I’ve looked at this TTAC paid subscription thing seven ways to Sunday. After more than four months, I still can't make it work. According to the vast majority of web-savvy TTAC’ers, this is no bad thing. Your advice has been steadfast: accept advertising. So when Federated Media Publishing offered to run TTAC’s advertising business for 40% of gross, I looked into it. My contact, Bill Brazell, assured me that TTAC’s editorial independence would be sacrosanct. Yeah, right. And then I read the fine print…
2.2 Review of Potential Advertisements. When FMP locates a potential buyer for all or part of an Available Advertising Space subject to an Availability Notice, FMP will send Author a notice (an “Advertising Review Notice”) to the email address specified on the Author Information Sheet. Each Advertising Review Notice will identify the buyer, the nature of advertisement the buyer wishes to place, the time period(s) during which the advertisement would run, and the price the buyer has offered to pay for the advertisement. Author will promptly respond to each Advertising Review Notice received and will indicate to FMP whether or not Author approves the proposed advertising described therein.
Advertising sucks. But it’s become clear that I can’t “gate” the TTAC community (sub it up) without losing the majority of current readers and, far worse, the possibility of new ones. Truth be told, if Federated Media Publishing hadn’t contacted me, that’s the way I would have gone, come Hell or lost visitors. But I don’t have the energy or financial resources to make it work, and I really do believe that the Fed’s different from the packs of jackals who’ve attempted to hijack TTAC in the past. To wit, another part of the contract gives me the right to restrict certain types of advertising, advertising categories and named advertisers. And then there's Federated Media Publishing’s “Author Mores:"
Authors who join the FM network of sites hold these values in common:
– Voice and Point of View: Strong voices and intelligent points of view drive robust conversations.
– Accuracy: Some FM sites are journalistic in nature; others are not. Regardless, FM sites strive for accuracy regarding items we post as facts.
– Community: Weblogs are conversations, not lectures. The community that gathers around each site is the essence of its value, and we treat that community accordingly. We listen and respond to feedback, and incorporate it into the way we manage our sites.
– Responsibility: We take our role in the community we serve seriously, and feel responsible for our own words. When we make mistakes, we correct them. We do not seek to use our sites maliciously.
– Transparency: We err on the side of disclosure to our readers. If we have an interest in something we’re writing about, we disclose that interest. We are as transparent as we can be about our site’s statistics, practices and policies.
Bottom line: TTAC needs money, if only to pay our writers a fee [more] commensurate with their time and talent. So I’ve decided to bite the bullet and sign-on with the Fed. I formally declare right here that I will never let advertising compromise TTAC’s editorial. At no point, now or in the future, will we pull our punches to please commercial sponsors. By now, I hope you’ll take me at my word. If not, well, by my deeds I shall be known.
OK, now, TTAC needs some help. First, we need a car booker: someone who can liaise with automotive manufacturers’ press departments to secure test vehicles for our far-flung editorial team. (I lack both the charm and the time for the gig.) The job’s best suited to a pistonhead who doesn’t have a “real job,” who doesn’t require a “real salary” or any “any” benefits. They need to be organized enough to remember who got what when, who’s getting what when (and where) and what we need to get for whom when and where. I’ll pay a stipend (for now) for each vehicle booked, plus all phone expenses. It’s an ideal job for someone who wants to get into automotive PR (baby Darth?).
We also need a racing correspondent, for NASCAR or any other major race series. There’s a lot of baseless hype and shady corporate shenanigans in mainstream motorsports, and I’d like TTAC to deal the inside dope. Obviously, the pay sucks, but the glory is infinite. If you’re interested in either position, use the contact button and email me your qualifications. Meanwhile, thanks again for your support. I promise TTAC will continue to lead the crusade for honest and passionate automotive journalism. I won’t let you down.
