The management team behind the Manchester Confidential portal is looking to fund its further development by charging users a monthly subscription fee for access to the site.Mark Garner, the founder of ManCon , explained the thinking behind the bold move and his belief that publishing mediums, on and offline, could no longer survive by relying solely on advertising revenue.
Although the move to a paid-for model may come as a shock to Manchester Confidential's claimed 260,000 weekly readers (and 94,000 email subscribers) the strategy is apparently something Garner has had in the pipeline for the past five years.
"It was always the plan," he relayed to How-Do.
"The trick, the hard part, was in creating a trusted brand in the first place and, of course, getting the advertising sales right.
"We now believe we're at a stage where the size, loyalty and quality of our readership is such that a significant number will be prepared to pay for the service we provide."
Garner: laughing in the face of danger?
Garner and his team have already conducted numerous focus groups about the proposal and are now at the stage of emailing those 94,000 email recipients to gauge, through an online survey, their reaction to the move and, importantly, how much they might be willing to pay per month."Either £4.50 or £7.50 are the figures I have in mind," Garner revealed, before adding that he was prepared to be dictated by the results of the survey on the all-important subs level.
If this figure initially seems high - especially when, as a pioneer of charging for a consumer site, uptake might be understandably slow - it should be remembered, Garner stressed, that the "Manchester Confidential heroes" (loyal readers who take advantage of the portal's various restaurant and retail deals) save on average the not inconsiderable sum of £45 a month.
"That puts it into perspective," he noted, "these are exclusive deals and readers value them."
Of course, not everyone that visits the site is a 'hero', but Garner seems unfazed by the loss of a large chunk of the site's back end bulk.
"I think this will prove the old 80/20 adage. It's the 20% that are useful to the advertisers, to the site and to the brand that are most important. A lot of the rest, for any site, regardless of who you are, is fluff."
Those that may be expecting a gradual evolution into the paid-for format will no doubt be surprised by the alacrity of the switchover - next month has been circled for its arrival.
However, despite the apparent resolve of the team that this IS happening, that advertising alone will NOT sustain publishers ("the business model just does not work," Garner stressed, "as an industry we can not survive purely on advertising revenue"), they are candid enough to admit that they are still "in the process of working this through."
"The subscription model is happening," Garner commented, "but as to how the site will operate, well, the jury's out on that at the moment."He revealed that the portal has now been rebuilt ready for the change, allowing " a completely walled garden, or a partially walled garden" but that the walls were yet to be drawn out.
"We still want people to take it for a test drive, as it were, but beyond that we're discussing what will happen with regard to subscriber only access or limited access for guests."
It is a bold move and Garner seemed happy to appear as a trailblazer, despite the huge risks to a publisher that has often marketed itself on the sheer scale of its following.
What's more he intends to quickly introduce the model across other names in the Confidential stable - such as Liverpool Confidential - before following with more niche sites such as Kids Confidential and Property Confidential in the near future.
"I've been doing this for a long time," he concluded, "and I honestly think that this has got to the right point to introduce a paid model.
"I've made a lot of mistakes in my time, but I've learned from everyone of them."
The email that is being sent out to current subscribers hints at the editorial changes that lie ahead, noting: "What we’d like to do next is give you more well-known writers and commentators and a comprehensive listing of what’s on across the regions we cover.
"Knitted in with this there will be more and even better deals in restaurants and retail outlets and more Confidential events to keep building on the growing sense of community amongst us."
Something to add? Then leave a comment below or email us now . Sponsored links:
1 By jonthebeef , on 07-10-2009 18:18 A misguided move. In an age where the likes of Robert Maxwell are planning to charge for content, sites like Mancon will find their position strengthened by keeping content free. It also calls into question as to Mancon's true usefulness: Do people visit for editorial, or do they only visit for offers? If their traditional advertising model isn't earning the revenues required, then instead of charging casual readers to access, they should look at alternative advertising models (such as PPC) or look to provide "freemium" content. All this will do is drive current readers into the arms of their competitors. Best of luck to the team and I hope I'm proved wrong, but what will we be seeing next - a printed Manchester Confidential magazine in the shops? It's high time they realise that they're a dotcom, rather than a traditional publisher.
