Jump to content


Photo

Putting Autosport dot com behind a paywall


  • Please log in to reply
33 replies to this topic

#1 MikeHarte

MikeHarte
  • New Member

  • 11 posts
  • Joined: February 14

Posted 25 March 2016 - 20:03

As pointed out elsewhere, does not Autosport see the irony in placing it's article about the UK's future coverage of F1 behind a paywall itself?

 

I have followed motorsport for over 50 years, and almost religiously bought Autosport for most of that time having been introduced to it by Gregor Grant, on a visit to his son at their home. In all that time, my main interest was in F1 and so it was to follow what was happening in F1 that I purchased the magazine each week. Unfortunately, my passion for the sport has waned somewhat over the last few years, and so I stopped buying the magazine; I also stopped watching it as well.

 

Now FOM is going to allow the UK's coverage to go behind the paywall to the detriment, in my opinion, of the sport, whilst Autosport is also doing the same. In F1, the teams will surely suffer from reduced sponsorship as fewer viewers will see their names on the cars, whilst at the same time, advertisers on Autosport are having the number of viewers reduced by your use of a paywall.

 

I also cannot understand why it is that you keep changing the number of views allowed. I think that initially it was unlimited, then restricted to 25 views, then 60 views, and now reduced back 25. It can't be good for the advertisers, especially as there seems to be another website that is publishing most of your good stuff, but with totally unlimited views.



Advertisement

#2 Paul Parker

Paul Parker
  • Member

  • 2,198 posts
  • Joined: October 02

Posted 26 March 2016 - 11:35

As pointed out elsewhere, does not Autosport see the irony in placing it's article about the UK's future coverage of F1 behind a paywall itself?

 

I have followed motorsport for over 50 years, and almost religiously bought Autosport for most of that time having been introduced to it by Gregor Grant, on a visit to his son at their home. In all that time, my main interest was in F1 and so it was to follow what was happening in F1 that I purchased the magazine each week. Unfortunately, my passion for the sport has waned somewhat over the last few years, and so I stopped buying the magazine; I also stopped watching it as well.

 

Now FOM is going to allow the UK's coverage to go behind the paywall to the detriment, in my opinion, of the sport, whilst Autosport is also doing the same. In F1, the teams will surely suffer from reduced sponsorship as fewer viewers will see their names on the cars, whilst at the same time, advertisers on Autosport are having the number of viewers reduced by your use of a paywall.

 

I also cannot understand why it is that you keep changing the number of views allowed. I think that initially it was unlimited, then restricted to 25 views, then 60 views, and now reduced back 25. It can't be good for the advertisers, especially as there seems to be another website that is publishing most of your good stuff, but with totally unlimited views.

 

Agree.



#3 Nemo1965

Nemo1965
  • Member

  • 7,844 posts
  • Joined: October 12

Posted 26 March 2016 - 12:11

Agree.

 

I do not agree. For people interested in the earning-model of media, watch 'Page One, Inside The New York Times'. That movie shows what happens when you are a respected publication or website with a real staff of editors and you don't limit the number of views or free articles and have some kind of pay-wall. You would just dig your own grave. I can sum it up with one cartoon:

 

wuNI5Vf.jpg

 

OP, you BOUGHT Autosport Magazine when you were young, I assume?


Edited by Nemo1965, 26 March 2016 - 12:12.


#4 MikeHarte

MikeHarte
  • New Member

  • 11 posts
  • Joined: February 14

Posted 26 March 2016 - 12:19

I think that I bought my first copy in about 1963, aged 17.



#5 Nemo1965

Nemo1965
  • Member

  • 7,844 posts
  • Joined: October 12

Posted 26 March 2016 - 19:13

I think that I bought my first copy in about 1963, aged 17.

 

 

Well, what stops you from buying access to certain articles on Autosport? Or take a monthly subscription? I use a paypal-account (so with automatic check-in, without pulling my credit-card) to buy certain articles from Autosport and it is a cinch. I do not want to sound condescending, but isn't your indignation about the free number of articles based on the warped perception that everything on internet should be free?