For what it’s worth, I think you’ve done the right thing. The community that you’ve built here would be a terrible thing to lose (should, say, a good portion of the current readers not opt-into a paid option). I’m sure this was a tough decision… rest assured that an average reader out there (me) has absolutely no doubt your editorial integrity remains intact. Oh, and it would be great if you’d make it easy/possible for loyal readers to make donations to the cause… thanks
Agree wholeheartedly with your decision Mr. Farago. We all wish you the best of luck, and will stick around regardless.
Relevant, non-intrusive ads are NOT a bad thing. Exactly what kind of ads would you accept Mr. Farago?
I am glad that you have found a model that will allow the majority of your readers to remain. I wish you the best of luck, but the first time I see an add for “The Turbonator” I am outta here.
While I have been reading TTAC ever since I saw a link from Jalopnik, I just got around to registering for the site.
As far as advertising, as long as there are no pop-ups on TTAC, I really can’t fault anyone for going over to the “dark side”. The bane of web advertising primarily lies in obnoxious deceptive advertising, in some that try to trick poor PC users into clicking on something they should not. As a bigger computer geek than car buff (that says something, doesn’t it?) I look at the web issues quite a bit. From what I have read, I doubt that this media company will engage in such practices. Federated Media looks (so far as I can see so far) as a stand up company.
If these advertisements are what it takes the keep TTAC free, I welcome them. That statement makes two assumptions:
1. TTAC will not have pop-ups or deceptive ads.
2. TTAC’s journalistic integrity will not be compremised.
From what Robert Farago is saying, I beleive that the second statement will apply. So as long as this site keeps the simple and direct layout, adding a few web advertisement panels is a fair trade for this community remaining free.
-Eitan
No pop-ups.
It’s better to have content with some advertising than no advertising and no content. I have full faith that TTAC will maintain its high standards. You can/will modify TTAC as time goes on, This is Plan B, C and D give you additional options. Thanks for the great start on a fun road-trip.
Congratulations on finding a way that, while I’m sure it feels a bit like compromise, best serves the conflicting wants of both the readers and the site. I’m sure you’ve lost some sleep over this in the last few months.
Robert,
Of course this was your only viable path. You and your writers deserve to get paid, and it’s high time. The subscription model is a nice theory, but abstractions don’t pay the bills.
A 40% commission seems high in this world of eBusiness. Shoot, car salespeople get only 20% and they have to wear, um, a tie.
I’d still pay for ad free pages. How does giving an ad free upgrade option sound?
Ads or not, this will still be the best auto site on the web.
I was thinking it would be a good idea to set up PayPal account for donations. You could just have a little button up at the top of the page near all the account settings…or something.
a very very sensible decision
I’ve been reading TTAC for about a year or so now and I have to say that I was on the fence where paying for content was concerned. Not that the content wasn’t worth paying for, but there are always other budgetary priorities to consider. Deciding to publish advertising on the site is a good idea. So long as you remain dedicated to the cause, whoever or whatever is advertising on the site will be irrelevant. Keep up the good work and I look forward to continuing my patronage of TTAC.
Good decision, decider. I’d decided that your subscriber base was going to be the same 15 to 30 people you see on this “forum,” and that would be about it.
Workin’ on the plug-in hybrids piece.
I think this is a great way to go. And what is the worst that could happen? GM will buy all the ad space to write rebuttals. That means they will be paying you to tell The Truth About Cars.
But I think advertiser of insurance, and automotive accessories (GPS, CD players, etc…) would find your readers perfect potential customers.
As someone who’s been in the online advertising world for 7 years, I agree with the idea that outside ads are the way to go… especially with the backlash from a paid sub model. As long as the editors continue to act as though their perspective is the only true perspective (and that there are no ads) the site will be exactly the way we like it (and Robert and the crew will be able to buy a few more meals for themselves). It’ll be interesting to see how relevant the ads are and if any of us actually click on them (God forbid).
Thanks for the reassurance that there will be no pop-ups. I know we all hate them.
