Genuine question albeit with a flippant title, following on from the "Buy some equity in us" offers. It's meant as a question to the owners rather than a general conversation point, but let the debate flow anyway.
25 years ago* saw Mark, Chipps and Shaun (with contributions from others) lamenting the decline of printed media which saw the "Why don't we do it?" idea being sown ... a quality print magazine supported by a strong online presence. I remember conversations at the time on predecessor chat forums that discussed the world changing challenges facing print world in the world wide web era, and whether a new magazine title could make it in the (then) modern world.
A quarter of a century later, a quality print magazine is still produced with an online presence. Neither the print nor the online world have got any easier to navigate in that time and whilst both the magazine and the website have improved, the fundamental business model has remained the same. Produce a magazine supported by an online presence.
Is this really a model that has any real business value or is it just a folly for the sake of art requiring the charity of others to keep the venture alive?
If it's the former, then what's the plan for change if the model is running out of steam to stand on its own two feet without direct customer support beyond magazine and online advertising?
If it's the latter, is there a better way to run a charity for the benefit of all of the charitable recipients (i.e. us)?
* historically indicative rather than historically accurate
This comes at a very pertinent moment for me as I was just thinking about not renewing by subscription. I have been a reader for 20 years and a subscriber for 15 but the mag just isn’t as important to me as it was. I no longer read every word as soon as it drops through the letterbox. Now I am a lot older the content doesn’t cover my interests which have gr
Ive been a subscriber for a long (ish) time. I’d hate to think how long. And I still really quite like the magazine. But like many magazines, I like some issues and articles more than others. To be honest, if the magazine disappeared, other than nostalgia, im not sure I would shed many tears. I tend to consume my magazines in digital format now. I like STW mag a lot, but I also like others also.
But the forum has always been a major draw to me. And that equation (of magazine vs forum) has seriously tilted, for me at least, towards the forum being the more valuable part of the site in recent years.
As a business, I’d be shocked if the forum shouldn’t be supporting the magazine nowadays, rather than vice versa.
Is this really a model that has any real business value or is it just a folly for the sake of art requiring the charity of others to keep the venture alive?
Art has always required a sponsor, in the past this was the nobility. Churchill and Atlee broke that hegemony with the pre/post-war creation of The Arts Council. This is just another community arts project albeit a niche one.
Is this really a model that has any real business value or is it just a folly for the sake of art requiring the charity of others to keep the venture alive?
My take, as someone who works in online specialist media, is that the commercial model for relatively niche websites is somewhat broken. It's all very well sacking off printed publications and going 100% online as MBR recently did, but it's hard to see how you can support the same infrastructure, staff, premises, overheads etc, unless your advertisers are prepared to spend the same amount with you and you can also tap into additional revenue sources.
You can argue that the future is video based anyway, stuff like GCN etc and small, high traffic YouTube outfits with much lower overheads.
I have no idea how ST's finances/business model work successfully, but the fact that it's still here, suggests that they've been doing something right. Also, asking people to buy into an enterprise isn't strictly 'charity', more asking people to show financial appreciation/support for something they value. The Guardian does basically the same thing on top of its various subscription options.
I get where you're coming from, we had a local cafe try to crowd-fund its way out of commercial unviability and I had little sympathy for that. If you're running a caff and not enough people use it, then you need to make the cafe more appealing/increase your prices etc, not ask your customer base for hand-outs. I guess I have a soft spot for STW then...
As a business, I’d be shocked if the forum shouldn’t be supporting the magazine nowadays, rather than vice versa.
Be shocked. I’ve said before that the maths is pretty clear. A forum only would not be viable. There’s probably enough potential to sustain 1 good salary or maybe two part time. As a complete package with online content and print it’s a model that can sustain 7 mediocre salaries. The forum is a vital component in the mix. But like many things the coming together of a suite of media from digital to print coupled with a community adds up to more than the sum of its parts.
The print mag I reckon could sustain maybe 3 mediocre salaries on its own but its future would be very uncertain without the website and forum. We sell advertising in packages mostly. Ie across the full suite of digital and print. Offering print only or digital only ads would likely result in a disproportionate decrease in ad revenue that would likely bring either a forum only or print only operation to its knees.
They both need each other to be sustainable. The forum may well be the only significant component of interest to many people but similarly the print mag is the only important component to many others. The wider industry is attracted to the combination of the two.
Together they are important to a great many more people, not least the Singletrack team here and wider.
Print magazines done well do have a niche - evo's a great example, because while the quantity and quality of cars they review has declined hugely, it's about the long-form writing, the glorious photography and landscapes across a double-page spread. No matter how good online is, it doesn't provide that longevity or gloss. In partnership with good online content it's a killer combination
Singletrackworld - what's the point?
Bit rude!
Would you walk into a small shop and ask them what's the point of what they're doing!?
Print is a long way from dead and when you look at MBUK they have no real online presence that's worth anything so income must be purely from the magazine.
Probably read about half a dozen physical magazines in total (more a Rouleur reader), but I have been a long-time supporter and contributor to the forum and full member. because if you are not paying, you are the product. And I believe in supporting the innovator (OK it innovated a while back but still it adds to my life experience). It's also why my bell is a SpurCycle not a RockBros. I hope it continues and I always like to see the magazine on the WHS stand at Waterloo.
They both need each other to be sustainable.
Which is the primary business purpose Mark? Correct me if I'm wrong but STW was originally all about the magazine with a website to help promote/sell it. Is that still the case or could a world ever exist where STW operated without a print output?