#6 MikeHarte

MikeHarte
  • New Member

  • 11 posts
  • Joined: February 14

Posted 26 March 2016 - 19:38

My indignation is because it is not free; it is paid for by the advertisers. And they are being denied viewers because Autosport has decreed that certain articles have to have extra paid for them, and this is no better (or worse) than FOM deciding that they will allow future GPs to disappear behind a paywall. I might be more understanding if I had been a casual reader of Autosport, but after 50 years of paying them, I think that I deserve a little consideration. To my mind, this attitude of Autosport is no different to, let's say, a commercial TV station deciding that the viewer will in future have to pay an extra amount to watch the evening news, even though the station is receiving payment from the advertisers prior to, in the middle of and at the end of the programme.

 

If Autosport wants to continue this paywall format, it's no skin off my nose. It's just another reason for me to take even less interest in a sport that I once loved. I stopped watching F1 races because I refuse to pay (my cable companies current price is £36.35 pcm) for the "privilege" of watching what are usually predictable races, often held in countries that have no interest or real knowledge of F1. The only people being mugged by this are the advertisers who are losing viewers, both on the TV and on Autosport dot com.



#7 Nemo1965

Nemo1965
  • Member

  • 7,844 posts
  • Joined: October 12

Posted 26 March 2016 - 21:40

My indignation is because it is not free; it is paid for by the advertisers. And they are being denied viewers because Autosport has decreed that certain articles have to have extra paid for them, and this is no better (or worse) than FOM deciding that they will allow future GPs to disappear behind a paywall. I might be more understanding if I had been a casual reader of Autosport, but after 50 years of paying them, I think that I deserve a little consideration. To my mind, this attitude of Autosport is no different to, let's say, a commercial TV station deciding that the viewer will in future have to pay an extra amount to watch the evening news, even though the station is receiving payment from the advertisers prior to, in the middle of and at the end of the programme.

 

If Autosport wants to continue this paywall format, it's no skin off my nose. It's just another reason for me to take even less interest in a sport that I once loved. I stopped watching F1 races because I refuse to pay (my cable companies current price is £36.35 pcm) for the "privilege" of watching what are usually predictable races, often held in countries that have no interest or real knowledge of F1. The only people being mugged by this are the advertisers who are losing viewers, both on the TV and on Autosport dot com.

 

Yes, there was a time (early 80's, late 90's) that papers actually could have been distributed for free (were it not that would undermined their credibility). Advertisers paid HUGE prizes for advertisement-space that was supposedly read by so-and-so-many readers (which always was a scam, in my eyes). Former Dutch F1-driver Huub Rothengatter once bought a full page in De Telegraaf (the biggest Dutch daily), for 70.000 guilders (30.000 euro's) to attract sponsors for his F1-adventure. If he would have know how few people saw that ad, well...

 

The internet has blown that all up. Advertisers know almost EXACTLY now how many readers a page has, how many 'clicks' a web-page. Tariffs keep dropping lower and lower. Newspapers can only exist - barely - by having smart interaction with social-media outlets. There is not a publication in the world any more that can earn enough by ads to 'subsidize' the joys of the reader. The same applies for sites like Autosport.com.

 

You can say that you expect consideration from Autosport but how about the other way round? This site is the only, real content-delivering motorsport-site I know that has it's grounds in magazine-journalism. Why not support that by the willingness to pay a few bucks per month?



#8 Jackman

Jackman
  • Member

  • 16,179 posts
  • Joined: August 00

Posted 27 March 2016 - 00:26

My indignation is because it is not free; it is paid for by the advertisers.

Just out of interest: over those 50 years of subscribing, have you ever noticed an ad in the magazine?

#9 HP

HP
  • Member

  • 19,631 posts
  • Joined: October 99

Posted 27 March 2016 - 00:49

OP. You are comparing apples with oranges.