I have one further idea about the subscription model. To illustrate this, I suggest a visit to http://slashdot.org. Slashdot is a tech / news / nerd site, and they have a free and subscription base. Their subscription does a few things, most notably, they have no ads for subscribers for a certain number of page views based on the subscription. While I know that I would not subscribe in order not to see advertisements, I know that there are people out there who hate advertisements so much that giving them the option to skip ads for a fee may be a good thing.
As for content, putting content behind a paid barrier would cut traffic, however, as can be seen from Slashdot, it is possible to have a subscription basis without reducing available content.
One more thing, I like the new layout of TTAC. I do believe it would be easily possible to insert banners without changing the site’s overall layout. The left plane leaves room for a vertical banner while someone is reading a review or editorial, and a horizontal ad could easily and unobtrusively fit above an article. That would place two distinct advertisements per Paige view, and would most likely not get in the way of our TTAC reading pleasure.
Have you looked at Slashdot.org’s model?
They have a subscription service and they do ads. I’m not sure how much they get from either, but I remember when they started taking subscribers. (They were already an ad site).
You might want to contact them to see exactly how it is set up, but from my understanding the subscribers get to stories before the non-subscribers, but all become available eventually. However, this may only work for Slashdot because they drive such heavy user traffic to the destination links that they 404 bunches of sites. I havent, as a user, noticed any difference in their content since the switch.(They do have stories that are thinly veiled ads, however)
What someone really needs to come up with is a way to get a bunch of blogs to join a metablog where users can subscribe to the metablog for, say 10 bucks a month, and get access to say, 5-10 blogs through that subscription. I’m not a huge car-nut, more of an occasional enthusiast, so I personally would have a hard time justifying more than 1-2 dollars a month for this site. I am, however, a big enough fan of it that I would gladly pay 20 bucks a year. I have no idea what the profit margin would be at that price-point (or if there was even one), but if you could make that price-range work, then I’d easily sign up. I’d even sign up if I could only access the web-page once a day. (Comments aren’t the reason I started visiting the site, but they are a welcome addition).
That would address one of my main problems with subscribing to sites. I recognize that an active blog contains much more content than a magazine, but it is so easy to disseminate and it is so easy to compete against that I have a hard time paying a subscription when the net has proven that voids created when content gets privatized are rapidly filled.
FWIW, I subscribe to only 2 web sites at this time. ConsumerReports.org and TotalMoneyMakeover.com. The former I subscribed to because it is a better deal than the magazine and I can readily access it. The later I subscribed to because they offered physical content (Book and some CDs was the promo when I signed on), an active helpful online community, and commercial-free podcasts. At one time, I subscribed to Mandrake Online to help support the Linux distribution that I was using.
Heh, Etian, you beat me to the punch. IT’s hard to type all that with a 4 month old on your lap…
Makes good business sense to accept advertising – doesn’t mean you have to compromise editorial integrity.
I don’t understand the need for a booking agent though. Up here in the great, white north we have the Auto Journalists Assocication of Canada (AJAC). Membership helps puts you on manufacturer’s radar, however it’s still up to the journalist to send out sample packages to press fleet reps for approval and book their own vehicles. For those in more remote areas, it does mean a lot of driving for vehicle pickup.
Any ad featuring totally essential motoring gadgets demostrated by a swimsuit clad girl is fine with me…
This is a very dark day in the history of TTAC.
Everyone speaks of editorial independence, but what of the aesthetic value of this beautiful site ?
Methinks Johnny has offered to underwrite the operating costs…
Just don’t become a drop of content amid a sea of ads and links, pleeeeeaaasse.
Otherwise, it gets to be real hard to keep building a list of filters. ;)
–chuck
Good choice Robert – everyones needs to eat and I’m sure that you have the judgement to hold your ground on the slippery slope of conflicting interests.