Maybe it's a hypothetical question given what I've quoted, just curious if the beating heart of STW has changed?
Agreed this is a bit rude as a thread although I can see where it is coming from (I think)
Having recently seen the fun and games of being taken over by a PE firm one thing I will never forget. One of the managers got a bollocking for not making the required profit margin on a job. His response was “Yes that’s correct but I have kept 5 people in employment” that’s the world I have come from and the one I now find myself in. Very different and its taken a lot of upset along the way. Consider that if you will?
I think the question is really trying to ask if the forum can run without the print? As mark has alluded to they are both mutually beneficial and work in harmony with each other so canning one or the other would be detrimental to the other one. I see this doesn’t play into the thoughts of some. However while some will see print as dead its clear from Mark that it isn’t. I would suggest the forum is more likely to die as people move to more engaging platforms like facebook that keep you hooked on their platform.
Mark has the figures and the buisness case to take this forward. It’s a brave move to open his doors like this and you cant fault them for being open and transparent. That’s why (I guess) a lot of folks are still here.
Lets hope the futures bright 😊
Correct me if I'm wrong but STW was originally all about the magazine with a website to help promote/sell it.
My (possibly incorrect) understanding is that it originally started as just a forum then the rest of the website started growing before the magazine appeared.
Originally it was just a website. That didn't work so we added a magazine after that BOTH began to work and compliment each other. They still do. That's the magic sauce, if there is such a thing. Singletrack is a thing made up of forum, digital journalism and print journalism. All three add up to more than the sum of their parts. It works because of all them being in existence.
That's my assessment anyhoo.
My attitude to work is pretty much as andybrad laid out above. Singletrack as it is can support and sustain the salaries of more people as a whole than it could if we dropped print, or the forum or the rest of the website. One of the most fulfilling things I've don in my life is to employ people. I like that and as lefty as it may sound I think that's the purpose of business. For me, profit is a means to being able to do that. I want to build Singletrack to be in a position to pay the team here what I know they are worth. Just continuing along the existing path isn't going to let that happen. We need to grow the business with investment and use our equity to do that. That will mean we can become more profitable, develop the technology and processes that we need to and benefit everyone with a stake in Singletrack.
Like many of us, I use the forum a fair bit, since the refresh mostly for bike related stuff. It's both a community and a repository of both bike expertise and arcane knowledge across multiple subjects.
I haven't been reading the mag much in the last few months. Reading this thread I thought I should actually engage with that part of my subscription, I've enjoyed reading as a PDF in the past.....but the PDF download isn't working it seems
Interesting that I think most of the contributors to the thread are not subscribers? Is that what the green dot means?
Originally it was just a website. That didn't work so we added a magazine after that BOTH began to work and compliment each other. They still do. That's the magic sauce, if there is such a thing. Singletrack is a thing made up of forum, digital journalism and print journalism. All three add up to more than the sum of their parts. It works because of all them being in existence.
That's my assessment anyhoo.
My attitude to work is pretty much as andybrad laid out above. Singletrack as it is can support and sustain the salaries of more people as a whole than it could if we dropped print, or the forum or the rest of the website. One of the most fulfilling things I've don in my life is to employ people. I like that and as lefty as it may sound I think that's the purpose of business. For me, profit is a means to being able to do that. I want to build Singletrack to be in a position to pay the team here what I know they are worth. Just continuing along the existing path isn't going to let that happen. We need to grow the business with investment and use our equity to do that. That will mean we can become more profitable, develop the technology and processes that we need to and benefit everyone with a stake in Singletrack.
When you say "grow the business", into what exactly ? What's the void STW+extra is going to fill ? How will it manifest itself ?
Interesting that I think most of the contributors to the thread are not subscribers? Is that what the green dot means?
Green dot means they are online.
Free/Full Member status is below that.
Green dot means they are online.
Free/Full Member status is below that.
Thanks Muffin, I am obvs not up-to-date on the new iconography. And apologies if that ignorance has offended anyone up the thread.
When you say "grow the business", into what exactly ? What's the void STW+extra is going to fill ? How will it manifest itself ?
I suspect from what Mark says above, by being less hand to mouth worrying about the next big bill and being able to pay staff a little more. Seems reasonable to me. As the two main revenues are subscriptions and advertising then one or both will have to increase to put the business on a firmer financial footing. What is less clear (atm - I'm sure Mark will share his thoughts at some stage) is how money raised from a shares issue will be spent to achieve more subscribers or advertising revenue.
When you say "grow the business", into what exactly ? What's the void STW+extra is going to fill ? How will it manifest itself ?
I suspect from what Mark says above, by being less hand to mouth worrying about the next big bill and being able to pay staff a little more. Seems reasonable to me. As the two main revenues are subscriptions and advertising then one or both will have to increase to put the business on a firmer financial footing. What is less clear (atm - I'm sure Mark will share his thoughts at some stage) is how money raised from a shares issue will be spent to achieve more subscribers or advertising revenue.
Yes, however none of that answers the question.
If this were a clothes shop, it would be "adding more lines to cater for men, women and children as well as a shoe section and underwear section"
If it were a restaurant "adding a pizza oven along with a revised menu offering tapas"
So, if it's STW, what is the 'grow' offering/seen as, what's being sold that isn't being sold now. And how does that manifest itself within the current bike parket.
When you say "grow the business", into what exactly ? What's the void STW+extra is going to fill ? How will it manifest itself ?
