<?xml version="1.0" encoding="UTF-8"?><rss version="2.0"
	xmlns:content="http://purl.org/rss/1.0/modules/content/"
	xmlns:dc="http://purl.org/dc/elements/1.1/"
	xmlns:atom="http://www.w3.org/2005/Atom"
	xmlns:sy="http://purl.org/rss/1.0/modules/syndication/"
	xmlns:georss="http://www.georss.org/georss" xmlns:geo="http://www.w3.org/2003/01/geo/wgs84_pos#" xmlns:media="http://search.yahoo.com/mrss/"
		>
<channel>
	<title>Comments on: Suicidal Subscriptions</title>
	<atom:link href="http://scholarlykitchen.sspnet.org/2008/12/10/suicidal-subscriptions/feed/" rel="self" type="application/rss+xml" />
	<link>http://scholarlykitchen.sspnet.org/2008/12/10/suicidal-subscriptions/</link>
	<description>What&#039;s Hot &#38; What&#039;s Cooking in Scholarly Publishing - from the Society for Scholarly Publishing</description>
	<lastBuildDate>Tue, 16 Mar 2010 13:24:14 +0000</lastBuildDate>
	<generator>http://wordpress.com/</generator>
	<sy:updatePeriod>hourly</sy:updatePeriod>
	<sy:updateFrequency>1</sy:updateFrequency>
		<item>
		<title>By: Information Subscriptions Continue to Evolve and Thrive &#8212; Why Are Publishers Slow to Adapt? &#171; The Scholarly Kitchen</title>
		<link>http://scholarlykitchen.sspnet.org/2008/12/10/suicidal-subscriptions/#comment-6808</link>
		<dc:creator>Information Subscriptions Continue to Evolve and Thrive &#8212; Why Are Publishers Slow to Adapt? &#171; The Scholarly Kitchen</dc:creator>
		<pubDate>Mon, 25 Jan 2010 10:30:34 +0000</pubDate>
		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://scholarlykitchen.sspnet.org/?p=2199#comment-6808</guid>
		<description>[...] subscriptions have become cumbersome and clunky. Since we sell annual subscriptions, the trend is to drive prices annual down in the consumer space, almost to suicidal levels. Yet when the Huffington Post went on the Kindle, it charged $1.99 per month &#8212; about three [...]</description>
		<content:encoded><![CDATA[<p>[...] subscriptions have become cumbersome and clunky. Since we sell annual subscriptions, the trend is to drive prices annual down in the consumer space, almost to suicidal levels. Yet when the Huffington Post went on the Kindle, it charged $1.99 per month &#8212; about three [...]</p>
]]></content:encoded>
	</item>
	<item>
		<title>By: Kent Anderson</title>
		<link>http://scholarlykitchen.sspnet.org/2008/12/10/suicidal-subscriptions/#comment-2087</link>
		<dc:creator>Kent Anderson</dc:creator>
		<pubDate>Thu, 11 Dec 2008 23:26:03 +0000</pubDate>
		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://scholarlykitchen.sspnet.org/?p=2199#comment-2087</guid>
		<description>I wish I could agree, but there are incentives for inflating distribution beyond demand or even editorial purpose, and many of these incentives are based on advertising dollars. And the return is often hard to calculate, so is poorly analyzed. Editorial often plays no real role. Buying lists, mailing magazines to people who don&#039;t want them, or offering them for free to inflate distribution doesn&#039;t rely on the quality of the editorial, only the business model and incentives.</description>
		<content:encoded><![CDATA[<p>I wish I could agree, but there are incentives for inflating distribution beyond demand or even editorial purpose, and many of these incentives are based on advertising dollars. And the return is often hard to calculate, so is poorly analyzed. Editorial often plays no real role. Buying lists, mailing magazines to people who don&#8217;t want them, or offering them for free to inflate distribution doesn&#8217;t rely on the quality of the editorial, only the business model and incentives.</p>
]]></content:encoded>
	</item>
	<item>
		<title>By: Rick</title>
		<link>http://scholarlykitchen.sspnet.org/2008/12/10/suicidal-subscriptions/#comment-2086</link>
		<dc:creator>Rick</dc:creator>
		<pubDate>Thu, 11 Dec 2008 22:35:59 +0000</pubDate>
		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://scholarlykitchen.sspnet.org/?p=2199#comment-2086</guid>
		<description>I don&#039;t agree with the comment that with advertising, the only thing left of value is the distribution.  The distribution is a direct reflection of the quality of the editorial.  The only way to attract advertisers is to first prove you already have the audience they want to reach and then to prove through click throughs that your audience actually wants their product.  If you can&#039;t prove those two things, they move on.  Thus, even with the evolutionary changes affecting magazines, the basic model hasn&#039;t changed, it&#039;s all about the content.</description>
		<content:encoded><![CDATA[<p>I don&#8217;t agree with the comment that with advertising, the only thing left of value is the distribution.  The distribution is a direct reflection of the quality of the editorial.  The only way to attract advertisers is to first prove you already have the audience they want to reach and then to prove through click throughs that your audience actually wants their product.  If you can&#8217;t prove those two things, they move on.  Thus, even with the evolutionary changes affecting magazines, the basic model hasn&#8217;t changed, it&#8217;s all about the content.</p>
]]></content:encoded>
	</item>
	<item>
		<title>By: Marty Frank</title>
		<link>http://scholarlykitchen.sspnet.org/2008/12/10/suicidal-subscriptions/#comment-2082</link>
		<dc:creator>Marty Frank</dc:creator>
		<pubDate>Wed, 10 Dec 2008 20:24:09 +0000</pubDate>
		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://scholarlykitchen.sspnet.org/?p=2199#comment-2082</guid>
		<description>Kent, well said argument.  If only the OA advocates seeking to open the scientific literature would recognize the points made in your post.  At a time when universities are laying off faculty and staff, university endowments are shrinking, and research budgets are down, the OA advocates are lobbying for the advertising model of publishing. A failed model that will destroy all that has been built up using the subscription model.</description>
		<content:encoded><![CDATA[<p>Kent, well said argument.  If only the OA advocates seeking to open the scientific literature would recognize the points made in your post.  At a time when universities are laying off faculty and staff, university endowments are shrinking, and research budgets are down, the OA advocates are lobbying for the advertising model of publishing. A failed model that will destroy all that has been built up using the subscription model.</p>
]]></content:encoded>
	</item>
	<item>
		<title>By: Frank Fortin</title>
		<link>http://scholarlykitchen.sspnet.org/2008/12/10/suicidal-subscriptions/#comment-2081</link>
		<dc:creator>Frank Fortin</dc:creator>
		<pubDate>Wed, 10 Dec 2008 14:03:07 +0000</pubDate>
		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://scholarlykitchen.sspnet.org/?p=2199#comment-2081</guid>
		<description>Kent, this makes complete sense. When I hear people say they don&#039;t read the papers or the magazines anymore, it is NEVER about the price. It&#039;s about time - they don&#039;t have any.</description>
		<content:encoded><![CDATA[<p>Kent, this makes complete sense. When I hear people say they don&#8217;t read the papers or the magazines anymore, it is NEVER about the price. It&#8217;s about time &#8211; they don&#8217;t have any.</p>
]]></content:encoded>
	</item>
</channel>
</rss>
