22 replies to this topic

[ch103]

Can we please get rid of this?  I wanted to read the article about Seb Vettel's 5 place grid penalty but could not because I reached my monthly limit.  Guess what I did to read the same content?  new.google.com and read the motorsport.com article on it.

 

Your policy is reducing your page views.  How is this a good idea?

[goingthedistance]

Welcome to capitalism comrade. 

[Clatter]

Just maybe their subscription income is more than they would get from page views.

[ch103]

Just maybe their subscription income is more than they would get from page views.

 

I suppose that has to be the case.  It is just silly to me, but then again they run a successful business and I work for others for a living...

[IPBushy]

It's called greed. Hoping to get people to buy a subscription by limiting the number of times they can view online content is misguided, because those people weren't going to buy the magazine anyway, so they've gained nothing by this policy.  Indeed, as pointed out, it just serves to alienate people from the magazine and send them elsewhere. I wonder what the advertisers who pay the magazine to get viewers think of this? 

[shonguiz]

Since they introduced this, they went further down in my book, not that they were that high before either.

Edit: Besides, 90% of their news is reprised as it's by Yahoo/Eurosport with a slight delay, how hilarious is that.

Edited by shonguiz, 29 April 2016 - 17:59.

[myattitude]

It is annoying, but they've been doing it for ages so I guess it's making them money. Most articles you can get the important info from other website articles instead.

[myattitude]

Since they introduced this, they went further down in my book, not that they were that high before either.

Edit: Besides, 90% of their news is reprised as it's by Yahoo/Eurosport with a slight delay, how hilarious is that.

If you thought that's bad, Planet F1 is the hilariously worst produced site F1 I've ever read, yet I'm strangely addicted to them still.

[Lights]

As mentioned, the articles on Autosport aren't unique. Plus what did you expect to read in it anyway. He has a 5 place grid penalty, what more do you need to know? 99% of Autosport articles is just repeated non-essential stuff. I would never pay for it, it's really not necessary to follow the sport.

[WilliamsF1Fan]

I must admit that since I cancelled my magazine subscription I've given up using the website as well due to the limit on articles I can read.  The worst part is I don't actually miss using it.  Plenty of other sites out there that are more up to date and have interesting articles that don't (currently) require paid subs to view them.

[Thursday]

Planet F1 is the hilariously...

Fixed as per Planet F1 headline standards.

[Kristian]

I just wait a little a bit and then exactly the same article pops up on NewsNow later on on another well known news site. 

 

If they're making money selling content to other freeview sites (I assume that's what's happening?), then why not make it free? 

 

With the dogs dinner of the front page, I only click on the Live Autosport link now and the forums. 

[pacificquay]

Content doesn't get produced for nothing.

[Talisker]

It's just because they're stuck in the past, still believe in the model that people will pay for content via a subscription. Crazy. The only way people will do that is if there is something amazing and unique about the content, but there isn't. 

 

Actually most F1 articles do get produced pretty much for nothing, as they're simply regurgitated press releases.

[pdac]

Content doesn't get produced for nothing.

 

Paywalls don't get produced for nothing either. It costs to put them in place and then everyone circumvents them.

[Tsarwash]

So you're complaining because the Autosport staff and company don't provide their services and content to you for free ? 

[ch103]

So you're complaining because the Autosport staff and company don't provide their services and content to you for free ? 

 

No, I am complaining because of some obscure policy.  If they want people to pay for premium articles, they offer that.  I have actually paid the $1 to read some of the more intriguing articles.  I've done it more than once and am OK with it.

 

But just putting an arbitrary cap on the articles people can read for free on their site is the most nonsensical thing they can do in my opinion.  If the content is free and the headline is intriguing enough to make me want to click on it, why block me because I reached 15 free monthly articles?  Especially when, with a little effort, go and find it for free elsewhere?

 

I love coming here to use the forums and talk amongst other race fans.  But if Autosport decides that some content must be paid for - fine, I will pay.  Don't create some silly limit on free content.  If you decide not to charge for something, introducing a limit on how much people can consume is pointless. 

 

Think of the user experience you are sending to your audience.  wtf lol

Edited by ch103, 30 April 2016 - 12:37.

[Kristian]

I agree the analyitical, technical and historical articles are specific to Autosport and should be behind the paywall if they want them to be.

 

But general news can be found everywhere, and by blocking some it just makes people favourite other sites, therefore reduce traffic, therefore reduce the chance people might see an actual paid article they want to read and pay for, or just reduce ad revenue. 

[YoungGun]

No, I am complaining because of some obscure policy.  If they want people to pay for premium articles, they offer that.  I have actually paid the $1 to read some of the more intriguing articles.  I've done it more than once and am OK with it.

 

But just putting an arbitrary cap on the articles people can read for free on their site is the most nonsensical thing they can do in my opinion.  If the content is free and the headline is intriguing enough to make me want to click on it, why block me because I reached 15 free monthly articles?  Especially when, with a little effort, go and find it for free elsewhere?

 

I love coming here to use the forums and talk amongst other race fans.  But if Autosport decides that some content must be paid for - fine, I will pay.  Don't create some silly limit on free content.  If you decide not to charge for something, introducing a limit on how much people can consume is pointless. 

 

Think of the user experience you are sending to your audience.  wtf lol

 

 

Try before you buy ... seems like a good business practice. Much like test driving a car!

[king_crud]

i don't trust that their free articles per month is correct. I rarely read articles on the front page but when I do I always seem to get a message telling me I've almost reach my limit for the month, when I know I've not looked at what they claim

[james]

I have bought autosport on a Thursday morning for the last 37 years without fail. I have not bothered with a subscription as the post is so unreliable so I find it unfair that because I do not subscribe I am limited to the web content even though I am paying full price for the magazine.

Why not have a unique code printed in the magazine that can only be used once to allow web access for one week.

[Kristian]

I have bought autosport on a Thursday morning for the last 37 years without fail. I have not bothered with a subscription as the post is so unreliable so I find it unfair that because I do not subscribe I am limited to the web content even though I am paying full price for the magazine.

Why not have a unique code printed in the magazine that can only be used once to allow web access for one week.

 

If you get the paper subscription, you can read the digital version from Thursday morning. Its a no-brainer if you're shelling out full price every week!

[Ricciardo2014]

I've decided not to renew my subscription this year.

While the A+ articles are all quite nice, $80 a year is better off in my pocket.

 

As for the 15 views per month, there's absolutely nothing on AS that I can't find elsewhere for free, most of the time quicker.