That reads a bit harsh but is a fair comment, continuous growth to infinity is not sustainable. Doing what one specialises in very well, or better and adding an extra employee as necessary would be my aim with the investment keeping end-user costs lower. Adding extra users as those of us older types drop off the perch would be ideally green and sustainable.
Singletrack as it is can support and sustain the salaries of more people as a whole than it could if we dropped print, or the forum or the rest of the website. One of the most fulfilling things I've don in my life is to employ people. I like that and as lefty as it may sound I think that's the purpose of business. For me, profit is a means to being able to do that.
So if people are investing in Singletrack, the purpose of that investment is to allow the company to do what it thinks it needs to do to make enough money to employ people on a decent salary. Exactly what it thinks it needs to do is unclear at this point, as per Weeksy's question
The implication is that it is likely that the level of 'excess' profit (i.e. after all bills and salaries have been paid) will be low, so those investors are unlikely to get much of a purely financial return. Obviously, financial return isn't everything, and for those investors the motivation may be the knowledge that they are supporting what is effectively a not-for-profit enterprise in an area/sport/hobby/lifestyle/whatever in which they share a common interest (plus they get 'perks' on the other thread, which can be offered as they, effectively, cost the company nothing).
Is that a fair assessment?
That reads a bit harsh but is a fair comment,
It certainly wasn't supposed to be harsh, i'm genuinely interested in what 'grow' means for the STW community, both on here, off here, etc. The reason is, if print is getting less and less worldwide was we percieve then what will STW use/do instead to grow.
Vital, PB etc have their USPs, so what will STWs be ?
No worries @weeksy asking questions on sensitive issues can be difficult and I tend to go direct too.
@weeksy don't forget the PB is now part of the Outside group, a move which was done so that it could carry on in it's present form IIRC?
I'm not sure how Vital is funded/generates cash as I don't really go on there much.
It would be nice to know what the long term plan for STW is though, I'd be happy to chuck a few quid in to keep it going though - even if at the Level 1 £75 option. Which is about the same I invested in Atherton Bikes......
What returns people get for their investment will be purely academic as to pay share holders the business needs to make a decent profit - you can't follow the model of Utility Companies where they just pay shareholders and directors regardless...
Like the adverts say - the value and return on your investment can go down.
But yeah, a game plan would be good to know.
It certainly wasn't supposed to be harsh, i'm genuinely interested in what 'grow' means for the STW community,
That was really the nub of my initial message in the thread.
If investment will allow STW to keep providing the core service for the good of everyone (employees and the community) for as long as it can practically last based on the same online/offline journalism plus community forum model, then that's honorable and valid.
However, Mark says it will support growth so I'm curious whether STW see growth in that same product base (more money = increased volume and/or quality of output) or there's a new arena that STW wants to move into that so far they haven't had the finances for.
I think it's quite a key question to motivate those considering investing. Is it that I like what STW gives me personally so will invest to maintain that, or is it that I'm excited about the future of mountain biking journalism (or whatever the new arena is) and want to support that change in the services provided by STW.
Sounds a bit disengenous to say, 'all in good time' but that's the crux of it. We are at the very start of the campaign for this thing, we haven't even paid our £5k fee to CrowdCube to get things moving. That will be start of August. At that point lots more info and details of plans will be laid out for you to see as we jump through a whole raft of very important legal hoops. Only when you have that info in hand and time to ponder it will we expect anyone to go anywhere near the 'invest' button. even after that, CrowdCube give you a big long cooling off period where you can change your mind. We don't see any proceeds at all until the campaign is closed which will likely be some point in October.
Please don't think i'm dodgng questions (they are good questions) and please don't imagine I don't already have answers to those questions, but right now I'm being lead and advised by some talented experts who operate in this area for a living.
You know I'm always keen to be as open as possible. But for now, give us some time to pull evetrging together that we have to in order to stand the best chance of this working.
When I was in the bike industry (I was the first advertiser to pay for advertising in the fledgling GoFAR/SingleTrackWorld Magazine) and was lucky enough to be there at the beginning of this enterprise which was an exciting mix of stolen vans, mad bike shows, selling 100 subs in one day and trying to get the world to accept a new genre of mtb journalism because online hadn't been done well before GoFAR. There had been some better funded sites that quickly flopped and a bunch of fan-level sites. Social media & youtube didn't exist, many people still had dial up modems to access the internet. It was largely only me and noah's ark that did online shopping for bike parts in the whole of the uk. My website used the payment backend used by a major porn company (because they invented it first) which then went on, rather indirectly, to become WorldPay.
Any organisation has to evolve over time to stay relevant. Also, looking at the timing, the original owners will want to divest equity as they get older.
- I'll be supporting the process.
- Curious what the next innovation will be
- Curious what the next innovation will be
...and OnlyFans feed where you can pay to see tjagain sporting a series of natty outfits and showcasing on-trend hairstyles!
Be more like a uk version of 'The Radavist' would be my recommendation. Its the quality of the photography, the gallery submissions by contributors - the long form often quirky writing with less focus on corporate marketing guff that stands out as a benchmark in these things... I suspect its the photo galleries alone that drive engagement and time spent on site. If you could bolt the forum and mag on to that then that could be something special.
Be more like a uk version of 'The Radavist' would be my recommendation.
I've been vaguely following John Watson since he was doing NYC fixed gear culture probably 15 years ago. He seems to reinvent/realign and relocate himself every few years, and even the Radavist (in its current focus on bikepacking, US style XC and gravel with a bit of SoCal utility bike weirdness thrown in) website has had some major changes RE money/sponsorship which he has been pretty open about.
