I don’t think that this is too much, and I don’t think that this will be sufficient for someone who is really interested in cars. They will most likely move to pay-content to enjoy all of your articles. You guys have what, 2 or 3 editorials per DAY, so 1 free per week isn’t going to be enough that people don’t become paying members.
Whatever you decide to do with the site, try to keep the clean, uncluttered layout. After content, this is very important to casual readers. There are enough distracting/annoying car websites out there already, unsuccessfully translated from other media.
If Karesh is the man you have in mind for reliability ratings, you should realise that he is asking the question that no one asked and trashing Consumer Reports is not the way to inspire confidence in ones own integrity. You realise, I trust, that Autoextremist.com with its own brand of frank comment and a large audience, failed miserably at trying to get people to subscribe. Posting several times a day, unless you are a lazy, sloppy autoblog.com type of site, is an enormous amount of work. If your subscription effort fails, perhaps postings once or twice a week might suffice?
As long as it does not turn into one of the many on-again-off-again sites, once the technical base is established and reliable, I do not mind coughing up some (reasonable) dough for this exceptionable fresh take on automotive reporting/discussions!!
Bring it on!!!
Val
I like this idea best of all.
My only suggestion is along the lines of the comments by solekj.
I think it’s integral to keep some part of the editorials free, for instance, the “GM Death Watch” series. That series pretty nearly personifies the “feel” of the other editorials and, in my opinion, would be a most effective hook to get people to subscribe to the other editorials.
Keeping some sub content free to lure the newbies makes total sense. Done.
I love TTAC and I have been doing some hardcore word of mouth advertising for it in recent months. The idea of making TTAC a subscription site makes me a bit uneasy. The problem I have is not whether or not I would pay, but the fact that I know that 99% of the people I refer to TTAC would not. My only other point of contention is the subscription price point. I was more that willing to cough up the $10 lifetime subscription to SA Forums and have gotten my money’s worth several times over. I fully support the idea of keeping the site advertisement free, but the reality is that with my combination of adblock software I have not seen an ad in over 2 years. I guess my concern is that I do not know what I will be getting out of $5 per month.
I would certainly consider paying an annual or semi-annual subscription fee, but my ability to convince others to check out TTAC would be severly impaired. The concept of a free or “lite” TTAC section does aid in creating trialability for new browsers, but it also opens the door for faithful readers like myself to start riding the fence and reducing my reading to an occasional visit to the free section every few weeks.
One more idea: How about perks (rather than additional content) for subscribers? Subscribers could get content a day early, or only subscribers could post, or only subscibers could join the discussion forums (if you decide to have those).
Publishing is a VERY tough business. Car buff magazines like Car and Driver charge $15, or less per year. And it’s IN PRINT. There are precious few online examples of successful, subscription-based “webzines” without advertising. The NY times has two versions of its “electronic paper,” and although I think the ad volume is obnoxious, I read it daily. I have not signed up for the premium service, but I know I will as its video content improves. My current “payment” to NY times is acceptance of the visual pollution from ads.
I think TTAC is one of the best looking websites out there. The lack of ad clutter helps, but making ads totally verboten will be a serious impediment to TTAC viability. You COULD control the appearance of the ads fairly easily. In publishing, penetration and volume is EVERYTHING. Subscription-based models can work only if the content is extremely powerful and compelling, but I personally think “the numbers” you want will be hard to come by at $60 per year, given the current content (as good as it is).
I don’t think the “objectivity” factor from barring ads is capturing significant readership by itself. Car and Driver is at times bare-fisted in its reviews, but you don’t see advertising boycotts by manufacturers. Ad dollars are the 600 lb. gorilla, just ask Google. Or another example, Sirius found out how difficult it was to make people pay for Howard Stern when it was previously free.
I suggest you reconsider your stance on accepting ad revenue. Otherwise, I’m just not convinced you will be rewarded with the readership you seek and deserve. My two cents worth.
Read my lips: no advertising. At least on the sub side. If– and that’s a gigantic if– we accepted advertising on the free side, we would not even entertain the prospect of ads from automobile manufacturers or dealers. Again, I’d rather shut this thing down than compromise our editorial integrity.
Subs will receive the right to post comments, and I’ll look into the forum situation. In general, I’m happy to explore adding benefits to subscription, but I’m not looking to rekindle the debate over whether the main part of this site should be sub-based.
We are going to deliver some 90 original features per month, with no come-ons, drop-out cards, advertising or design clutter. If you want to pay peanuts to the buff books for the right to be exposed to over 50% ad content, and the implicit bias that this arrangement entails, be my guest.
While I’m sensitive to the fact that many of you would have to stretch to pay the sub fee, our writers deserve to get paid for their services. If you don’t want to subsidize their time and talent, if you don’t want to engage with our core of highly-educated, passionate and informed readers, that’s your choice.