 

F1 has/is been watched live/race reviews, on telly globally, in many different languages. Ads have far reaching coverage. It doesn't allow to exchange views with other enthusiasts. It's purely intend to be consumed

 

Autosport is being read. The online version is available in 4 languages. It offers a free forum, allows to talk about the product itself. Ads have limited reach.

 

I subscribed to the online version as soon as it came out. I do evaluate the worth of it and so far it has had it's up and downs, but I renew every year.

 

At the same time and to me this is very important and the reason I write this post. If Autosport online has to close shop, we lose one mostly sensible voice in car and motorbike racing in general. Which in the case of F1 hands more power and control to FOM. We'd also lose a forum to talk about the sport. Do I want that? No.

 

So that is why I pay for my subscription. Freedom of choice has a price. Thus it makes it valuable and desirable to pay.

 

Also people who pay for their internet usage by metrics subscribing to Autosport will not have to pay for downloading the mostly unwanted ads, and related security issues. I'm getting bombarded everyday with ads on pages I visit, but have I clicked on one of them? A few all the years. Have I ever bought anything offered in these ads. Nope. A complete waste, but unfortunately a necessary evil. If everything would be willing to pay a few coins, Autosport could be completely add free and offered cheaper because of a higher subscription base.

 

That said, in an ideal world everything is free of charge and is still valuable and reputable. Until then I pay for my subscription as long I feel I get a fair deal.


Edited by HP, 27 March 2016 - 00:50.


#10 Marklar

Marklar
  • Member

  • 44,281 posts
  • Joined: May 15

Posted 27 March 2016 - 09:55

Funny that Dieter Rencken and Mark Hughes had the same discussion

 

https://twitter.com/...644254929797120



#11 MikeHarte

MikeHarte
  • New Member

  • 11 posts
  • Joined: February 14

Posted 27 March 2016 - 10:17

It is also being discussed elsewhere. It just seems that Autosport cannot see the irony, or is it hypocrisy, of putting a piece which I think decries the decision to put F1 TV coverage on a pay-to-view channel behind it's own paywall. I say think about the article because I cannot read it as I refuse to pay anymore money to Haymarket.



#12 ensign14

ensign14
  • Member

  • 61,763 posts
  • Joined: December 01

Posted 27 March 2016 - 10:22

It's not hypocritical for a private company that depends on payments to exist to put in place a paywall.

 

Free-to-air TV is a misnomer because we pay anyway.  We pay a licence fee, or a premium on products to pay for the advertising.  The problem with a paywall for F1 is that it is like having to pay to go into a supermarket before you buy anything.  It's something on top of what you've already paid just to access the medium. 

 

And when there are laws that protect certain events from going behind a paywall, but a Government (I use the term loosely) which is in the pocket of Mr Murdoch scraps those laws in order to make money for Mr Murdoch, then it's not surprising that people are a little peeved.



#13 MikeHarte

MikeHarte
  • New Member

  • 11 posts
  • Joined: February 14

Posted 27 March 2016 - 12:01

 

And when there are laws that protect certain events from going behind a paywall, but a Government (I use the term loosely) which is in the pocket of Mr Murdoch scraps those laws in order to make money for Mr Murdoch, then it's not surprising that people are a little peeved.

 

 

I am not aware that the list of protected sports events have been changed since the introduction of the Act in 1996 (see:  http://stakeholders.....ted_events.pdf  ).  You will note that Formula 1, not even the British Grand Prix, is on the list.


Edited by MikeHarte, 27 March 2016 - 12:01.


#14 Nemo1965

Nemo1965
  • Member

  • 7,844 posts
  • Joined: October 12

Posted 28 March 2016 - 08:56

It is also being discussed elsewhere. It just seems that Autosport cannot see the irony, or is it hypocrisy, of putting a piece which I think decries the decision to put F1 TV coverage on a pay-to-view channel behind it's own paywall. I say think about the article because I cannot read it as I refuse to pay anymore money to Haymarket.