However, please don’t change the easily readable format of the articles. Some sites spread content over 6 or 7 pages just so they can squeeze more ads on a page and subsequently make them unreadable. Also, please avoid the sleaze ads – I’m sure that most of your readers have no use for seedy on-line dating agnecies or irritating vibtrating banners that announce to the world that they may already be a winner.
The best advertising would be from companies that offer accessories to enhance the automotive experience. Edelbrock or K&N filters come to mind. And there’s also those ads which would relate to the “lifestyle.” For example, next to an article on Hot August Nights’ auction activity, might be an ad for the Atlantis hotel and casino in Reno, NV. (Although it is likely much too late to get a booking there for this year’s event; but there’s always next year.) Or an article on the vintage races or auction activity during the Monterey Historic Weekend could have similar ads.
What sort of advertising works for TTAC cuts both ways. Don’t be afraid to reject an advertiser – or fire one, after they’ve been tried a few times – who doesn’t seem to fit with the demographics. If some businesses find they don’t get many responses, the reason(s) should become obvious, early on. My hunch is the businesses for which TTAC will figure that out, before they even place an ad on the site, after looking it over.
Which brings to mind something: what kind of man or woman reads TTAC? Much as many of the readers of this site might disdain surveys, it seems the best way to help TTAC is to fill one out – that’s something Federated likely has in the works – to let potential advertisers know the age range, income, education, etc. etc. of TTAC readers.
I mean, if a lame site such as CarDomain.com – reportedly the “fastest growing Internet business in Washington state – can make money, surely TTAC, with the most trenchant, witty and intelligent writing about autos on the Internet, is a goldmine waiting to be explored.
Meant to write, “the businesses for which an ad on TTAC will work will figure it out….”
Works for me. 40% cut sounds a little high, but if they are providing a quality product and Farago-pleasing customer service, I’m down.
Just no ads for electric superchargers, Tornado air induction, etc. please!
Robert: “At no point, now or in the future, will we pull our punches to please commercial sponsors. By now, I hope you???ll take me at my word. ”
I’m a believer, Mr Farago! Lets go!
Had 2 comment on the title:
@RF: Biting the bullet is more prudent than biting the dust anyday
Wish GM/UAW took cues from u
Congrats.
It is very good to read that this site now has a viable way forward financially, and I appreciate that I was able to read of the trials and tribulations that led up to the final decision.
FWIW, I also agree that if it wouldn’t mess up things too much with the sponsors, allowing paid ad-free subscriptions is a good idea for the folks with the need & $$. (Can the salon.com method be replicated?)
In any event, huzzah!
As long as the articles are not molested, i’m in 100 percent.
As Ben Franklin might have said: A grand compromise, both intelligent and well reasoned-preserving the fabric of truth but leaving the canvas free for future enrichment as inspiration drives us ever forward. And then he would return to his nap.
And speaking of driving….now maybe the crew can bear down and really crank some gnarly, cracking good reading material out for the TTAC bedrock faithful, now that our steering alignment is once again laser-correct.
And let me close by saying that I just saved 300 bucks by switching to …JUST KIDDING!
C.D. Weir, that cracked me up.
I think the bottom line is that anyone that is willing to lose a newspaper publisher over comparing a grill to a flying vagina is ok in my book. I also think that we all expect said person to act with the same honesty even if there is a banner ad on the site.
I, for one, welcome our new ad-serving overlords.
I still think it looked more like a wombat than a portion of female anatomy, but hey, what do I know?
I thought it looked like a catfish.
Good job Farago, I think you made a good decision!
I’m very disappointed – but clearly also in a tiny minority.
I find it astonishing that the great majority of visitors to this site would not stump up less than $100 pa for a subscription to this excellent service.
Advertising will ruin the look of the TTAC site.
Protestations of continuing editorial independence are universal in all journalism and only to be expected – but of limited credibility for exactly that reason (i.e. “that’s what everyone says”).
You may have been left with no choice, but I’m sorry Mr Farago, no matter how sweet the praise your baby has been sold.