Yes, others have failed at this. But ask yourself a question: do YOU want us to fail? Ultimately, we rise or fall depending on what you do or don’t do with your $5 a month. Anyway, forget $4.99 a month (less with annual sub discount). Think 50 Cent. We will get rich or die trying. Respect.
I think your position on ads is noble, but perhaps not entirely realistic. You say you had 20k visitors per day- a few ads would pay for the site operation at least, and maybe a few writer’s fees. Then, you add a bunch of reasons for people to subscribe, like posting comments, forums, the ability to download PDF versions of content… and now you are talking about major value. Look, nobody is going to suspect you of being “on the take” from the car companies when you are running features like “GM Death Watch”. If they want to advertise on a site that is ripping them a new one each day, let them spend their money! If the choice is between TTAC with ads or no TTAC at all, then I’ll take the ads.
In my mind, the ability for user interaction is the strongest draw. How about a monthly interview, like Slashdot does? You line someone up, users post their questions, and the best ones get submitted- unedited- to the interviewee for response. I would pay just to be able to ask some PR flack “WTF”. I still think a forum for subs only would be the greatest reason to pay.
Robert:
Despite my own preference to avoid yet another subscription, your site in its current guise is worthy of your asking price –maybe even a second sticker if you provide me with a TTAC window sticker (uh oh, that’s advertising!). My sense of your challenge is based on what OTHERS (in volume) will likely do with their $5 per month. Here in Seattle, surely your content competes well with the cost of a single dose of Starbucks.
Editorial independence is a great thing when one can afford it. Motor Trend clearly doesn’t think it can. And to prove your point, MT is a sickening rag –always threatening to become the next “payola” scandal. Car and Driver is a viable compromise, but I agree that turning the ad pages risks carpal tunnel.
I wasn’t trying to tempt you with pitching ad money from the manufacturers. You don’t need them and clearly don’t want them. But there’s a ton of ad money from non-auto sources that live outside the realm about which you write. But your mind is made up, and I’m stubborn too. So forgive my persistence; my wish is for you to succeed.
George Bush One mouthed “read my lips:” about new taxes, and we all know what happened. So there’s hope! Kidding aside, I think you have an excellent site worth what you’re asking. The $64,000 question is if that’s a minority view.
Whoa! Be careful there Farago, you’re getting awful close to saying that the life or death of TTAC will be OUR fault for failing to pay for something that to-date has been free.
This sounds suspiously like GM. “It’s not our fault that we’re going broke, it’s the idiot consumers fault who don’t buy our products.”
I fully respect you and your writers right to be paid for the exceptional work that you do and its up to you to determine how to do that…but in the end, its also up to you guys to ensure that the product is attractive enough (will the current content provide that?) to sign up enough subs to make this thing viable.
That comment makes my brain hurt.
Like GM, we have a product to sell. If you don’t buy it, if it’s not good enough, we go out of business. That’s the deal. Once we set up our e-stall, our fate is in your hands. What’s wrong with that?
Like GM, we have a product to sell. If you don???t buy it, if it???s not good enough, we go out of business. That???s the deal. Once we set up our e-stall, our fate is in your hands. What???s wrong with that?
It’s wrong because it doesn’t have to be that way- not the way you imply. My guess is that it will take some time to convince enough people to subscribe, and in that time you might go out of business. I would LOVE it if the site didn’t have any ads, but like I said, I’d take ads over TTAC going under any day of the week. Support the site with ads, at least until you get enough subscribers to turn them off.
Robert, we are all trying to convince you to MAKE MONEY while TTAC gets off the ground in a big way. We care about the site enough to tell you to CHARGE MONEY and HOST ADS. For crying out loud.
Looks like the blockquote tag is having difficulties with apostrophes.
Absolutely nothing is wrong with the fact that you have a product to sell and you hope we buy it, but my view of business doesn’t make it ‘my’ fault if I don’t buy a product from one company and said company loses money/crashes.
As an entrepreneur myself (I have a small import business here in France), I don’t feel it is the clients’ fault if he/she doesn’t buy from me. It’s my fault for not having a product that matches the clients’ need – whether that be based on price, service, quality, whatever. When I’m in the market for a new car, I will consider a large variety of cars, but assuming I don’t chose a Ford or a GM (or one of their puppet brands), I will feel no guilt…
I guess what I’m getting at is it’s my (our) hard-earned cash and if you (or anyone) wants it, you/they had better have a product that commands our interest.
Obviously, I doubt any frequent user wants you to fail (well, maybe, you do have a few enemies in the world), but I guess I just got a bit riled by the fact that you’re pointing the finger at us and asking if WE want you to fail. This is not the issue for me, your rise or fall is based on the business model and the implementation that you chose. For me, it’s a question of you coming up with the “correct” plan that will allow you to stay in the black.
Gentlemen, I work for you. Can I make it any plainer than that?
I believe it is in YOUR best interest to keep TTAC’s top tier ad free. I will do whatever I can to make the free side subsidize the sub side, to subsidize the subs (keep the fee down) and assure the entire site’s financial future.