Dude loves (riding, building and talking about) bikes, and photography and his enthusiasm is seemingly relentless. However his business accumen - which fair play to him, is entirely self taught - may not be the best role model.
Be more like a uk version of 'The Radavist' would be my recommendation.
I've been vaguely following John Watson since he was doing NYC fixed gear culture probably 15 years ago. He seems to reinvent/realign and relocate himself every few years, and even the Radavist (in its current focus on bikepacking, US style XC and gravel with a bit of SoCal utility bike weirdness thrown in) website has had some major changes RE money/sponsorship which he has been pretty open about.
On the "changes RE money/sponsorship" thing, it could be worth bringing bikepacking.com into the discussion. They've not long since started charging to make use of forum and classifieds. We don't know how good we've got it here!
Something that has puzzled me for a while is the very low engagement on social media with only 30K subs on Youtube and a third of that on Insta. They may be the spawn of santa but it seems like an unexplored revenue stream to me.
We have a documentary on our channel that has had 1.5 million views. It’s earned us a grand total of £3000.
We have 525k followers on FB. Last month fb paid us $48.
Social media platforms work in their own interests, not ours. They change algorithms overnight. Social media is NOT the cash cow many people think it is.
Social media platforms work in their own interests, not ours. They change algorithms overnight. Social media is NOT the cash cow many people think it is.
I'm aware of that, but it's £3k more than if you didn't have it up there...
And 1.5 million views...
Rob Rides EMTB has 729 million views and over 1 million subscribers.
Forgot to say, the documentary cost £50k to make.
I'm not dismissing YT out of hand. My point is the resources you need to throw at it get a return are very high. One man operations like Robs are great for the YT platform as that's all he does. Also, the growth engine on YT, Insta and FB have been throttled for several years now. Which means actually growing subscribers on those channels is no longer a case of just cranking out content. We had 55k followers in our insta until it was hacked and we had to start again. FB offered no help at all despite us having 2FA activated, which was somehow bypassed by the hacker. That was 3 years ago. It took us less than a year to originally earn 55k followers but it's taken us 3 years to get back to 11k - because the algo changes to suit the platform and not us.
My aversion to these revenue streams is complex and based in numbers, resource management and experience. BUT the principal reason for it not being our focus right now is because we only have resources to focus on what we can control and we know work for us. that's print, longform content and this website. With invenstment and more resources we can look towards YT as an opportunity tpo increase revenue but it will take at least one more staffer/freelenacer on it pretty much full time to make that work and therfore we have an ongoing cost that needs to get a return. That's a hard ask when 1.5 million views get's you £3k over a 10 year period.
To that end our own video platform here has some numbers that are quite nice and earn us a lot more money than YT does, even like for like.
Surely the point of social media is to drive traffic to the site and magazine. That is why it is worth doing.
The key point that STW misses and has for a long time is that the content provided by their users is more valuable than the content they push to them. That's why this current business model is declining and will continue to. The web is going to die soon as well with new agentic/generative UI's replacing static content. Marry that with a forum that is increasingly reducing the amount and quality of content provided by users and you've got a situation where many straws will be clutched at. I think STW needs a benefactor more than investment as it's moving to legacy fast.
We do do that. We post to FB Insta all the time mostly because our site is set up to maximise distribution of all content that way. BUT social media traffic to publishers has gone off a cliff edge over the last 4 years. We used to get 25% of all our traffic from socials 5 years ago. That's now down to about 5%. What has cahnged ins the platforms alogos. Think of it this way. FB makes money from you when you are on their platform. Why would they allow you to leave their platform tpo come to our site? That makes no commercial sense from FB POV. They used to send us lots of traffic 5 years ago and earlier becuase they NEEDED publishers to add their content to their platforms in order to attract users. Stuff like news from the mainstream press was seen as a honeypot for FB. It brought people to FB. So FB was happy to let media do that for free in order to get some of the traffic from FB to head to their sites.
But that changed several years ago now. FB reached a peak where they didn't need external media to gain users. In fact they realised at that point that media was now reliant on FB for traffic. And so they turned off the taps and started demanding that to get the reach and traffic that once they gave us for free we now have to pay to boost all our posts if we want the same reach.
Plus, my own research using over a decade of programmatic ad data* shows that the value to us of the traffic that does come from social platforms is actually very low value. I can see how much money is earned from interactions with ads for all our audience segments. ie. I can put a value to traffic that comes to us direct (from bookmarks etc.) Google search, Instagram stories, facebook, twitter and all the rest. So I literally have a table that shows me how much money we earn per thousand users from those sources.
Direct visits earned us around £20 cpm. Which means we get 1000 direct visitors to the site (direct = users opening a browser and having us bookmarked or just typing in our url) and we earn around £20.
At the other end of the scale is facebook. For every 1000 people that come to us from FB we earn around £2. That traffic is worth 10x less. If we boosted (paid fb) for every post we put on their platform we'd make a thumping loss. It might earn us more traffic but that traffic would not cover the cost of the promotional cost.
With limited resources it means we are far better focusing on the traffic that comes to us direct. Google search traffic is worth around £17/1000 visitors - which is why I spend a lot of time working on SEO and how we surface in google search - siomply because it is offers a good return on my time. There's a logical reason why sarch traffic is worth a lot more than social traffic which I won't go into deatil here but it's related to something called 'search intent'. You can probably come up with your own hypothesis there.