 

If you (or the OP) means that putting this particular piece behind the pay-wall is inherently unfair, ironic or not done, I can understand. But I can not understand that people refuse to pay money to an internet-site because well... the site has ads, hasn't it? I think the model Autosport (and the NY Times) operate under is fair. You have a number of free articles per month, you have free access to the Forums in which the articles are often explained to the death (and discussed), and if you want you can buy an long article or more articles.

 

I really love what the internet has done for the spreading of information and knowledge but I really resent the idea that journalists, musicians, graphic designers and so forth lost the right to earn money because 'everything on the internet should be free or else my fundamental right of free information is threatened.'



#15 YoungGun

YoungGun
  • Member

  • 29,493 posts
  • Joined: January 10

Posted 28 March 2016 - 10:01

See nothing wrong with it being behind a paywall or the number of views AutoSport offers me per month gratis. I suppose those that complain about this also take issue with software that can be downloaded tried for a number of times and then expires.

 

The irony for me is this with this topic, I expect to get paid for the service I provide, I don't work 5 days a week and settle for getting paid for 4. 



#16 MikeHarte

MikeHarte
  • New Member

  • 11 posts
  • Joined: February 14

Posted 28 March 2016 - 10:22

Obviously irony is totally lost on this forum.

 

The irony is that Autosport published an article on their website which is critical of FOM intending to allow the UK's coverage of Grand Prix being put entirely behind a paywall, yet they put that critical article behind their own paywall. I repeat, that is the irony.

 

As for allowing free access to all Autosport's output, just because it is free to the viewer doesn't mean that the staff need go unpaid. The Mail/Mail on Sunday operate the most successful news website in the world, and it is totally free with no limitations. And it's contributors and journalist get paid. If they can do it, so can others. And it is interesting to note that other media outlets that put their websites behind paywalls seem to be losing a) viewers/subscribers and b) money on the websites. And it is also interesting to note that the Independent newspaper has closed it's print edition, and is now available, free I believe, online.


Edited by MikeHarte, 28 March 2016 - 10:23.


#17 YoungGun

YoungGun
  • Member

  • 29,493 posts
  • Joined: January 10

Posted 28 March 2016 - 10:34

Mike, no I still don't see the irony. It could be because F1 here were I call home has not been FTA for more than 20 years or so. It's a topic of heated discussion in the forum. So I get the gist but have problems accepting the out cries.

 

Good luck mate.



#18 Nemo1965

Nemo1965
  • Member

  • 7,844 posts
  • Joined: October 12

Posted 28 March 2016 - 12:06

Obviously irony is totally lost on this forum.

 

The irony is that Autosport published an article on their website which is critical of FOM intending to allow the UK's coverage of Grand Prix being put entirely behind a paywall, yet they put that critical article behind their own paywall. I repeat, that is the irony.

 

As for allowing free access to all Autosport's output, just because it is free to the viewer doesn't mean that the staff need go unpaid. The Mail/Mail on Sunday operate the most successful news website in the world, and it is totally free with no limitations. And it's contributors and journalist get paid. If they can do it, so can others. And it is interesting to note that other media outlets that put their websites behind paywalls seem to be losing a) viewers/subscribers and b) money on the websites. And it is also interesting to note that the Independent newspaper has closed it's print edition, and is now available, free I believe, online.

 

Yes, and I can explain why that is.

 

1. An internet-site with a very broad general interest (in a big language like English, German, French or Cantonese) can operate on the revenue of ads alone... The same DOES NOT apply to a special interest website like Autosport, the Economist or a very high quality site like the New York Times.

 

2. Above mentioned website can only operate if they use a lot of 'free material'... I mean: lend material. I mean stolen material. It is actually very easy, especially if you use the mandatory source. 'The New York Times reports that...' And then you paraphrase here and there, bingo. A news-story written in five minutes. For which the writer of the NYT has worked weeks and weeks. Grandprix.com does the same. And that has no limitations as well.

 

Again, I advise everyone to watch the movie Page One. Internet and free-access journalism is a problem which can't be denied or swept under the rug.



