Making a Buck Online - Without Ads

A New York Times article hosted by C|Net looks at the unique position of the Consumer Reports website; they're one of the few online resources that gets by completely on subscription fees. They have no ads. One key seems to be valuing their online readers as much as their print readers - and charging both the same amount. "The New York Times and the Los Angeles Times tried charging for some online content, then abandoned the practice. For a decade, however, Consumer Reports has charged Internet readers the same price as print subscribers, currently $26 a year (or $5.99 for a month's online access or $45 a year to get the magazine both in print and on the Web). While the rest of the industry sees print readers as more valuable--because advertisers do--Consumer Reports actually makes more money from readers on its Web site, because it avoids printing, trucking, and mailing costs."

Comments

Reputation counts too

[Titoxd]

And Consumer Reports also has a reputation of not screwing people on both ends, so its clients are more than willing to pay for the content, be it in print or online. It just shows you the power that good ethics can have.

Re:Reputation counts too

[jotok]

Oh, it's not ONLY their ethics. The information they provide is truthful and valuable. People will pay for "data."

News articles, on the other hand, are essentially stories. I like to read them, but I read them with my morning coffee on the couch. Newspapers nowadays have lost their reputation for relevance and timeliness (typically by chasing ad revenue with sensationalist stories rather than by doing real investigative journalism) and so while they are interesting and amusing, they are not worth paying for.

Subscription journals, on the other hand, I will still pay for, just like I would pay for Consumer Reports.

Re:Reputation counts too

[Titoxd]

Aye. Moreover, Consumer Reports is in an enviable position, as their comparisons allow people to save money, be it by getting a cheaper product, or by not spending on an overpriced piece of junk. As a result of these long-term savings, the consumer sees that CR provides value to him or her, and any company that has a product that is perceived as valuable has a captive market. I know I would think, "If this magazine can save me money any time, it might be worth the purchase price."

Re:Reputation counts too

[Fozzyuw]

The information they provide is truthful and valuable. People will pay for "data."

Exactly. I signed up for CR online when I was looking to buy a new cars in 2006 (and still had it when I bought another in 2007). To find the right car for me I spent the $30 to help read up on the cars I was interested in. It helped. I was able to read up on the past history of the cars, like the Toyota Corolla, and find it had a long history of excellent reviews. I was also able to knock a few cars off my list, like the Chevy Aveo, which had a recall in 2006/7 (I forget what year). Despite both cars having similar gas milage, the Aveo was a much smaller car (something my fiancee, who's French, felt more comfortable with given her European cars) with not as good reviews. In America, given the average size of a car is much larger, I felt safer with her having a slightly bigger car and she's adjusted to the size difference, given that roads here are also much larger.

That small amount of money I wrote off as part of the cost of a proper new-car purchase. And what's $45 when you're spending $15,000? However, I have no reason to continue until there's some other big name purchase I want to do so I canceled. I'll pick up their magazine at the gym when I see one laying around. I also found it more difficult than expected to cancel my account with CR.

Cheers,
Fozzy

Consumer reports MUST be standalone

[LiquidCoooled]

Of all the websites, consumer reports (and in the UK; Which) must be seen as totally seperate from the products they are reviewing.
How good would it be if this edition of Consumer Reports (and its special report on Car safety) was brought to you in association with Ford?

Content helps too

[The_Fire_Horse]

and once the reputation is established, if the content is good then I will pay for it no matter what format it comes in (and the web is certainly the easiest)

Target group for review

[Per Abrahamsen]

> First, what does "more advanced tasks" actually mean? I could use an EEE PC for programming, ssh
> access, and, I'm sure, many other things that this reviewer has never heard of.

And neither has the intended target audience for the review (or for the EEE PC).

> I'm not claiming the situation is good for Linux gaming. But to claim there are no sophisticated
> games for it, even if we're all willing to ignore Wine/Cedega, is factually untrue. By "factually
> untrue", I mean it's in the realm of 2+2=5. Even for very large values of 2, that statement is
> wrong, and always will be.

It refers to the kind of games the self-declared gamers want to use a box for, rather than the kind of games the intended audience is interested in (flash games, solitaire).

The statement is factually untrue in the sense that "the world is round" is a factually untrue statement in the context of people who believe in a flat Earth (since, to the nerd, only a mathematically perfect sphere would qualify as "round").

Congratulation, you have discovered that consumer report is not written for nerds with autistic tendencies.

> this whole Slashdot article is about them making a buck online, so are they even nonprofit?

Yes, non-profit is a legal term that doesn't involve giving away stuff for free.

And "expert" can also refer to the ability to explain complicated stuff in terms ordinary people can understand.

Re:I thought so...

[Joe Jay Bee]

So, wait, they're bad because they recommend a product you don't like for an audience you don't identify with, and don't recommend your OS of choice.

Just because you think Linux/Mac should be mentioned in glowing praise next to every mention of Vista doesn't make it so. The point of Consumer Reports is to review things, not advertise the competitors to those things.

Re:I thought so...

[PopeRatzo]

Some people independently like and recommend Windows.

Yes, but not Vista. The one decent point the GP makes is that if a "pro-consumer" organization recommends Vista, it either means they have not done their homework or they are getting a little taste from Microsoft. I think Consumer Reports is a useful magazine, but they occasionally get a little bit sloppy. If they in fact recommended Vista (and I have not verified that with my own eyes) then this is such a case of them being sloppy.

To be fair, I rarely use Consumer Reports for anything having to do with computers or software, because I can get more reliable expert opinions elsewhere.

NOTE: I'm offering this comment based upon my personal experience with Vista (I eventually went back to XP) and my interactions with hundreds of computer professionals whose opinions I have come to trust. I do not hate Microsoft. I might hate Steve Ballmer, but mostly because he is a sweaty friggin' maniac. I do love how he dances to "Safety Dance" though.

Re:I thought so...

[Mongoose Disciple]

I'm a computer professional, and my Vista box has been my most trouble-free Windows machine yet. To read Slashdot I would've thought it was the OS equivalent of a burning paper bag full of dog crap on my doorstep, but surprisingly my experience with it's been great.

Granted, I waited until 6 months or so after the launch to get it.

I don't see a compelling reason for most people to move to Vista, but I haven't experienced a compellign reason not to yet either.