Focusing on social media as a source of traffic and revenue is comparatively a poor return on investment. You CAN get a return from it, Many operations do, but in the list of things that are good bets and those that are perhaps too risky, for us it's not the best place to allocate time, energy and money.
Again, though... like with YT, with enough resouces, skills, manpower it would perhaps be worth making that a project. But right now our biggest returns come from the magazine, the content we create, the sponsorships and advertising revenue that brings in and search traffic. And even with those limited 'projects' we are stretched. To focus on other revenue streams would come at the cost of the existing streams we know work and we know we can do well.
Which all kind of comes back to why we are looking for investment. There ARE areas we can expand into and not just social media. There's travel sectors, more engagement tech for the website to get deeper website engagement. More sponsorship opportunities around the content we produce - I have a list. More marketing we could do around subscriptions. We could focus on so much more - if we had the resources to do that.
That takes money.
*I have given talks at two publisher conferences on exactly this issue and had articles in the trade journal In Publishing on this data.
The key point that STW misses and has for a long time is that the content provided by their users is more valuable than the content they push to them. That's why this current business model is declining and will continue to
This is absolutely NOT true at all.
You should charge to enter the Megasack. Or paid subscribers only.
Megasack was subscribers only last year.
I'm very happy to talk about all this stuff and answer questions but for reasons of my sanity and a big list of other jobs I have to do I'm going to bow out here. Anyone can email me direct with questions if you like. Happy to engage.
Cheers all.
I’m more than happy to accept that the algorithm on socials has changed and this will have had an impact. The other side that needs looking at is are you producing content that Pele want to consume? I’ve been a subscriber for many years but each time my renewal come up I debate whether to renew because the content has changed in away that is of less interest to me. I know a sample of 1 even stretches the definition of anecdotal but there is an element of making sure your product is what the market wants
I’m more than happy to accept that the algorithm on socials has changed and this will have had an impact. The other side that needs looking at is are you producing content that Pele want to consume? I’ve been a subscriber for many years but each time my renewal come up I debate whether to renew because the content has changed in away that is of less interest to me. I know a sample of 1 even stretches the definition of anecdotal but there is an element of making sure your product is what the market wants
The content isn't even relevant to many of us, the content HERE is what brings a lot of the forum people to the forum, not the content of the magazine/website.
I read about 1% of articles.
I asked an AI.
Yo—
Snapbacks, drop bars, thread’s lit, no facade,
Singletrackworld where the riders go hard.
Keyboard warriors, tubeless and scarred,
Droppin’ opinions like chainrings in the yard.
Scroll deep—yeah, the drama’s elite,
One post beef, next post, tech elite.
Suspension debates, drivetrain heat,
Talkin' ‘bout forks like they’re lyrical feats.
“Why’s my hub clickin’?” “Climb or descend?”
“Is that new SRAM or just rebranded trend?”
One dude posts pics, another one pretends—
And Mods come through like, “Yo, thread ends.”
But still, through sarcasm, GIFs, and jest,
It’s a tribe of torque, no need to flex.
From the mud to the memes to the rider’s quest,
It’s a digital trail where the vibes don’t rest.
“are you producing content that Pele want to consume?”
he’s more viagra and football isn’t he?
the content HERE is what brings a lot of the forum people to the forum
It shouldn't really come as much of a shock that the people most vocal on the forum come here for the forum content.
I initially came here because of the magazine and a newly rediscovered interest in cycling (it was actually my partner of the time who directed me here), but it's the forum community which has kept me here for, what, 15 years?
My comment on drawing SM use here was that if I’m on instagram (which I use only for bike stuff) I’ll read says pinkbike doing a basic photo post and click the “full details in the comments and click the link to read it”. I rarely do that on STW. So whilst the ££ per traffic isn’t great compared to Google then I just wonder what’s the goal with the posts sometimes. And I hate to be critical when the mag needs help, just chucking in my 2p of thoughts
The content isn't even relevant to many of us, the content HERE is what brings a lot of the forum people to the forum, not the content of the magazine/website.
I guess the answer to this would be that of the people who subscribe more of them are interested in the magazine than they are the forum.
if they aren’t active on the forum, you won’t know what they think.
If on the other hand, the only people who subscribe are the ones that are active on the forum, then you may have a point.
It shouldn't really come as much of a shock that the people most vocal on the forum come here for the forum content.
It does come across a bit like doing a survey about "do you like books" in the foyer of a public library (I am aware this might not work as well today as it did when I learnt it as "simple example of dodgy surveys").
I do think Mark does a good job of answering questions from people and only think its a shame there isnt a letters page in the mag where people can write in going "Whilst down the club I was reading the magazine and was shocked when Bunty interrupted me to say there is a 'Website' associated with this fine paper. Are we subsidising that?"
I am not quite sure why I went all public school and private club there but...
The web is going to die soon as well with new agentic/generative UI's replacing static content
TBH this could actually spark a revival to printed magazines written by real people.
Anyone currently hammering the AI for content is generating reams of shite and TBH I think there will be a counterrevolution to it.
I use AI in the day job and it’s a handy tool but all tools need a master craftsman to really sing 🙂
Print magazines are starting to see a revival. It will never go back to the highs of 15 years ago but the low point is definitely behind us (all specialist magazines publishers). I hate to liken it to vinyl as vinyl is fundamentally a shite medium for music whereas print is a very good medium for content. But you get the idea.