#19 Grayson

Grayson
  • Autosport digital product manager

  • 3,497 posts
  • Joined: July 08

Posted 29 March 2016 - 09:30

You'd expect me to defend Autosport's model, but I will nitpick one particular aspect of the analogy that's being made in this thread. The difference between Autosport's model and Sky's is that we're not bidding to take coverage away from other sources so that we can put it behind our paywall.

 

If the BBC, ITV and Channel 4 all had the right to show every Grand Prix session live but Sky felt that they could offer much higher quality coverage for a monthly fee, that would be closer to the situation that Autosport are in. There are dozens of free sources of news and analysis, and our job is to ensure that our content is good enough that our Autosport Plus members feel that it's worth the cost.

 

Of course there are people who object to paying for online content and those who don't believe that our content is worth paying for. If everyone feels this way then we will either have to shut down or change our business model significantly. The money which comes from Autosport Plus membership allows us to send the best experts to motorsport events around the world. Unless we find a new owner who's happy to run Autosport at a huge loss, there's just no way to make those sums add up without lowering the quality of our output, significantly increasing the number of clicks on each article (say hello to clickbait headlines, grid girl galleries and articles about Lewis Hamilton's private life) and implementing the sort of commercial partnerships which involved lying to our readers. And even then, the majority of websites which drop their standards and chase clicks are struggling!



Advertisement

#20 MikeHarte

MikeHarte
  • New Member

  • 11 posts
  • Joined: February 14

Posted 29 March 2016 - 10:00

Grayson, ignoring my soapbox rant, I almost understand the business model, and Haymarket are quite at liberty to operate the way that you do, and can choose which articles behind a paywall. However, the real point of my post was that you chose to put a critical article about the principle of using a paywall behind your own paywall. So it is quite possible that those who object to paying to see F1, and don't pay, are also likely to be the same people who would agree with your article but they cannot see it because it has to be paid for.

 

I could understand if it had been any other piece that we were talking about, but just not this particular one.

 

I appreciate your point about the difference between Autosport and BSB Sky; you haven't been responsible for driving up the costs of F1 for the humble punter. I just wish that my loyalty to your title over 50 years could have been reciprocated in some way. 



#21 MikeHarte

MikeHarte
  • New Member

  • 11 posts
  • Joined: February 14

Posted 30 March 2016 - 17:09

To add insult to injury, Autosport has now placed an open letter from Dieter Rencken behind it's paywall. I always thought that an open letter was meant to be available to all and sundry.

#22 pacificquay

pacificquay
  • Member

  • 6,236 posts
  • Joined: March 07

Posted 31 March 2016 - 07:14

They never gave the print magazine away so why should they give their online magazine away?

Decent content costs money to produce.

#23 Nemo1965

Nemo1965
  • Member

  • 7,844 posts
  • Joined: October 12

Posted 31 March 2016 - 07:32

To add insult to injury, Autosport has now placed an open letter from Dieter Rencken behind it's paywall. I always thought that an open letter was meant to be available to all and sundry.

 

This I agree with. Then again: Dieter Rencken is one of those Autosport-plus authors of whom I always pay the extra buck for. He seems to be the only one - sorry - who really understands what is going on regarding the politics of F1. A lot of people will probably feel the same. So I also understand that Autosport uses his name to generate revenue.

Still: good point!
 

:up:



#24 milestone 11

milestone 11
  • Member

  • 17,340 posts
  • Joined: April 09

Posted 04 April 2016 - 15:33

Whilst it has no effect on me, as I have a subscription, the click bait stories on the front page today are more than unfair for those that haven't. What appeared to be two new stories, "Dennis chuckled at Alonso stunt" and "Has Wolff seen more trouble brewing", are both stories from last year. Shocking really that Autosport would stoop to this kind of tactic.

#25 Grayson

Grayson
  • Autosport digital product manager

  • 3,497 posts
  • Joined: July 08

Posted 04 April 2016 - 16:14

Whilst it has no effect on me, as I have a subscription, the click bait stories on the front page today are more than unfair for those that haven't. What appeared to be two new stories, "Dennis chuckled at Alonso stunt" and "Has Wolff seen more trouble brewing", are both stories from last year. Shocking really that Autosport would stoop to this kind of tactic.