2 By Samscam , on 07-10-2009 19:13 I think this is an appalling idea for mancon... As far as I'm aware the only publishing outfit in manchester that does this at the moment in a wholesale kind of way is Crain's and from recent experience it's infuriating from a social media perspective. I recently had an article in Crain's about my business and instead of being able to bung links to said article around to my twitter network, facebook mates, and doting grandmother (who's industry contacts should not be underestimated btw!) I end up copying and pasting the text. Visitors lost, opportunities missed, advertising phh. Think of the casual reader, and that counts most of us these days as thanks to the internet we expect an all-you-can-eat information shmorgusboard, who will simply say "oh well my attention span is exhausted already and I'm not paying a fiver to read one article" and go elsewhere. Now the way it COULD work is if you say fine, the majority of the content is free but the extra benefits and _services_ cost a little cash - say the best of the offers, the context-aware iPhone ahem (ahem), access to certain time-sensitive stuff before everyone else... that kind of thing. Enough of a draw without breaking everything? Bottom line: stuff is free... services cost money.
3 By Having a Laugh , on 07-10-2009 22:57 The FT charges about £15 a month for access to all its globally sourced news and comment and a searchable archive of arguably the richest content of its kind, delivered with the force of one of the world's most powerful brands. So, taking into account ManCon's diet of tittle tattle about here today, gone tomorrow bars and shops in one small city and the difference in income of the average ManCon reader and an FT reader, this doesn't really stack up, does it? Jonthebeef....er, Robert Maxwell hasn't really been a big player in the media business since he fell off his yacht in the early 90s
4 By Tony Murray , on 08-10-2009 03:26 Blimey, despite being dead since 1991, Captain Bob has risen from his watery grave to campaign for paid-for on-line content, the scoundrel. No doubt Mancon will take the views of such a well-informed and up-to-date commentator as jonthebeef very seriously indeed.
5 By Bibble Bobble , on 08-10-2009 09:20 No chance Mark. No chance at all. I'll eat my Bibble Bobble if you get more than 200 sign up. And I know about this sort of stuff. The Bibble Bobbler.
6 By jonthebeef , on 08-10-2009 09:20 Ha ha, I've been caught out then. Guess I'm showing my age a bit. Yes, I did mean Rupert Murdoch, but I think there's still something in my point, despite referencing a deceased newspaper magnate. Oops.
7 By Steve Downes , on 08-10-2009 09:50 Seems straightforward to me. Either ManCon will provide content that people can't get elsewhere and are prepared to pay a few quid for...or they won't. Over to you Mark.
8 By Tony Murray , on 08-10-2009 10:23 Gordo This is a brave move. Hopefully driven by pioneering zeal, rather than imminent financial necessity. Some of the correspondents have a point. The FT can charge for content, whilst it would be all but impossible for The Sun, in terms of culture, financial wherewithal and on-line literacy, to do the same. I assume your offer will be based on a hardcore of improved premium offers for subscribers, a kind of on-line platinum carousing club, which could work - if you get enough of your advertisers/etc to play ball. The money will be made, and I'm guessing, not from providing on-line access, but off-line redemption and fulfillment. To achieve. that, however, you'll need to promote your offer offline. I guess, though, I'm giving ova supping lessons to a dowager diva.
9 By Josh , on 08-10-2009 12:11 I, for one, am pleased to see this move. This is nothing but good news for grassroots bloggers who will rapidly fill any gap left by Mancon in the marketplace. We will finally see free, impartial reviews, untainted by non-stop ads, pointless email marketing and desperate attempts to get users to sign-up. Til now, the dominance of Mancon as an online brand meant that people who wanted to write reviews couldn't get a word in edgeways, metaphorically speaking. Now, there's a real chance for a community-driven approach to a "what's on" guide in Manchester to flourish, along the lines to London's "Londonist" blog. This doesn't preclude sponsored or ad-supported items, but Londonist manages to very clearly balance opinion, reviews and comment with ad-supported items and tolerable in-page advertising. This is the future of online publishing and I look forward to helping drive it. Goodbye Mancon, you were fine for the 2000s, but the 2010s will be our era.
10 By JaneyBaby , on 08-10-2009 12:31 Josh, part one. Point me at one North West blogger who knows his F&B as well as Gordo, Schofield et al at Mancon. part 2 Point me at one North West blogger who makes me laugh till i have a little wee like Gordo. When you do this, and they are free then I will agree with you. The point is people will pay for a quality read, on F&B no-one is any where near ManCon. But, I don't mind being corrected. Over to you.