TBH this could actually spark a revival to printed magazines written by real people.
.. .. using AI for content is generating reams of shite and TBH I think there will be a counterrevolution to it.
.. .. all tools need a master craftsman to really sing 🙂
This
I hate to liken it to vinyl as vinyl is fundamentally a shite medium for music
…now you’ve done it!!! 😱😱
The key point that STW misses and has for a long time is that the content provided by their users is more valuable than the content they push to them. ...,.....Marry that with a forum that is increasingly reducing the amount and quality of content provided by users
I tend to agree with this to a large extent.
This is absolutely NOT true at all.
Keen to understand what data you have based this on. I'm not that up to date but I seem to recall there being an option to subscribe to the mag, no option to subscribe to the forum, and then you were comparing the income from mag subscribers to the income from free forum users without taking into account the fact that many " mag" subscribers only did so as it was the only model to pay money regularly to support STW ( forum)
The data is here in front of me. And no, I’m obviously not going to share it. I know what powers the business and where the money comes from. The number of subscribers who pay just for the forum is not as many as you think. The forum itself is a self selecting data source. I see exactly how many people engage with every part of the site and every piece of content. Print subscribers alone outnumber digital only by more than 2:1 and that gap is widening. The subs growth right now is in print. I appreciate that doesn’t match your perception but it doesn’t stop it from being the reality.
The forum is not the cash cow you may think it is but it is a vital part of the whole.
I know you can’t fathom why and that’s fine, you don’t see what I see, but the forum alone is absolutely NOT a viable business.
Ok here is my prediction. Total speculation of course
It’s clear that the money raised needs a purpose to expand the business. Mark has hinted at this and i wish I’d written this a couple of days ago when i thought of it.
One options is the YT plus commercial tie in, like the GCN thing. But i don’t see that working here. Partly as GCN have filled that space and i see no love for YT here
So my prediction is that the development will be travel. Here are my slim clues. Chipps is already a destination and is offered as investor perk. The guys all popped over to Morzine recently. The Mag has always covered travel, often with commercial partners involved. Mark mentioned travel as an option
So i think what they are planning to add is a “Much Better Adventures” style Portal, which will start with off road cycling. This will allow customers to book with Independent providers. Providers increase occupancy and Singletrack gets a small %. Each destination will get words, pictures and videos provided by the team here. We’ll be able to comment and review
I think it makes sense as it’s a good use of the existing traffic, lots of visitors to this site go on cycling holidays. It’s a good use of staff and owner expertise. It also has the potential to bring in new traffic to the site.
My main speculation here is that the providers could do with more bookings. But the team here have loads of contacts with providers. They’ll know whether there is a market for this. I’m not going to name potential partners as that seems unfair on them. But they’ll be offering accommodation and in most cases, guided rides.
Here is a story from a mate who sea kayaks. His work includes websites in the travel sector. The story is to illustrate what is in it for the providers.
My mate got to know some guys who ran Sea Kayak trips in Scotland. They had a social media presence which helped with repeat bookings. But it didn’t bring in new clients and they were struggling to fill trips.
So my mate wrote a piece about Sea Kayak safety which he thought people would share. The company put it on their website and people shared it. A week later that had sold out every trip for that year. To say they thank you he got a free holiday, the one he wanted but couldn’t afford.
Print subscribers alone outnumber digital only by more than 2:1 and that gap is widening.
Likely driven by only being £1 difference on a monthly subscription. The pricing model ‘discourages’ choosing a digital subscription.
^ yeah, what's that quote 'lies, damned lies and statistics'. Whatever the reality Mark has to work with it and I will be interested to see the proposal when the investment is launched
Trying to work out how to bridge the gap here.
The forum is not the cash cow you may think it is but it is a vital part of the whole.
First off, I definitely don't think it is a cash cow, and I'm not saying that there are more forum fans than mag fans. What I'm saying is that I don't think there is any data to support a view either way because of the way subs have historically been set up. My expectation is that forum fans have historically been pushed away from contributing, perhaps because you view them as wanting to get rid of the magazine. From my limited understanding of them, they don't. They just want a way to pay their way for the forum they consume.
To reiterate, I'm not pushing for forum only. I'm suggesting that you enable a mechanism for forum users to directly contribute financially for the service they value. And, as a side benefit, provide you with more data to base your business model on ( though, as above, I doubt the numbers will be huge)
The number of subscribers who pay just for the forum is not as many as you think.
I don't think it is big, or small. I don't think it is currently measurable. That's my only point. I'd love to know more, purely as a number exercise.
The forum itself is a self selecting data source.
Agreed.
I see exactly how many people engage with every part of the site and every piece of content.
This bit totally intrigued me. The only way I could see this being true is if online subscribers vastly outnumbered print subscribers and this rendered print numbers irrelevant. You know exactly who has clicked where online, but have limited data ( I presume none) on who reads which articles in the mag.
But then you say this:
Print subscribers alone outnumber digital only by more than 2:1 and that gap is widening. The subs growth right now is in print.
Which suggests that actually the opposite is true. Print subs outweigh online only subs. Which suggests any data about online usage only paints a limited picture of what is going on.
Anyway, I'm off track. To reiterate: I'm not pushing for a forum only, I was pushing for a forum payment option and richer data.
I think the important thing being missed here is Marks terminology
"but the forum alone is absolutely NOT a viable business. "
That doesn't mean it's not a viable entity, but it does mean it won't pay people's salaries. This forum if completely split from the magazine is perfectly viable, simple and relatively cheap.
