To pay or not to pay, that is the question!

The Online Photographer has a very interesting existential post (or I should say article) that talks blog content and for-pay subscriptions.

The For-Pay content
In general, the expectations on the internets is that all content is free, and very few websites and blogs have attempted a for-pay model. There are very few cases where this works, and the majority of those cases so far seem to be highly-specialized content. In the world of photography, two come to mind, Reid's Reviews, who charges a $33 annual subscription for unlimited access to the site's content (note to those visiting Reid Reviews from their office: there is a shirtless man on the third page-down of their front page). Reid's has a list of articles available, and samples of their reviews posted (freely) on other websites (eg Luminous and Imaging Recourse).

The other website that uses a for-pay model takes a hybrid approach. We are talking of course about diglloyd.com who offers some of the content for free, while the "premium content" is available in different subscription bundles ranging from $30 to $80 per year. From what we can tell, the option to purchase individual reviews is no longer available.

But that's not all, Nikonians is also moving to a for-pay model for their forums, as they have recently changed their membership options. Free or trial accounts are only good for 25 days, and after that, people who wish to have continued access have to switch to a for-pay membership, which ranges from $25 to $200 per year. However, a portion of the website, such as the blog and resources are free to everyone without registration.

It is quite possible that there are other photography-related websites that are also employing a for-pay model. If we missed any, please let us know!

And on that topic, there is a discussion in the dpreview forums as to whether people would pay an annual fee for access to dpreview's content and forums. This is a reader-initiated discussion, it is not coming from dpreview itself. In fact one of the dpreview employees clarified this.

I want everything for free, why the for-pay model?
That is a very good question! And the answer basically boils down to time and effort. Producing content takes both time and effort, especially when you are doing it the right way. While some people may have the financial flexibility to do that without needing or wanting any compensation, most people have to pay bills, and if you can't pay bills, then you have to adjust the amount of time and effort to activities that can pay the bills.

Then there is the issue of "readability". Traditional advertising (eg banner ads and such) are no longer effective and they are technically (eg Firefox plugins) or visually auto-filtered out by a number of people. So that means finding other ways to generate revenue. And this has led to a variety of alternatives for funding purposes, some of which are not very reader-friendly, but they may be necessary to pay the bills. Here are some of these annoying alternatives (which we are avoiding by the way):
+ random double-underline in-text keyword ads (eg the word "Canon" turns into a random pop-under ad - very annoying!)
+ pop-under ads (annoying!)
+ pop-up ads (poster child of annoying)
+ full page ads (annoying!)
+ excessive animations (they do get your attention)
+ paid reviews (manufacturer pays for their product to be reviewed)
+ paid placements (infomercial content)
+ etc, etc, etc

Avoiding the above revenue generating methods makes the content easier to read and more independent, but you don't have to be an accountant to realize that it is not helping the bottom line.

So when a website or blog is offering for-pay subscriptions or asking for voluntary "donscriptions" (donations in-lieu of subscriptions), you are usually getting a much better experience in terms of readability and bias.

Which brings us to this blog...
Producing this blog takes a lot of time and effort. However, at the same time, we are avoiding all the above revenue-generating methods. This is not the smartest thing to do financially, but we have to draw the line on readability and usability.

Instead, we are using a reader-funded model, where, through the use of various affiliate programs, the readers are the ones who fund the blog through their purchases. The traditional advertising you see (eg the skyscraper "Sponsors/PSA" box in the right sidebar) is complimentary.

And this is ideal from a reader's perspective, because the readers are essentially the virtual shareholders of the blog. They can "vote" with their purchases if they like what they see and want more. And if they don't, they vote by not reading anymore.

So we depend (financially) on the readers, not the advertisers or sponsors.

And as you can see from the Noisy Mall, we are using a large number of retailers. This may seem excessively excessive (and it is), but at the same time, it is more than adequate insurance against any misbehaving retailers.

And that brings us to the fundraiser part, if you like what you see from this blog, and would like this to continue, you can help by making your purchases through the Noisy Mall, which also has a very easy to remember url, NoisyMall.com. This is a not a high-maintenance blog, so every little purchase helps, so whether you are buying a photography book or a filter (or even a coffee filter), you are actively helping this blog!