RF
Mr. Farago,
Subscription or not, TTAC should remain open to the possibility of advertising on the web site.
No one will question the integrity of the auto editorial content if there were ads from the likes of:
Burger King, Summit, eHarmony,Dell, Match.com, Mountain Dew, Gillette, Pep Boys, Marriagecounselingforguyswhospendtoomuchtimethinkingaboutcars.com, etc.
Certain advertisers who love to play to a certain demographic (college males, older males with spare time and money, males who like cars) would love to advertise on TTAC. TTAC should love them back.
I doubt car companies would want to advertise since you rip them thouroughly and often. Exxon, BP, Quaker State, etc. would be a little more of a gray area…
just my 2 cents
I love it! A gated and exclusive community to keep the phony phucks are on the outide and intregrity and no compromise prevail inside. Very cool – I’m in. Is there valet parking for my next cushy press car?
;)
I dislike the Consumer Report blog that attempts to do something similar as they spend alot of time pointing to articles that only subscribers can read. They are slowly improving and posting some interesting initial engineer impressions of vehicles.
That said, I do think you will achieve your goal of a two-tier site with this approach. How many 5$/mo subscribers do you think you’ll attract?
I’ve been reading for a year or two now, and have referred others, but I doubt I will pay.
Like others said, it’s not the quality of the articles. They’re great. But I sometimes go weeks without being here, and will feel like I’m wasting money if I’m not.
I’m not a “car enthusiast,” so maybe you don’t care about me. I’m a “business enthusiast”, so I’m interested in the editorials which present a view of the business without the rah-rah cheerleading. I particularly read the excellent GM Death Watch series (which is what brought me here in the first place). Maybe once a year I could see myself subscribing so I could suck down the past year’s worth of GMDW, but the best thing about the articles is their timeliness.
(Oh, and I really hate the pop-ups when someone clicks on a picture on the main page. I want to be taken to the article, not witness the latest Javascript kwel-ness that locks up my browser for 5 seconds while I search for the ‘close’ button. In an otherwise uncluttered design, this really sucks from a usability point-of-view.)
@nonce
Why are you clicking the pic? There’s an obvious “more of this article” link.
Because I’m treating this like 99% of other websites out there that let you click on the picture attached to an article to jump to that article.
This is fundamental website usability. Don’t make a new paradigm for your users to use. Especially if you are trying to get new users to your site.
Ensure TTAC Lite has all that consumer practical stuff, but you must include a weekly full editorial. It was your deft editorials that brought me here over a year ago and the reason I am still here. It will be the only way to bring new people over into the gated community.
Keep the full spectrum of reviews, rants and editorials available to subscribers. Give me a yearly subscription discounted rate and I’m in.
The new site is very clean and uncluttered. However, I don’t think your subscription base will be enough for you to support your site. You should look at advertising to supplement your subscription revenue. However keep it minimal, unobtrusive and non-car related and you’re okay.
Your readership is an articulate, well travelled and knowledgable bunch. By allowing them to interact (as subscribers) now with comments and with future interfaces is of great interest to me personally. To discuss and debate issues with like-minded pistonheads is a big attraction to me to become a member of the TTAC club.
One more thing, you already publish full disclosure on the source of reviewed cars or other issues of conflict of interest. You could similarly do the same with advertisers, though it shouldn’t be an issue if you have non-auto related sponsors.
My 2 cents…
DaveClar, while magazines like R&T only charge $15 a year for their rag sounds like a deal compared to $5 per month, it seems over 50% of the pages are advertising. While I feel that $5 per month is a little high, I am working my mind around it knowing that the money will go to the writers. Since the site does not have advertising, they are unable to subsidize the subscription service.
Robert Farago, you asked earlier how you could increase traffic. Here is my suggestion: You and some of your writers need to go forth out on the Internet and hit the major automobile enthusiast communities. Speak to the site owners/operators/managers/whatever. Try to post regularly and drop links to your articles in your post. First thing would be to introduce yourself and your site.
Here are a few major sites to start: NASIOC (North American Subaru Impreza Owners Club – HUGE), Audiworld.com, VW Vortex, ad naseum.
I do have a word of warning though. Please listen. Many car enthusiasts out there are already predjudiced against you for a damning article written by Bob Elton (if you don’t know what I am talking about, think manuals versus automatic transmissions). I know that many posters on NASIOC refer to you as a crack pot. You do have a reputation out there…..for better or worse.
I echo a few of the other commenters on the negative side of subscriptions. While the TTAC writing is excellent, there’s just too much content out there that is “free” by being advertising-supported. How many of your 20k unique visitors will subscribe, and then more importantly, re-up in the future?
The idea of some kind of technical content is intriguing. The only non-advertiser-supported periodicals I’ve paid for in the past are Consumer Reports and Powerboat Reports, but solely for their unbiased tests and technical analyses, not for opinion/editorials.