However, stw is more the bigger picture with articles, writers etc.
I'd say the forum would/could make a few grand a year in its own right with subscribers, adverts etc. but that doesn't pay a team.
I don't think it is big, or small. I don't think it is currently measurable. That's my only point. I'd love to know more, purely as a number exercise.
I can't see why it wouldn't be measurable. Cookies. Server side tracking, Subscriber counts etc. You're talking about tracking subscribers who never/rarely download the mags and only visit the forum (hi!) vs subscribers who only download the mags (or have print deliveries) but never visit the forum. That'd depend if the system that tracks subscriptions is part of the same system that tracks user activity or not, or if the two systems can communicate the relevate data (without breaching GDPR).
I was pushing for a forum payment option
I think I only pay £25 a year.
I currently have a print and digital sub. I find I read the mag less and less with each passing issue and I'm embarrassed to say, occasionally I get a new one realising I haven't touched the previous one. It's still a wonderful thing, I love the smell, the articles are very well written, it's beautifully photographed and I have a nostalgia for print magazines. But I've been conditioned like everyone else to be able to access the exact piece of niche info or specific content I want at any given moment, at the click of a mouse.
Every now and then, an article in the mag catches my eye and really resonates, but tbh most of them don't. They're not bad of course, just not of particular interest to me. I will probably go to a digital subscription on my next renewal. Not because I will read the mag on line, but because it's the only way I can support the forum, which is what I really value.
I do wonder how many of your print subscribers are in the same boat when you're counting them in print v digital or magazine v forum stats?
I'm embarrassed to say, occasionally I get a new one realising I haven't touched the previous one
That totally describes me, which was why I recently dropped my subscription as I wasn’t reading the mag. I’ve picked it up again, mainly to contribute to the site for just a tenner a month.
I re-subscribed to print as I may as well get the mag for the little difference in the two subscription. If there was a noticeable difference then I’d probably be digital only …. And probably look at the digital magazine less than I do the physical!
Despite the view (which I may have misinterpreted) that the forum is not particularly viable - it’s actually the reason I subscribe to the mag. Drop the mag, I’d still come and pay for the forum and would probably still pay the same amount. Drop the forum and I’d probably stop all subscriptions.
Data of online activity doesn’t really represent the full picture of motivators and behaviour. Asking another genuine question - do STW really fully understand customer behaviour or just the data interpretation of it? Maybe a well written customer survey could present a different view ahead of major strategic changes for the business?
I don’t know if the forum could survive as an independent entity.
I use to be a regular contributor to a dpreview forum. One of the regulars got banned for posting photos. A bizarre rule for a photography forum. I think he was the user with the most posts for the whole sire and probably still is (43,000)
Anyway we all got the hump and moved to a new forum. It worked well for a while. Hundreds of us moved and we had great competitions and even made 7 books together. We had international meets the lot. But we only ever got smaller. No one new joined because once you’re just a just forum you are way harder to find.
No one new joined because once you’re just a just forum you are way harder to find.
True, but still way easier to find than a niche print magazine with very few stockists. Despite keeping an eye out for it. I've never seen a copy of STW magazine for sale in any bricks and mortar shop other than one localish but very rural bike shop.
One thing I’ve noticed here is that if you have a question about anything vaguely technical on almost any subject imaginable, there will be someone here with useful advice! That alone is so valuable but unless you’ve hung out here for a while you’d never realise it. It’s like Which magazine but not just consumer stuff!
As a digital subscriber I get the digital mag and can’t say I read it. I’ve just had a quick look at the June edition and, from my point of view, nothing in there is of any interest to me. I feel terrible saying that as this is people’s passion so it’s not from a quality of writing/photography point of view, just the topics have no relevance/interest to me and, frankly, if I’m going to spend some time reading something about biking, I’ll jump on a thread on here or a PinkBike article that I can choose of my liking, rather than what someone thinks I might be interested in. Disposable society and what not.
Not sure if that reflects badly on me, but my point is the mag isn’t any sort of draw to me.
And I also have an affinity to support as the mag is based daily local to me.
True, but still way easier to find than a niche print magazine with very few stockists.
@Mark how did things go after you stopped selling in WH Smith et al? I tend to find new magazines by just browsing one of the big magazine selling shops and seeing what's available. Did you find there was a drop off in new subscribers after you stopped stocking at newsagents or did numbers carry on as before?
Saying that, last time I went into a WH Smith specifically looking for magazines I ended up leaving with nothing. I'm not sure if I was just in the wrong mood or none of the subjects I'm interested in justify a magazine anymore but that was kind of unusual for me.
I think the important thing being missed here is Marks terminology
"but the forum alone is absolutely NOT a viable business. "
That doesn't mean it's not a viable entity, but it does mean it won't pay people's salaries. This forum if completely split from the magazine is perfectly viable, simple and relatively cheap.
However, stw is more the bigger picture with articles, writers etc.
I'd say the forum would/could make a few grand a year in its own right with subscribers, adverts etc. but that doesn't pay a team.
^^This^^
If you look at something like Pinkbinke, that was (back in the early 00´s) a sucessful forum, with a bolt on news news page and a few employees writing articles, fast forward 2 decades and it´s primarily a YT channel and podcast with the same thriving Forum. A forum does not pay the bills, it´s a route to generate interest and engagement but it´s the other forms of content that bring in sufficient income to support the enterprise.