 

Where are you seeing those two stories? If you can see a link to them from the homepage then something's wrong... We're not in the habit of putting old stories like that in the managed editorial highlights section and I can't see any reason why they'd have bounced back into our Top 10 or anything like that. They shouldn't even be in the Outbrain section as there's a freshness cap on that.



#26 milestone 11

milestone 11
  • Member

  • 17,340 posts
  • Joined: April 09

Posted 04 April 2016 - 21:41

Hi Grayson, the Dennis story was on the front page around lunchtime and had gone when I next logged in at 16.15. The Wolff story was up at 16.15 and has since gone. Both of these were on the classic.

#27 Tsarwash

Tsarwash
  • Member

  • 13,725 posts
  • Joined: August 10

Posted 11 December 2016 - 17:04

An open letter really oughtn't be behind a paywall.



#28 Felix

Felix
  • Member

  • 818 posts
  • Joined: December 03

Posted 12 December 2016 - 08:44

I don't know what you're referring to, but to read an open letter in a newspaper - which is where the practise originated - you still need to buy the newspaper to read it. Where is the difference?



#29 SophieB

SophieB
  • RC Forum Host

  • 24,535 posts
  • Joined: July 12

Posted 12 December 2016 - 09:19

I think following this to its logical conclusion you are able to just stand with pride in WHSmith, openly reading the relevant page in the newspaper or magazine.

 

Don't forget to shout 'open letter!' when they ask you to pay up or get out! I bet they then shrivel like a salted snail.

 

 

 

(I have no idea why this thread was bumped.)



#30 YoungGun

YoungGun
  • Member

  • 29,493 posts
  • Joined: January 10

Posted 12 December 2016 - 10:45

I don't know what you're referring to, but to read an open letter in a newspaper - which is where the practise originated - you still need to buy the newspaper to read it. Where is the difference?

 

No you don't, well not at least here in Toronto. As an example 2.7 million daily public transit users have access to 2 free daily papers.Yes, along with local, world and sports sections in a condensed version, open letters are not uncommon.



#31 Felix

Felix
  • Member

  • 818 posts
  • Joined: December 03

Posted 12 December 2016 - 13:45

I think following this to its logical conclusion you are able to just stand with pride in WHSmith, openly reading the relevant page in the newspaper or magazine.

 

Don't forget to shout 'open letter!' when they ask you to pay up or get out! I bet they then shrivel like a salted snail.

 

 

 

(I have no idea why this thread was bumped.)

And you are able to stand with pride and peer over a subscriber's shoulder and read the open letter on his/her laptop/iThing...and shout "Open Letter!" when busted...now that's a very logical conclusion! :)



#32 Felix

Felix
  • Member

  • 818 posts
  • Joined: December 03

Posted 12 December 2016 - 13:48

No you don't, well not at least here in Toronto. As an example 2.7 million daily public transit users have access to 2 free daily papers.Yes, along with local, world and sports sections in a condensed version, open letters are not uncommon.

Only if the writer chooses to publish it in freebie newspapers - should he choose to publish it in the Globe and Mail or Toronto Sun you'd still have to pay to read it. Same here.



#33 Tsarwash

Tsarwash
  • Member

  • 13,725 posts
  • Joined: August 10

Posted 13 February 2017 - 13:32

 

(I have no idea why this thread was bumped.)

It was bumped because I expressed an opinion on the matter.

 

I have no idea why you expressed your opinion about why the thread was bumped.



#34 SophieB

SophieB
  • RC Forum Host

  • 24,535 posts
  • Joined: July 12

Posted 14 February 2017 - 17:54

It was bumped because I expressed an opinion on the matter.
 
I have no idea why you expressed your opinion about why the thread was bumped.


I wondered if you were responding to some other incident than the one everyone else finished talking about in Apr 2016. As I see it took you a further couple of months to type a response to my post wondering about this, I am concluding you are strapped to the back of an orbiting comet and don't often get a chance to drop in.