I had a similar thought to poster stanshih who suggests accepting ads from non-automotive companies. Maybe gather demographic info for the premium part of the site and use that to charge more for targeted ads.
However you decide to proceed, best of luck.
You speak of branding quite a bit, and I don’t believe that having a pay site is going to help build/strengthen the TTAC brand further. TTAC’s brand core strength is its authenticity – its dogged position/views, its hardcore attitude and commitment in delivering the truth sans the PC.
I understand your business position/concern in regards to having to generate monies however; I don’t understand your aversion in having to accept advertising. There are many non-auto companies out there that would be very interested in connecting with TTAC’s demographic, and the 8k reduction in traffic perhaps is a signal to you to reconsider your business plan. Yes, I understand that much of this reduction was based on the occurrences you’ve mentioned however; I’m willing to bet that this trend would continue to take further hold once word spreads amongst your contemporaries, and then throughout the auto industry professionals and enthusiasts.
Perhaps, those readers that find it in their hearts to pay for this site can pledge an individual donation to TTAC instead – while the rest can choose to wax on poetically about TTAC’s greatness and help increase TTAC’s click rate higher still.
Your brand is only as strong as your authenticity, of which you have built considerable good will however, as soon as TTAC becomes a pay site, you run the risk of loosing visitors and diminishing TTAC’s unique dynamic.
If you want to make this your living – you need this site to remain free. You can then use this site to brand yourself and the writers as THE voice in all things cars. Get yourself paid and out there in the automotive community (a la Delorenzo from Autoextremist.com) by providing your insights in the way only TTAC can – unvarnished, poignant, and truthfully.
Of course, you can choose to do whatever you want but, I suggest you follow your own advice that you subscribe to GM, and don’t rely too heavily on the bean counter POV. In order to break through all the clutter in the cyber universe, a strong authentic speaking voice is the weapon of choice, and having readers to pay to hear this voice may blunt TTAC’s considerable momentum.
At the end of the day, it’s your reputation and your dedicated TTAC followers that are going to put money in your pocket. TTAC’s authenticity makes for a compelling reason to take you and your readers seriously. All it takes is a command from you and your thousands of dedicated TTAC readers will follow suit and rally behind you and the cause. Now, that’s power, that’s influence, that’s thetruthaboutcars.
I sincerely hope this won’t be the beginning of TTAC’s own Deathwatch. And in regards to not being able to pay Yates to retain him – well, I bet there are many high caliber Yates-like auto writers amongst your readership that would write for free. I’m one of them – all you need to do is ask.
Farago
You have a bizare way of doing market research: “I’m thinking about doing paid subscriptions. What do you think?” “no thanks” “OK, I won’t do it”…”I’m still thinking about it, and here are a hundred reasons why I’m right and you’re wrong”
The internet is full of opinions – everyone’s got one. Maybe not all as well written, but they’ve got them nonetheless. And they’re all free. When you start asking money for them, you invite comparisons with the print titles, and then you’ll lose. Print maybe dead in many eyes, but it offers a level of detail and engagement no website can match. It carries 500 years of familiarity with it. And you can take it to the bathroom.
Your long diatribe on why we should all pony up sounds like you’re trying to convince yourself as well as your readers. But to then say that if we don’t cough up, it’ll fail. Well that’s just bullying.
I’m sure some will pay, probably not many more than those who’ve said so in these replies. Then I fear you’ll shut the gates on your tiny gated community (a very telling metaphor BTW) and come out screaming a few months later.
Yours is a simple problem, solved by the re-arrangement of the few key components. You’ll find the answer when you start looking at all the pieces.
I wish you the best of luck.
Tim…
While the printing press was a great step forward in communication and distribution of information… I can still read TTAC while on the shytter thanks to the advent of Wireless LAN. Actually with certain electronics I can read it anywhere whenever… like green eggs and ham.
To Mr. Farago:
I’ve been a reader of TTAC for a little over a year and its one of my websites. I got into it, however, by being referred to a refreshing editorial from jalopnik. I can’t imagine having become a TTAC reader if it weren’t for your editorials. I don’t read autoextremist since I got tired of the model of reading a rant for the one week its up and then being asked to pay to read the archives when I hadn’t read enough to know if I wanted to subscribe.
If I were you, I’d go with the oposite model: paying members get access to new material as its posted. Non-paying members get access to material a few days later. Podcasts are available to everyone as soon as they are posted and serve to draw new readers in by having it on itunes and whatever other services people use to find new podcasts.
I, for one, would pay 5 bucks a month for TTAC even if all it bought me was a one week lead time over the non-payers on the site.
“and its one of my websites” should obviously read “and its one of my favorite websites”.
I hope comments editing is in the queue for site improvements?