11 By Kid Disco , on 08-10-2009 13:16 Josh, most people don't care about blogs. From 10 years using the internet daily I can only think of a handful that I've gone back to and read more than a few times, and none of them are based in Manchester. Professional websites, now those I read. They have the time and resources (and skill set) to provide something special, not just irregular ramblings of 'some dude' I've never heard of that has no proper training in whatever they're trying to have a website about. I take it you run a blog, can you really imagine 250'000 people reading it, are you really that committed to quality and able to provide such riviting content to keep them interested for years to come, are you really? Why does it take ManCon dying for that to happen? They set up during the heyday of manchesteronline.com and manchestereveningnews.co.uk, surely you could have built up along side them too? This is brave for ManCon, I wish them luck, but samscam is right about how it needs to come in. Value added, not just a pay wall. (PS: i finally signed up to how do and got a username)
12 By Tony Murray , on 08-10-2009 14:14 "samscam" aside it's an important debate and one, Mr G, I'd love to know your thinking on. T
13 By J , on 08-10-2009 17:45 [edit] You need deep pockets to survive a recession especially when your business has a narrow customer base of city centre dwellers and a narrow category of potential clients. Subscription only works with unique value propositions eg exclusive financial info. Given the plethora of sites offering food offers from sugarvine and restaurantsofmanchester through to the venues' own sites, it's something they have not got. It's a shame as Manchester benefits from a diverse media, but it looks like mancon will fall victim to the conundrum that is baffling big beasts such as Murdoch owned Myspace: how to turn audience demand into revenue. For the web, and many media owners, this is, literally, the million dollar question.
14 By Manchester media eater , on 08-10-2009 15:48 J - You hit the nail on the head. I feel sorry for Mancon, it's a decent read, I use it, I am it's target market. But I'm not going to pay for it, the information and offers are available in just too many other places. Sorry. We in the media have to accept that the golden age of top quality paid for info has probably gone, except as you say for elite business info sites like FT. We all live in a poorer world because of this. Mancon - I hope you find another way to fund yourselves, because this isn't the answer to whatever problems you have.
15 By PC , on 08-10-2009 15:48 I agree with J that there are other food websites out there which I think are much better, a number of places I enjoy aren't even on ManCon, restaurantsofmanchester in particular is very useful, especially if you are looking for somewhere in a certain part of the city. I for one wouldnt be paying for ManCon, not when I feel other sites which don't charge are its equal or better.
16 By Jamie , on 08-10-2009 15:59 Looking more like a potential act of desperation that could be fatal!
17 By Mark Garner , on 08-10-2009 17:45 Hi Tony, it is an interesting debate isn't it? The results of the surveys are fascinating so far. I am going to hold back until next Wednesday on entering the debate until we have the final figures in, then I will give my thoughts in detail. I will, however, debate with real people, not those who make libellous statements behind masks. So we come to you, 'J'. [edit] if you have the backbone to uncloak and contact me, I will discuss your points as well in this forum. I don’t deal in tittle tattle. If you don’t please stand back and allow serious people the opportunity to learn from this fascinating play.
18 By Andy , on 08-10-2009 17:36 Interesting move. I enjoy the odd bi-weekly read of MC, I appreciate the refreshing honesty (the Sankeys review is a classic & the interview with Philip Purdy was excellent) but I'm not too sure if I would pay to subscribe. Good luck with it though!
19 By I just don't know , on 09-10-2009 15:49 I subscribe to Mancon and give every one of their many newsletters a read. I do however feel that the content on the website does not justify any form of paid-for subscription. I rarely take advantage of the 'special offers' which seem to clog up my inbox these days so for me it's a no i'm afraid. keep trying though.
20 By jb , on 09-10-2009 18:58 I used to read Crains online all the time, so did my friends. I used to link the site to all the article's and post's I wrote. (you can't beat free advertising of your website) Crains then started charging and blocked the website. I stopped visiting and so did my friends and readers. I still get the newspaper free of charge every week. Work that one out.
21 By Interesting times , on 10-10-2009 08:08 The thing is, every publisher in the UK, including the likes of Trinity Mirror, has already said that it plans to charge for online content in the future. They are all just waiting for someone to do it first. The BBC "spoils" it for all the other media outlets because of BBC Online being free to air via the licence fee. No one wants to be the first. I like the Confidentials for all sorts of reasons, mainly because they are not in the pay of shareholders or there to finance the Guardian as foot soldiers. Same difference. If they put their money where Gordo's not inconsiderable mouth is, and invest it back into paying writers for the content that the MEN and Echo is incapable of providing, I might give it a go. I might. After all, Candis is filthy rich on subscription only and what does that tell me that nothing else does?