Similar must apply for the whole Bike Radar, GCN, GMBN, MBR, MBUK outfits that seem to be based in the SW(?) around bath/bristol and presumably rose out of the ashes of the cycling print media boom of the 80/90s (total uninformed gueeswork of course). they´re all mostly online "content mills" now it seems to me. I did go in a WH Smiths the other day and couldn´t see any of the related titles (Or indeed ST)...
The Print mag may still have more subscription uptake (is that led by demographics? do people over about 45 prefer print?) but is serving up the same content digitally, more or less profitable? what´s the differnce in overheads/margin for print Vs PDF?
I seem to recall there being an option to subscribe to the mag, no option to subscribe to the forum,
I remember that discussion. It made no sense, because
To reiterate, I'm not pushing for forum only. I'm suggesting that you enable a mechanism for forum users to directly contribute financially for the service they value.
This already exists. It's called a digital subscription. What more do you want? You want to support the forum (which, I notice, you aren't) but don't want to read the magazine? Fine, so support the forum and ignore the mag. An annual digital sub is, what, £2.50 a month? How much is half a pint at your local? I've just looked and there's also a "choose your own price" (within reason) option so it could probably be had for less than that even, I've no idea how this works though.
I subscribe to (print+digital) SFX magazine. The retail cover price is £5.75 and whilst monthly rather than bi-monthly it doesn't come with a forum or merchandise discounts, and is backed by Future Publishing (3,000 staff, revenue £800M, net income £80M).
How do you envisage a "forum only" subscription would work? How much less than £2.50 would it have to be for you to buy into a forum only sub when the forum (with ads) is literally free to start with?
(Pinkbike) the same thriving Forum.
You sure? They have a lively comments section, but the forum is very quiet, compared to here.
Forum only subscription to me feels like a discount on Word because i didn’t want to draw pictures.
Or film only netflix, or photoshop without a RAW converter.
In a digital world the consumer not using a feature saves the supplier nothing. So why give a discount for it.
The availability of the magazine might drive a few people here. But it pays for staff, who also create free content, and that brings people here
Forum only subscription to me feels like a discount on Word because i didn’t want to draw pictures.
Or film only netflix, or photoshop without a RAW converter.
In a digital world the consumer not using a feature saves the supplier nothing. So why give a discount for it.
The availability of the magazine might drive a few people here. But it pays for staff, who also create free content, and that brings people here
Lol how is it free content if we pay for it and they also get paid for it?
You sure?
TBH no, I just assumed it was as busy as it was last time I bothered using it (quite a while ago now), if you say it´s dead I´ll Happily beleive you.
My point still stands though, PB is now a content mill, like all the other turn of the century MTB media outfits that are still going in some form or another, their roots matter less than fitting into the current cycling media consumption model which is mostly online, either on a smartphone or a PC...
The various brands use them to reach the punters through reviews and advertising, they make lots of YT other content, they write the odd online article (normally mirrored with a YT video) for those that still want to read, and they all seem to try their hand at podcasting, generally they don´t seem to be held back by the lack of a Print media offering.
My musing was more around the idea that the people who most value printed mags more are ´of a certain age´ and MTBing is generally pitched towards a younger demographic, where those (45+?) are a limited niche. SBC, Trek, etc want the disposable income of 15-35 year olds before Mortgage debt and parenthood robs them, they´ll take their Dad´s money too I´m sure but we´re not the core market. It might be my misinterpretation but I´ve always assumed that ST is a bit more targetted at the older rider, who inevitably come with different spending priorities and therefore advertiser appeal...
Mark´s stats probably capture the true reality of it, and this forum certainly isn´t the best way to gauge the overall picture, but if we´re collectively mulling the idea of investing in ST, and thus how it is going to grow/develop over the next decade or so, you kind of have to think about it in the broader context of the MTB/Gravel/cycling media market and what niche ST occupies today. Most importantly consider if that´s actually a growth area or not. I don´t think I´d be putting money in, soley on the basis of ageing MTBer´s nostalgia for paper and a healthy forum...
But I assume there´s a plan, if we register interest, I assume we find out?
Edit to be clear this is a reply to Weeksy
There is free content on this site and content that is subscriber only content. I’ll admit that as a subscriber i don’t have the best view as to which is which.
I think we can agree free isn’t the same as no one pays for it. It’s free to park at our local park. My parents get free bus travel. It’s free to sign up for facebook
I don’t know if the forum could survive as an independent entity.
The forum could probably survive as an independent entity. What it couldn't do is pay a dozen wages in the process, and in case you missed it STW is a business. (And as businesses go, I can't think of many others which not just permit but enable this degree of public criticism).
Despite many claims over the years of "well, I could do better," no-one to my knowledge has ever bothered to try. Certainly no-one has tried successfully, or we wouldn't be having this conversation. I could almost certainly knock up a forum in a weekend which was technically better than STW; I'm sure both of my users would love it for the 3 months it was live before I didn't have any revenue to cover the hosting fees.
Cougar the only disagreement here is whether the forum could survive independently. I speculate it would be hard going but obviously have no idea. I’m not complaining about the status quo. I’ve been paying to be here since issue one and was on the Go Far Forum before that.
I speculate it would be hard going
Not really. Hosting fees would be a couple of hundred a year, DNS and site name/SSL about £25. That's for a decent level of bandwidth.
As long as it had a decent number of members, as a forum in a stand alone context this would be a doddle.
The only reason it's not, is because of the 'more' that stw has and wants.