Rishi
You can edit it yourself with a button right under your name “Edit this.” And one more edit for you: “its” should be “it’s”
Robert, everybody – if you would like to see a site which is partially “open access” and partially “premium access” go to http://www.evworld.com. I’ve read that site for some while and in fact, have even written a couple of articles for it last year (and I’m pretty sure I could write for them some more but life is busy!) If anyone cares to read my six articles (now archived and no longer with comments from readers attached), you can link here.
http://www.evworld.com/blogs/index.cfm?page=blogentry&authorid=54&blogid=100&archive=1
One of the articles will pop up. You can click on the others at the bottom right.
I personally would not be offended by NON-AUTOMOTIVE advertisements on TTAC, in fact, I regard it as quite the norm. Perhaps try a few ads (NOT pop-ups) and do a “premium access” situation for certain articles.
Just a thought.
I also want TTAC to survive, as I enjoy it a lot and find the bloggers here to be more serious, more intelligent and less angry and stupid than on a certain autoblog site.
It’s very easy to envision carefully restricted ads by size and number placed in either of your wide margins. You might even require muted color of the “sponsor” content (your aversion to “advertising” is noted) to minimize the visual jarring of some sites. It really is your best course, I believe, to accept sponsorship. Just get the “Borg” idea out of your head: you do NOT have to be assimilated or compromised from acceptance of this potentially high revenue stream.
Our participation here is a vote that we ALL want you to succeed. Hell, I might even haul out one of my published articles on things automotive. My musings don’t include inventing “flying vagina” to describe a particular car, but I DID see my first one yesterday, and it made me smile.
RF-
Stick. To. Your. Guns.
An uncompromising attitude is required for a visionary to become successful. If you give in to that and sell out on your vision, you’ll question yourself forever. You don’t need to do that, there are plenty of others here to question you for you, as we can all plainly see. I’m sure Henry Ford had some voice in his ear telling him *it* would never work and he needed to follow something more *tried and true.* We know how well that turned out (at least in the first 50 years). In a closer example, I know Google was told text-only advertisements would not give them a successful (profitable) business model. Now they’re shaking Micro$oft’s money tree. “Tried and true” is so successful because people don’t have the balls to think outside the box. It’s like the word “tradition.” When tradition is the first word out of their mouth when they’re asked why, that means there is no other good reason to keep doing it.
RF-
Whatever happens, I’m in. My automotive addiction leaves me no choice.
I do like the idea of free content to attract new subscribers. I don’t know if you’re familiar with the Rivals.com network, but their business plan seems to be working quite well: enough free content that it’s worth it to still frequent the site, but enough paid content to leave the free users always wanting more.
i Love this website the only problem is im only a kid (sucks huh?) so i wouldnt have a way to pay for the site. so if you did make it a subscribe site i wouldnt be able to read anything because comparing cars for buyers obvioulsy wouldnt help me much. i dont think the free preview would really bring many people to pay and become a member except for the people that are aleady members.It might be a good idea to just give past members free memberships
For what it’s worth, I’m the “crackpot”, Farago is just the enabler.
Greetings Robert,
I’ve just joined your site today in order to add my comments. After listening to you for several months on iTunes I wondered why I wasn’t receiving any new downloads recently. So I decided to find your site and here I am. Needless to say, now I understand why no downloads.
That said I’d like to offer you some possible suggestions. Subscription fees as several have commented, may not be your salvation. With rare exception, I believe people have become too accustomed to receiving freebies on the net for so long they are loath to spend money accessing content long term regardless of quality. I am certain a percentage of core subs may go for it but eventually will trickle off as they discover the “next new thing” or become complacent and decide their money is best spent elsewhere (mocha-frothy cappuccinos)?
As mentioned, I’ve listened to you for months and with rare exception think you reviews and commentaries are outstanding! Since I only know of you from your downloads I feel a much stronger connection and therefore would be more willing to pay a “download fee” rather than a site sub fee.
If you think about it, surfing and posting is fun but is also time consuming and not always convenient (tough to drive, text, shift and talk at the same time (well least for me anyway). But a captive commuter listening to you on their iPod would be far more inclined to pay compared with someone who has ample time to surf the net for similar. Whenever I walk the dog, wash the car, drive for job interviews, I always take my iPod and TTAC along.
Don’t under estimate people’s insatiable addiction for all things iPod, after all broadcasters are not having too much trouble selling “free” programs on iTunes. So how about this compromise, stream your programs from the site for free with one or two 10-20 second ad spots embedded and provide the same content for download via iTunes for $.99 (sans ads). Your site is essentially free of ads and you get revenue without the visual clutter
Anyway, wish you the best of luck whichever way you choose.
In 1969, the late Leon Mandel was editor of Car and Driver at a time when it had an editorial voice that was truly unique and iconoclastic. He assigned a writer to do a piece on the then new Opel station wagon; and that writer ripped the car. With words that predated the cheeky style of TTAC, the writer called the Opel wagon an “automotive enuch.”