Ghillie – that is not the reality. Many visitors will just not pay 100 Bucks a year for a site which competes with many other open and free webpages. Not everybody is so deep into his car interest that he would pay that much money for a subscription. I think Robert has seen enough mails telling exactly this.
Good way to go, Mr. Farago. The contract also seems fair. Leaves you the discretion to accept or refuse advertising. And seeing your interest in this webpage, I have no doubt that you will accept this only on the strictest terms without compromising this site’s integrity.
ghillie – I agree with TireGuy, and also have to point out that automotive magazines sell for considerably less than $100 per annum. Without advertising subsidizing the subscription price, a TTAC subscription would be a difficult sell to the point of impossibility. Congratulations to Mr. Farago on executing on a difficult business decision, and doubly so for making what is probably the only viable one.
Funny I should see this announcement this morning. I was going to write Mr. Farago to ask if he would accept advertising from an advertiser wholly unrelated to the auto industry.
Like me.
I’m glad you are making the decision to accept advertising. Some advertisers want an audience intolerant of fluff, one that appreciates good writing.
And if you can say “no,” you can retain your independence.
Can’t wait for the rate card.
I predict, based on personal experience, that you are going to have a very hard time getting cars to road test, if the outcome is not a favourable one for the manufacturer involved. Jeremy Clarkson can do it, because European publications are nowhere near as dependent on automotive advertising as they are in North America. As for our wonderful AJAC oragnisation: read their roadtests. A more obsequious group of bottom feeders it would be very hard to find. “Hey, if you want to go on the next PR junket to St Tropez, you’d better toe the line” – and they almost all do so – with one or two outstanding exceptions who try to avoid being boot lickers, without being too obvious about it.
If it’s hard getting complimentary cars from manufacturers, does this mean we have a whole bunch of rental car reviews (uh, wait a moment – Impala, Camry, Lacrosse…) coming? Since you can rent most production cars, I don’t see this being much of a problem if advertisers are chipping in.
If TTAC ever hits the jackpot, there’s always the Consumer Reports way: buy every car you review, like this Viper coupe they recently picked up (July 7 entry):
http://discussions.consumerreports.org/n/blogs/blog.aspx?webtag=cr-autotest
“I find it astonishing that the great majority of visitors to this site would not stump up less than $100 pa for a subscription to this excellent service.”
Astonishing? Have Jeeves drive your fancy car outside your gated community some time.
Wow, somebody get me a giant kleenex…that’s the snottiest thing I’ve read in a looong time.
Blogads (www.blogads.com) is a great system and they pay well. You can have a lot of control over your advertising prices and even give away ads to other site owners in a trade so that you can get some free advertising for your site on other blogs. You should really look into it. Just don’t overprice your ads in the beginning. You can make more money by having cheaper ads because people will renew them for longer times.
BTW, they are changing the blogads system soon so that you’ll have a lot more options in the presentation.
THis may have already been mentioned, but Google Ads is an easy way to add content related ads to TTAC. THough, it might be a bit humorous to have an add for GM products right next to another Death Watch entry.
Adds are the way money is made on the internet these days. Google; advertising. MySpace; advertising. Yahoo; advertising. Many forums; advertising. And advertising isn’t a turnoff if it is done correctly. Pop-ups are obviously bad. But banner ads and side bar ads are more subtle and non-invasive.
Another hat in the ring. A few comments echoing others:
–A Salon-style ads/no ads subscription system, or some such, would be fine with me. I like options. Or perhaps just a subscription donation…sign up to give $5 a month automatically, and receive a pat on the back.
–Although ads are typically seen as a negative, I see them as a positive IF they’re ads I want to see. Good products from good companies, things I might actually want to buy and the TTAC community has genuine, positive buzz about, that sort of thing.
–Count me as another anti-snake-oil voice, please.
