I recently asked the AV Twitter community to vote in a poll about paying for editorial content. In this small sample, very non-scientific poll, 56% indicated that they would consider paying for AV editorial dependent on the editorial team. 31% said they would never pay, and another 16% responded with “other” – either there was enough free quality content online or that they would only pay for quality content and no fluff.
Only 2% said they would pay if the price were low enough.
I’ve often had the conversation with people in the AV industry about editorial content, advertising, and fluff pieces. Like it or not, there is a strong link between the three. Manufacturers who are shelling out for adverts expect coverage. It’s no secret and it’s no lie. As a result, readers who are searching for non-biased editorial and/or product reviews have a hard time finding them.
There’s often lots of grumbling that magazine X only runs press releases and fluff, or that magazine Y only pushes their advertisers. We all know it, complain about it, and yet are hesitant to pay to support a business model that serves only the AV community’s best interest. I would love to see an online magazine that is not ad-supported (similar to a Cook’s Illustrated or a Consumer Reports) but I fear that the AV industry’s pockets are too small to support such a venture.
So, if many of you would pay for a subscription based on the editorial team, who would they be? Leave your dream team suggestions in the comments section, and don’t forget that there are some great editorial people across the pond!
And while you’re here, please participate in my next poll. I’m wondering where you find your AV news. One answer, totally anonymous: What is your primary source for AV news?
|Poll results for “Would you ever pay for AV editorial, like a paid magazine subscription?”|