Leon Mandel had a photographer take a photo of the car in a junk-yard obviously implying that was where it belonged. The result was that GM pulled all its advertising from every magazine title owned by Ziff-Davis, the parent company for C/D.
But C/D thrived because the magazine got the reputation it had, for editorial integrity and great wit; so circulation continued to climb and other auto and auto-related advertisers stayed with that book. And of course, finally old GM also had to relent.
It seems that same template could be applied to TTAC. In any event, if TTAC continues, I don’t expect it to change one whit, in terms of great content and cheekiness. (I think that’s a word. If not, I made one up and there it is.)
Terry:
Dictionary.com says ‘cheekiness’ is a word, defined as ‘the trait of being rude and impertinent; inclined to take liberties’.
There are no ideal solutions, but if you want to make TTAC a paid site here is what I recommend: follow the New York Times pattern.
The Times site has basically 3 levels of access:
1. Articles that are FREE and available to anyone, with NO REGISTRATION REQUIRED. Just click on a link and read.
2. Articles that are FREE and available to anyone, with FREE REGISTRATION REQUIRED. Click on a link and then enter the user’s logon and password before reading the free article.
3. “TIMES SELECT” articles which are NOT FREE and which require a SUBSCRIPTION FEE and REGISTRATION.
The advantage of this 3-tier system is that it maintains readership levels while still providing income for the site. No one level of access has to carry the whole burden.
I believe you can also benefit from some of the mis-steps the Times has made in recent years. It used to be that one always had to log-on to the Times in order to read its articles. Exceptions occured for stories of overriding national significance – such as 9/11 – when access to the paper was made available to anyone, registered or not. In any event, it was obvious that for many casual readers – and I am one – it was just too big a bother even to log on to free articles. After all, we know data mining when we see it.
However, when the Times chose to put some of its most popular columnists and features into the Times Select subscription portion of the site at least they eased up on the registration requirements for some of their free articles. Some articles became available to everyone, no registration required, and others were accessible to anyone for free, but only after entering log-on and password. This seems like a good compromise.
There is one particular feature of paid subscriptions of which you should be aware. Because many of us absolutely refuse to pay to read on-line material there is an informal system of back door access to those articles. One method is for someone to post the “subscription” articles on a blog. All we need to do then is to find the blog(s) on which the material is posted and then read it for free. It’s always fun to track down which blogs are posting the subscription articles.
You have no doubt analyzed the benefits of charging a fee for “archive” material. As you know, many newspapers charge a fee for accessing articles that are older than, say, one or two weeks old. I’m sure for many people it’s worth a buck or two to read something they missed the first time around. At least that’s my guess.
The bottom line for many readers is that we are not going to pay in order to read material on-line, no matter how good it is (and TTAC is very good, indeed.) There’s just too much free material in the world to have to shell out money to read more. If all our favorite sites were subscripton sites we’d be broke. Please don’t take offense, but as good as TTAC is, it doesn’t really matter if we read it today, next week, next year, or never!
(I still haven’t adapted to filling stations charging for “air”!)
Well, good luck. Free or subscription, TTAC is a great site.
Good guess, Mr. Bailey. I’m aware that you feel CR is above criticism. But what no one has done, including yourself, is refute the substance of my critiques. “The cars I see in my shop support CR’s ratings” doesn’t cut it. For one thing, there would have to be larger differences between cars than those implied by CR’s ratings for the great majority of these differences to be evident based on casual observation.
Your faith in CR actually suggests the need to criticize their methods: many people believe that CR already provides all of the information anyone could possibly need, and so my own research is entirely unnecessary, “the question no one has asked.”
My critiques indicate why people should be seeking better reliability information, because too many people, like yourself, are apparently unaware of CR’s weaknesses.
Now, about my involvement in TTAC’s free site. As RF says, we’re still negotiating. In fact, we’ve just barely started negotiating. I normally don’t discuss negotiations that are in progress, but this particular cat is now well out of the bag.
Many things remain unclear, at least in my mind. Even some of the few things that I thought were clear are stated differently here. So while I hope RF and I can work something out, this is not a forgone conclusion. Perhaps most critically, I am already stretched quite thin.
Dear RF,
As I’ve previously written, I am “in” for paying to get TTAC.
I believe the key to making TTAC economically viable is, as others have noted, to get as many “car nuts” to this site as possible. Yes, print has its advantages over online. I certainly wouldn’t try to read Roger Penrose’s “The Emperor’s New Mind” online.
But, TTAC articles are an appropriate length for online reading, and the lack of ads and other “dancing balony” makes reading convenient. I’ve tried to read articles at places such as C&D.com and it’s extremely annoying (multiple pages, ads loading, etc.). TTAC offers a *far* superior experience.
I think your “country club” analogy is apt, and reinforces the need to attract “golfers”. The casual golf fan will stop by, drink a beer, and move on. A golf (or Rabbit…;-D..) enthusiast will stop by, see the low greens fees, the well-maintained course, the lack of crowds, etc. and very likely will find it worth the price of admission.
