[Online] Autosport Online (merged again)

[Peter Mallett]

As has been said. The availbility of info on the web makes it somewhat redundant to charge peeps for a viewing and if you get the mag anyway why bother with the website?

Can't see the logic I'm afraid.

[Kicking-back]

Website has some features which are not in the magazine and it's also updated more than once a week!

[Peter Mallett]

So are the other free sites.

[Peter Mallett]

Actually another point is that even though I'm not in the UK the last place I go for info on motor sport is Autosport. About the only thing I'd miss is the access to Nigel Roebuck's musings.

[ghinzani]

Originally posted by Peter Mallett
About the only thing I'd miss is the access to Nigel Roebuck's musings.

Look at your old copies of Autosport, if its not current news then its bound to be a re-hash of an old 5th column. Still a million % better than anything these days tho!

[Kicking-back]

The point is, running the website costs money, and that has to be paid for.

Autosport's website is an offshoot of their core business, unlike many motor-racing sites, which are themselves the core business.

[Peter Mallett]

KB. I sympathise with them. Yes it costs money but why suddenly discover that point? Surely they've known for a while.

[Kicking-back]

They've always known that I'm sure, but by offering the site free they've built up a database of clients, while not directly making money from it.

This move is one which many websites will adopt in the coming months and years if sales of traditional print magazines drop off.

[Peter Mallett]

So er how much to view my site then?

[Kicking-back]

Is it a commercial venture?

Does it have content people want to see?

[DriverT]

Originally posted by Kicking-back
Autosport is a business.

Why should they provide their content free of charge?

If your a subscriber to the magazine you can access the website free.

Correct. But the idea is that you get a look at a summary of the article and the better content is in the magazine.

The point is, running the website costs money, and that has to be paid for.

Autosport's website is an offshoot of their core business, unlike many motor-racing sites, which are themselves the core business.

It is an offshoot of their core business, so it should be paid for from the receipts from their core business.

Oh well, they mind find that the number of hits they get drops dramatically, but it's of their own design and so their problem.

[Kicking-back]

Originally posted by DriverT
Correct. But the idea is that you get a look at a summary of the article and the better content is in the magazine.

Yes, but up until now they put whole news articles on the website.

[Peter Mallett]

Originally posted by Kicking-back
Does it have content people want to see?

Of course that is the question I ask of Autosport.com

[DriverT]

Originally posted by Kicking-back
Yes, but up until now they put whole news articles on the website.

Yep, the whole news articles. Yes indeed. But the features are what were in the magazine. Now they are depriving people of news articles unless they pay for them. It's a bad thing to do when there are so many other F1 news websites out there that provide content of equal or better quality for free.

Up until now, they were holding their own because of their name and the recognition it brings. But this is a bit of a bad move. IMHO

[Kicking-back]

If people were only using the site for news articles and not buying the magazine, Autosport loses nothing by those people going elsewhere.

[DriverT]

Not advertising revenue then?

[EERO]

Its a disappointment for non-British fans. The magazine is hard to find in the States-I have to drive about 50 miles round trip to find a relatively reliable supply-and its nearly $9.00 per copy. I appreciated the website for reliable news, but I really cannot afford to subscribe, so one more news source gets deleted from my favorites.


I understand their desire to get paid for their work, but enough info is available on the web for free, so I suspect that the number of their hits on the site will decline as has been said above.

[Kicking-back]

Originally posted by DriverT
Not advertising revenue then?

The advertising revenue from the website is minimal in the bigger scheme of things.

[DriverT]

It could easily pay for the website.

Also, they lose readers. This is, I assume, a bad thing for a magazine. If less people read the website, then less are likely to buy a copy of autosport.

[Kicking-back]

They will have carefully assessed and researched such things before making this decision.

[Raven]

That's a shame, I'll perhaps subscribe next year - if F1 is more interesting.

I'll miss the 'ask Nigel' section.

[Knowlesy]

The main thing I miss from todays Autosports is Roebucks race reports. They're done by Mark Hughes now and are nowhere near as good to be honest. I found his Nurburgring report tedious to say the least....

[Kicking-back]

I thought Mark Hughes Nurburgring report was a creative way to cover what was essentially a dull race.

[Knowlesy]

So you're the person that wrote the complimentary letter to the Autosport letters page in this weeks issue!

Nah, I thought it was a bit Peter Windsory. I used to like Windsors writing style but it gets tiresome after a while. Therefore, I hated Hughes' Nurburgring report. I prefer a dose of Roebuck!

[Kicking-back]

Wasn't me!

Roebuck is good, and wrote good race reports too.

Fifth column is one of the first things I turn to - although I do tire of his constant sniping at the government and the like.