Many of the publishers I work with are (still) grappling with questions about charging for content: if, why, how, and so on. These questions can become almost paralyzing when taken to their extreme, and in this situation I've often advocated to "give it away or don’t: pick one," i.e., choose a direction, stick with it for a while, and then re-assess. Nonetheless, there will be those that want to fret over the decision endlessly and to carefully consider every angle -- and those folks will want to have a look at Alastair Bruce's recent presentation about "Charging for content."

Bruce's presentation is a thorough examination of the current state of affairs in the online publishing world. He offers a comparison chart the explores the different models used by major newspapers, local news, and specialist publications. He delves into the specifics of many of the models -- micro-payments, metering, freemiums, etc. -- and leaves us with a nice snapshot of the landscape that's current to February 2010.

It will be a great addition to your weekend reading list, I promise. I particularly liked the exploration of how publishers are pulling social media, search advertising, and other models (membership, etc.) into their revenue mix. Great stuff and hope to see more like this from Mr. Bruce.

(Thanks to Mark Coddington's weekly roundup at Neiman Journalism Lab for the pointer)

I recently received some questions from a friend who's applying for a position as an "online editor" along the lines of "What do I need to understand about Web sites to bring value to an online position?" and "What do I need to know to communicate effectively with my Web-development counterpart?"

These questions come across my Inbox often enough to justify a quick summary of what I think are "Top five" resources for folks making the transition from print to online. These aren't editorial resources, specifically, they're mostly technical in nature (as that's my "thing").

Cross-posted from www.phillipadsmith.com.

My inbox. "The Walrus is now following you on Twitter!." My immediate reaction: oh gawd, please spare me. Another publication joining the micro-blogging fray only to shovel their RSS feeds into Twitter and to provide no real value...

Thankfully, I was completely *wrong*. And wrong enough that I felt I should comment on how *right* The Walrus is approaching the exercise.

Their approach? Simple. Witty, upbeat, and personal. Fun banter with other publications on Twitter, like @thismagazine, @spacing, and @blogto. Engaging with the community, not broadcasting. Check out @walrusmagazine on Twitter and take notes: twitter.com/walrusmagazine

Encore.

Editors & publishers: have you ever asked yourself the question “When should print content go online?” If so, you’re in luck…

A handful of weeks ago, I had the opportunity to ask some of the most influential publications in the US (and a handful of my colleagues in the publishing business in Canada) that very question.

I received about ten responses, ranging from smaller bi-monthly publications to large weeklies. The responses were very interesting, and quite consistent. I’ve compiled the responses here:

That’s right. I’m hitting the road again to bring the “Web love” to magazine folks in Vancouver. This is the second-last stop on a cross-country tour that started in Toronto, got snowed-in in Halifax, and will conclude its first circuit in Edmonton at the end of March. So far, it’s been a hell of a lot of fun — the faculty is top-notch and the participants are reporting back that they’ve embarked on new Web initiatives already. What more could one ask?

So here are the details for Vancouver:

Just a reminder that there are only 3 days left to register for Web Weekend. Registration closes on November 9, 2007 and only a few spots remain. Don’t miss the chance to take part in two-day online marketing program designed specifically for magazine publishers.

Small Magazines staff: Inquire with Magazines Canada about bursaries.

In case you missed the note in my last newsletter (hint, hint — you should sign-up!), Magazines Canada and Centennial College are putting together a “Web Weekend” on Saturday, November 24 and Sunday, November 25 at Centennial College in downtown Toronto.

A couple of months ago I got to share my feelings about “digital editions” with a room full of unsuspecting publishers at the (first ever) MagNet conference in Toronto. The title of the session was Digital Editions: New Medium for an Old Magazine? and, in preparation for the session, I really had to do some research. The thing is that the session title and description got handed to us presenters (a complaint I heard across the board from other presenters) and we had to do our best. In my case, doing the research helped me to build a more complete argument for why I feel digital editions — in the traditional meaning of the term — just aren’t a good investment for publishers. Here’s why…

(UPDATE: Just a quick clarification that the example below was sent to expired subscribers. So these folks had already received — and not responded to — a renewal series. That’s why I put the response in the 1 - 3% range, vs. what one might expect as part of an actual renewal series.)

Print-based magazines are constantly managing subscriber churn. Every year one group of people lets their subscription lapse, while others either renew or subscribe for the first time. Similar to almost any type of revenue-generating enterprise, the magic is keeping attrition rates low and managing the cost of acquiring new customers or keeping existing ones. E-mail marketing is one way to approach a lapsed campaign at a lower cost than a typical direct mail.

For example:

• If your publication decided to send a simple direct mail package to 2000 lapsed subscribers, you could easily invest $1000 or more on the printing, lettershop services, and postage costs.
• If that campaign delivered what I understand to be the industry average of 1%, you’d be lucky to get 20 returning subscribers.
• In this scenario, each returning subscriber came at a cost of $50.

To me, that seems like a pretty high price to pay. Though the lifetime value of that customer may work in your publication’s favour in the long run, it would certainly be nice to be able to invest less in encouraging that subscriber to come back.

Now, let’s say that your direct mail outperforms the 1% rule and gets up to 2% or 3%, reducing the cost per returned subscriber to just $25 or $16. Well now we’re talking, right? Wrong: what if you could achieve the same results for $25? Not $25 per returned subscriber — but just $25 for the whole campaign! Interested? Keep reading…

As an avid magazine reader, I’m constantly on the lookout for new titles. Need Magazine came across my desk the other day via New Internationalist. Looks interesting — a bit like Yes! magazine but for the global development community — so I’m going to check it out. Once I’ve got the first issue, I’ll post an update.