–Regarding aesthetics…shrug. I’ll have to see it, but as long as it doesn’t mess up viewability, I’m willing to trade. I care much less about looks than content. That is not to say I don’t value the site’s looks or think they don’t matter. I don’t know what the FMP system will require, but clever web design can make ads less ugly.
Provide your product at below-cost, and make up for it with web banners! Worked great for, uh pets.com. (Just kidding)
philbailey – point taken… there are those of us who aren’t bootlickers – just haven’t acheived “outstanding exception” yet. ~Shrug~ they still let me drive their cars.
Where the hell is St. Tropez, anyway? I usually get the north of Aurora junkets…
Mr. Farago: I’ve been reading this site for going on 6 months and have found it refreshing, brash and honest. Indeed I’ve cancelled my subscriptions with AutomobileMag & Motor Trend as a result!
Couple of points I’d like to address:
– I would not worry about the forthcoming advertising- I (and I suspect everyone else), will continue to patronize the site (and I for one will look for items to click-on and buy to support them and by extension – you).
– Site Aesthetics which someone above mentioned… yes they will suffer. But the content was always the point and if this is the best way to preserve it then ‘Viva la Advertencias!’
– Regarding conflicts of interest: your frank discussion of this decision + the overall honesty of the sites’ articles obviates any concerns I might have.
Good luck with the new model and much success!
Does this mean the Podcasts will be back on iTunes?
I found the TTAC podcast before coming to the website, (and before finding Jalopnik, different from some others above).
If you want eyeballs or ears (and your advertisers will), iTunes should help get them here.
Good luck with the new plans.
Gee – only one angry comment for calling most users of this site a bunch of cheapskates…
I lost the vote on this one by a long way but I’m still going to call it as I see it.
There are so many advertising funded motorhead websites out there and I think Mr Farago was right in fighting for something different.
Robert said: “By closing the gates (making it members only), we can maintain the sites high quality housing (our rants and reviews) while avoiding “outside”? pollution and crime (advertiser influence)”.
Well I know Mr Farago has given into the reality of most users unwillingness to subscribe, but he also said: “I would rather shut this thing down than compromise our editorial integrity”.
I think Mr Farago was right first time around. I don’t think a “free” website is free – there is always a price to be paid.
Good luck Mr Farago – I’ll still keep joining in.
Now where did I put the keys to the Ferrari…
Oh, and another thing…
PhilBailey predicted, “based on personal experience, that [TTAC will] have a very hard time getting cars to road test.” He mentions Jeremy Clarkson (Top Gear, right?) and other Europeans having no trouble obtainiing test cars, because they are not as dependent on auto ads as the U.S. mags.
Here versus there, the ad mix is different, but I wonder if culture and expectation don’t come into play as well. Example from a nearby universe: If you want an honest review on a guitar or guitar amplifier, don’t waste $15 dollars on any three U.S. guitar magazines. Spend the $15 on “Guitarist” from the U.K. (available at most Border’s), and you will actually read words critical (and sometimes praiseworthy) of sound, quality of finish, intonation, etc.
If hard-to-please consumers heed only hard-to-please journalists, makers had better hunt them where they are, not where they ain’t. Consider Buick’s offer to Sajeev & Mother, Inc., for a cross-country jaunt in the very car he savaged. (https://www.thetruthaboutcars.com/?p=1845) Someone at Buick might have done some thinking: “Can’t lose. Already did. So,…might win.”
Two of the three guitars I use in studio and on the road are not available stateside. I purchased them sight unseen based solely on “Guitarist” reviews, and I could not be more pleased.
Lesley: I before E except after C! A long way yet to go, even to Chibougamou.
I support this endeavor completely.
I think it’s the best way to go. I would have paid, I really would have, but it’s a fact of the internet that when previously free companies went for-pay, they died.
Whatever keeps this site on the web. I actually really, really need it. I don’t read anything else.
Oh yeah? Well your inverted sentence cancels out my typo, nanner, nanner.