CyclingTips Paywall

Having been a cyclingtips reader since it was run by Wade, I have to say that I’m disappointment with your implementation of a paywall. The site is already full of advertising and advertising content, and with the recent sale of the site to a larger media company, I find it hard to believe that a paywall is necessary, especially when your sister site PinkBike and Peleton can be run without a paywall.

4 Likes

There are already two other threads complaining about this….

4 Likes

Don’t forget the thread complaining about people who can’t spell Peloton :stuck_out_tongue_winking_eye:

8 Likes

Well spotted. :sunglasses:

1 Like

Hopefully you’re a paying subscriber if you’re going to complain.

Ha, spelling isn’t my strong point

1 Like

Bit confused, why can’t I complain if I’m not a subscriber?

Of course you can complain, but it’s annoying. You’re not paying for the content and yet you find it difficult to believe they need a paywall?

Compare the advertising featured on CyclingTips to a site like Cycling News. CT has a much more subdued and “elegant” display of ads vs. Cycling News cramming an ad into nearly every single paragraph break, and putting as many as possible between the end of the article and the comments.

I don’t know about you, but I’d much prefer a paywall than have CT need even more advertising on the site. And I don’t buy that being bought by outside necessarily has to be why they instituted a paywall. Maybe CT has a larger editorial vision for the next few years that will require more money, etc.

The multiple threads complaining about the paywall is tiresome. CT has been providing outstanding content for years virtually (I say virtually because the site has had ads) for free.

3 Likes

In this thread, someone wants a product for free, complains when it isn’t.

:sleeping:

4 Likes

How about if I come to your place of work and demand that you give me your professional services for free? Because that is essentially what you are demanding of CT.

Again, this has all been explained (complete with thoughtful posts from both Wade and Cailey) in the other threads. Feel free to look ‘em up.

Wow, I struck a nerve. I tried search for the other threads but I can’t find them.

It is tiresome to have people join a forum just to complain about the people who set the forum up. Your introduction to this community was to whine…that tends not to endear you to people at the start.

The other threads are not hard to find….one was only ~20 threads down.

We look forward to your positive and ongoing contributions to the forum….

2 Likes

@Henri_Desgrange the first post is about technical issues that people had with the paywall, as they were already subscribers and they couldn’t connect due to issues with the paywall. The second is with regards to their commercial ties, and some weird conspiracy about Lance Armstrong.

Also, I did see these posts before I posted.

You apparently didn’t read the threads then because the reasons behind the paywall are all discussed in great detail in both of them.

1 Like

a) if a large corporation buys a business, they expect it to make more money, not less. Being acquired doesn’t magically grant CT a blank check.

b) Yes there is advertising. But as covered by others, CT’s ads are extremely minimal, and they don’t do integrated ads (besides “straight from the source”, which are rare and well made). The alternative is a website covered in so many ads that it obscures the content.

c) talent costs money. Do you agree that the writers at CT are a cut above those at other outlets? The problem with trying to cheap out on talent is that people who are intelligent enough to create high quality content also have the skillset to do other things - things that pay more. Journalism has been devolving into blogging because of the free/ad driven model. Even if you don’t agree that talent and hard work should be rewarded, you can agree that it would be a shame if the writers at CT had to leave for money reasons.

I’m not trying to say that it doesn’t suck that there’s a paywall. Obviously this move does exclude many readers. In a perfect world, maybe it wouldn’t be necessary. But we don’t live in a perfect world. And while you see yet another media outlet hidden behind a paywall, which is easy to observe and quantify, I see a rapidly corrupting and degrading journalism industry, which is much harder to measure. This industry is our only check against corporate propaganda. And there aren’t many outlets as resilient to corporate pressure as CT. Some things are more important than money.

9 Likes

True. Especially that kind of venture capital business - they expect big ROI, from the beginning.

Don’t get me started on LBOs please.

1 Like

Fine, I will join. I see more value in this, then the GCN + app

3 Likes

Just FYI. I pay $40 a month for a online Wall Street Journal subscription and still get ads. It makes me mad, but they have to make money.

Good lord that’s less value than just lighting your money on fire… talk about a weird flex.

2 Likes