Good luck
Buzz L.
Farago,
1st, I’m not sure I understand what you’re trying to do with the site. Who is your target audience, and exactly what is the product that you are trying to create? Are you trying to create a car experience where car fanatics can spend hours of the day, or are you trying to create a vaste compendium of independent car knowledge?
Honestly, I’m not trying to be a wise guy – I’m just curious.
Personally, I hit the site every morning with coffee, sometimes before and sometimes after CNN. (Do they have adds? If they do, they have faded into the background of my computer screen because I never click on them.) A few months ago, I was slightly disappointed if a review or editorial missed a day, and considered it a bonus if there were 2 in one day when I checked back during the afternoon lull.
I think this type of behavior represents a large demographic of guys (and some women) that are interested in cars and the automotive industry. When the content is great, it’s worth checking frequently for updates, but hey – I’ve got a life.
Now, there is almost – I said almost – too much content for me to digest in a busy day. If I were a true car fanatic, I could blissfully spend hours a day with the site… reading all the posts, all the commentary, and having a back and forth dialogue in the commentary blogs. So, is this the site you are trying to create?
What are the numbers for Road and Track circulation excluding corporate? I imagine that anyone subscribing to a car mag like this would be willing to pony up $5 a month for daily original and independent content, but beyond that I think you may have a hard time. Most people that are thinking about buying a new car and are looking for a few reviews are probably just going to hit Edmonds, possibly Consumer Reports, and trust their own test-drive. As you yourself have said, most drivers in the US simply want a car that will comfortably get them from A to B and will be almost no hassle to own e.g. a Toyota Camry. If this is true, then most of these people are outside of your target audience, and you can forget about them paying for content. Consider the theme you have reiterated over and over – trying to be all things to all people leads only to mediocrity. Do you want a mediocre site with mass visitation, or do you want to be the Porsche of contemporary automotive journalism?
2nd, it seems that if you want to get people to buy in, you need to give them a really good taste of the possibilities. I think access to a limited number of reviews and editorials would be perfect. For real enticement, you need to open the gates just enough to list all the cars that have reviews. Likewise, the title and the first paragraph of each editorial would make a great incentive for people to read on and go through the hassle of subscribing. Your problem, as I see it, is that the editorials (and to a lesser extent the reviews) are dated – you need to give a revolving and complete taste of stuff that’s current. My suggestion is to go an intermediate route: the complete editorial of the day is free for everyone, and the complete reviews of the last week are also free. I think this would be enough to bring people to the site on a daily basis, and might induce them to cough up the dough for the reviews and stuff on the days they miss, are busy, on vacation, whatever.
When you’re ready to start charging, I’m willing to give you $5 a month.
wstansfi
Play your part well, there all the honor lies.
1. Keep writing, people will come. Subscription in a strict no. Look at the dubious popularity of the condemned (edmunds). It works because it is free.
2. I wouldnt mind advertisments at all, if it keeps paying for you website.
3. As someone upstairs pointed out, you need a vision for the website, rest will follow.
Robert,
As much as I understand and appreciate your desire to move TTAC to a money generating proposition without relying on advert, I believe you will drive readers away if you charge a fee. Don’t get me wrong, I think you do an incredible and unique job and you deserve money for you effort. However, there are just too many other auto news/editorial options out there that are available to me free of charge. I wish I could tell you that I will pony up the $5/month but realistically, I doubt I will.
Good luck with whatever you decide to do.
Nicolas
Robert,
Since I found TTAC a few months ago, I’ve been a religious reader and have brought many friends to the site who are now also regular readers. The reviews and editorials are both honest and insightful.
I subscribe to many of the major automotive magazines and have done so for most of my life. In addition, I’m a regular reader of Autoblog which is fantastic for daily industry news. I have no problem spending $10/yr (thats the discounted price I usually can get) for the magazine subscriptions because I get many hours of reading entertainment from them.
I would definitely be interested in becoming a subscribing member to TTAC and the idea of a smaller community of true auto enthusiasts is definitely exciting. However, $5/mo, or $60/yr, I think is on the expensive side. I think something like $20/yr would be more inline with what I’d want to pay. Moreover, I can’t imagine most of the friends that I’ve referred to TTAC would pay $5/mo either. They also like reading about cars but they aren’t as fanatical as I am.
You are making this too complicated. All of you are making this too complicated. Just offer content a la carte, by author, by series, by day, by week, and by month and watch where the money comes from. Start with low prices and raise the prices of those payment types which appear to be under valued based on demand. Don’t sit around and try to guess what type of pricing plan will make TTAC content most valueable. Offer all the pricing plans and the efficient consumer market will tell you which one has the most value. For God sakes, stop giving it away!!!
Consumer Reports favors the annual subscription, but why limit yourself to accepting money from people who like the annual pricing plan? Accept all money, at all times, even donations. That’s my simple approach.