22 By Brian , on 12-10-2009 07:51 ManCon must hold valuable statistical information which could be sold/rented/subscribed to for use by other businesses. Perhaps a more lucrative option than alienating its consumer visitors by asking them to subscribe
23 By Dylan , on 12-10-2009 10:31 I think you will find that the quickest way to alienate consumers is to sell their email addresses to other companies
24 By Brian , on 12-10-2009 10:39 I certainly do not mean selling e-mail addresses! But I am not going to point out the commercial uses of the other information (unless someone wants to pay me)
25 By Julian Bovis , on 12-10-2009 16:54 With newspapers going free (The Evening Standard) and websites introducing pay barriers (The Times) - this is an interesting time for all of us who work in online media. People may scoff at Murdoch's cartel-like approach to paid-for content, but they said exactly the same in 1996 @ Wapping - so let's wait a while before we decide if sites with unique content such as ManCon and the FT can survive an 80/20 split. But desperate times tend to reward innovators, so this could be a fruitful move for Mark and his team. Roll on 2010...
26 By Manchester media eater , on 14-10-2009 14:46 It's Wednesday today Mark. I'm looking forward to hearing your thoughts in detail as promised. I genuinely am interested - I don't think what you are proposing has a chance of working, but this has provoked a lot of debate and it would be fascinating to see what the survey came up with.
27 By Mark Garner , on 14-10-2009 15:37 The results of our questionnaires are in and along with the many conversations I have had with *real* people who have got in touch with me, mostly because of this very useful article, I am pretty sure of the path we are going to take. I have had a rethink about publishing the results and have decided not to do so until after we launch. It’s a fool who can’t change his mind as my Gran used to say. You, ‘Manchester Media Eater’, can de-cloak and email me and if I think you are a serious player I will explain my thoughts and listen to your comments. But, in your previous posts your ‘we in the media’ rather affected tone leads me to believe your people skills to be a little light and that you may well not be a serious player. So, why educate fools? That goes for anyone else by the way, (not the fools bit..) please feel free to email me.
28 By David , on 15-10-2009 13:15 that's a real shame mark's gone back on his pledge to publish the results as it would give a good insight into feelings on subscription. But on a different tack, could we refrain from the personal insults when people disagree with opinions here. Its not a teen board but a board for the north west media, and it makes mark look a little undignified. Cheap shots are too easy. who for example thinks mark's a serious player? see. easypeasy cheap shot but contributed what to the debate, exactly? nada. MME said he was a mancon readar, will he now be having been insulted by the publisher for having an opinion? C'mon gents, let's behave a bit more like grown ups.
29 By Paula , on 16-10-2009 10:16 the way to kill a brand overnight... charge for content you can get for free everywhere else. Maybe Mark Garner fancies an early retirement?!?
30 By JaneyBaby , on 16-10-2009 16:14 What’s the point of owning brands that can't get paid for their work? I take it, Paula, that you work for a company with a pot of limitless funds. The rest of us recognise that print is collapsing, the world-wide advertising pie has never been able to sustain a free model for any length of time and the consumer has to pay us or we will all be having an early retirement. I for one need to be paid for the articles I write. We need the Mark Garners of this world to be entrepreneurial and have a go. Your attitude is typical English. Over in our New York office everyone is applauding, not sneering at the publishers who are trying to push boundaries. One last thing; I am a regular user of Manchester and Liverpool Confidential and like my food. You can’t get their content anywhere else. Have you seen the two dining deals they did this week? Schofield is hugely entertaining. Mr. Garner, go for it. I for one am prepared to happily pay a cover price.
31 By Paula , on 28-10-2009 15:46 my attidude is typical English and Manchester Confidential is aimed at the good people of England. Hence you may find many readers share my views. But maybe not all
32 By Anon , on 01-12-2009 08:10 Well, they're obviously doing really well at hitting that 1,000 subscribers target... considering I keep getting emails about it every other day and it's now December... if people haven't already signed up they're not going to so stop pestering them!
33 By Rob , on 10-12-2009 19:41 Well, http://www.love-manchester.com looks like it's going to be doing all that and more and it doesn't cost a bean! :)
34 By Jason , on 17-12-2009 15:47 I think manchestergossip.com is in its infancy and possibly they now have an opportunity to cast their young nets and capture some of mancons drop offs.