I think a Cafe Press site is in order to provide some sort of schwag. Of course, you could sell bumper stickers, even though no self or auto-respecting TTAC reader would sully their auto with such junk…but I’d gladly stick that on a folder. Hell, I’d even have a logo design contest, and stick up a few t-shirts (and offer damn big sizes. I’m not that big, but a 2x sometimes doesn’t cut it…). I’d proudly wear a TTAC shirt…or throw a TTAC dark grey vinyl logo on my TSX’s back window…
How about a two line TTAC bumper sticker? (Everything centered, of course)
Pissing off the auto industry one manufacturer at a time
https://www.thetruthaboutcars.com
I’ve got another idea…how about some reader-submitted content that’s exclusive to subscribers? Also, I’ve been wondering where you get the photos that are used at the top of the pages…and I’m thinking that many a TTAC reader is proud of their vehicle, and some of us are photographers (me! me! me!)…perhaps we can submit pics of our autos to be used as page headers? I’m not suggesting just any ol’ pic, I’m talking art-worthy shots…thoughts?
As for the bumper sticker, I’d rather see this…
At least the front end doesn’t look like a flying vagina…
https://www.thetruthaboutcars.com
this is mind-boggling! people actually WANT ads! what i also see is people don’t want change… no surprise there. my vote’s for progress.
Accepting advertising doesn’t automatically make you a whore,
anymore than not accepting it makes you a Pulitzer Prize nominee.
This whole Consumer Reports ish sense of self rightousness gets tiresome.
The site is great fun, but sixty bucks a year is enthusiastic pricing akin to the Mulroneys on those extra-special anniversary edition Saab convertibles.
How many mistakes have we all made that cost more than $60 per year? What is it worth to have entertaining and enlightening content that help to avoid those mistakes? TTAC has done that for me since I stumbled across the site several years ago (I no longer remember the cross-reference that first brought me here, but I am thankful for it nonetheless). The comment above about the tripartite New York Times page is perhaps most apt — some just want to browse; some only want to read; and some want to learn or interact. That’s a good model for TTAC to embrace. Give the readers a choice, and they will come for what they want. After all, if unique and demonstrably reliable content isn’t the lure here, then what is?
Man, that’s a LOT to think about. And I want you to know that I have read each and every post and considered it carefully. I go back to these comments every day, to try to refine my plans.
This is my life, and I want to get it right. While I can’t please everyone, I can learn from every one of you. And I have. I understand your fears and concerns about this site. Rest assured we share a similar goal: to tell it like it is.
If we can do that AND make money, it’ll be a double score. I will let you know of any major moves before they’re made.
Right now, I’m regrouping for the difficult days ahead, and enjoying writing and editing new material. Don’t forget: we’re always looking for new talent. Judging from these comments, there’s plenty of that that remains to be tapped.
I like the site, particularly for the industry-side analysis (GM Death Watch, etc.) that you don't find too many other places on the internet. Car Reviews are fine and entertaining, but I must confess, I will not pay for TTAC. My fear is that, sadly, TTAC will see that I am not alone. People may pony up for a month or a year, but not for the long haul. If TTAC wants to survive long term, go with advertising. I know, I know–I've read your lips (metaphorically speaking, of course) and you won't change, which is a pity. Sayonara, TTAC, it was nice knowing you. Without ad-generated revenue, I just don't see this being a long-term, successful venture. One other thing. I like ads, and particularly, automotive ads. Take the automakers' money and run. If they try to give you BS, well, just move on and don't take money from BMW or whoever, and raise a friggin' stink about it on your website. I don't see that taking money in the form of advertisement necesarily makes you a company whore. They know what they are getting with you, and they are willing to pony up cash to a man or woman who tells it like it is about their crappy cars, fine. Take the money and run. Ads for cheap vodka, internet phone services, or online dating–nuh uh. Clever ads for automotive products–yeah man, I'll be interested in seeing some of that. Biting critique and ad-generated revenue are not mutually exclusive. For what it's worth . . .
Gentlemen, I will not pay for any website that does not provide nudity.
That being said, I do not want to see RF naked. Something better will have to be devised. Please no comments about my momma.
But I digress…
I truly wish TTAC well with the new direction RF is taking. I do enjoy the website and have killed countless hours in airports and meetings, catching up on the GM Deathwatch and car reviews. It’s good stuff.
The only way to know if the endeavor will work, is to try. And for that, I give a hearty thumbs up. If the experiment doesn’t work? So what. You come back and try something else. If a pay site is something that must be tried, than it must be tried. No apologies needed.
And should you be forced to rethink, you’ll no doubt be smarter from the experience.
Godspeed.
I won’t pay to view any website. If you charge, I won’t visit. Which would be a shame, because this is one of the best car sites out there.
If you want to raise money, then advertising is the way. Subscribe and you will loose many visitors.