Mobile Industry Review - Latest Comments in Mobile Industry Review goes subscription-only from 30th March

Re: Mobile Industry Review goes subscription-only from 30th March

Jay Liew — Mon, 23 Mar 2009 01:55:07 -0000

Hi there, I'm a software developer focused on mobile apps & SaaS researching some trends when I found your site. I like to content and was about to subscribe, when I saw this announcement.

Congrats on the acquisition .. but it looks like the price will be a deterrent for me. If your product manager is paying attention to this thread, do add a +1 to your "loss prospect" list.

Re: Mobile Industry Review goes subscription-only from 30th March

Kip Hakes — Wed, 18 Mar 2009 15:36:24 -0000

With this is mind - i've set up a Facebook Group for us lot to congregate..

http://www.facebook.com/gro...

Thanks to Ewan for okaying it!

Re: Mobile Industry Review goes subscription-only from 30th March

Ewan — Wed, 18 Mar 2009 12:35:20 -0000

As per njar's comment, the MoMo Group is pretty good Steve, that might be one alternative. Or go ahead and setup a group?

Also: If you still wanted to discuss this, I'm on 07769 658104 -- except not today as I left that one in a client office. But get me on IM ewanmacleod@hotmail.com or ewanmacleod@gmail.com

Re: Mobile Industry Review goes subscription-only from 30th March

Ewan — Wed, 18 Mar 2009 12:31:07 -0000

You're quite correct Ocifant -- apart from the definition being 'job' -- it's not a full time commitment. I've engaged a team to help me deliver their requirements. I'm looking around for the next thing (or things) I'm going to do.

Re: Mobile Industry Review goes subscription-only from 30th March

Steve Procter — Wed, 18 Mar 2009 10:10:26 -0000

yeah that seems about right to me too. Trouble is, many of us are in this industry as a business not a hobby; and we came to rely on this hobbyist blog as a proper business tool. I guess that was our mistake and it will teach us a few things about choosing our business/marketing/pr tools in future.

Re: Mobile Industry Review goes subscription-only from 30th March

njar — Wed, 18 Mar 2009 09:26:25 -0000

yahoo group in a momo london style?

Re: Mobile Industry Review goes subscription-only from 30th March

Steve Procter — Wed, 18 Mar 2009 08:40:21 -0000

Dear fellow MIR readers,

On behalf of all of us, good luck to Ewan as he embarks on his new venture.

In less than 10 days time there will be no way for any of us to stay in contact, to continue discussing the mobile industry or cross-promote each others services and products. As Ewan and his new paymaster don't seem to have any desire or need to keep this group of readers together, it seems we need to say a final goodbye,... or find an alternative means of communicating and networking.

Initially we have 9 days so need something temporary to group all our names and contact details together. Going forward maybe there is something fancier we can do.

I am not going to put forward a mechanism yet as I would like to see if there are any backers and also to get a response from Ewan on such a concept.

steve/iTAGG

Re: Mobile Industry Review goes subscription-only from 30th March

Loopy — Wed, 18 Mar 2009 07:22:43 -0000

Before I start, can I buy Normob from you Ewan? :0)

I have enjoyed reading MIR (and watching some video presentations). What I fail to understand is the sudden dump of news to your viewers/followers that the decision is made - final.

It is extremely difficult to monetise any blog and I do understand with your industry focus it is more difficult to gain advertising revenue when it is a pure B2B community.

If 'ocifant' is correct in his presumption that you are hired with your property (I wish you luck) I can see that you will need to drop your other consulting work and focus on the new company, and if they are feeding you 12K a month -then go ahead - they are paying you to enjoy yourself.

I am sure you will be able to bring in consultants to extend the interview/review aspects on MIR video - and hopefully these will be the same good eggs that have made the previous MIR videos entertaining..

Hope everything goes well with this move.

Re: Mobile Industry Review goes subscription-only from 30th March

Henry Cazalet — Wed, 18 Mar 2009 06:48:13 -0000

I'm completely taken aback by the tone of some of these posts! Some people seem to imply that they have some sort of ownship or stake in MIR and that they deserve a say in its future. Using terms like 'sell out' must surely have Ewan hopping mad!
Quite staggering.
Good luck Ewan, hope you sell out and make a fortune.

Re: Mobile Industry Review goes subscription-only from 30th March

ocifant — Wed, 18 Mar 2009 06:42:47 -0000

Ok, I've had another thought about this whole thing and maybe can put another angle on it. I'm not in the Mobile industry, but found MIR an entertaining and educational read. So probably not the prime target audience, but from what Ewan has said in these comments, maybe I can rephrase my understanding of what's gone on and Ewan et al can agree or otherwise:

Ewan had a very expensive blogging hobby. He paid for a few friends to enjoy it with him, and to extend the hobby somewhat. Lots of other people were entertained and educated by watching Ewan and Friends while they enjoyed their hobby. No-one wanted to pay for Ewan to enjoy his hobby.
Ewan now has a job, essentially doing what he used to do in his hobby, but his friends can no longer join in as his employers only have the one job vacancy, and don't want him to have any work-related hobbies (I'm sure my contract of Employment has a similar clause in it somewhere!)

So we all lose out.

Ewan, if I'm right, then I apologise for my previous critical comments. I hope you enjoy the benefits of your new job.

Re: Mobile Industry Review goes subscription-only from 30th March

Ewan — Wed, 18 Mar 2009 05:43:26 -0000

I did; the sales house did the best South... everyone they spoke to was always interested, but not interested enough to help continue to support substantially.

Re: Mobile Industry Review goes subscription-only from 30th March

South77 — Wed, 18 Mar 2009 04:39:05 -0000

Agree mostly. Doesn't leave us in a great place, however. The sponsorship model isn't so corrupt in news publishing because it would be obvious to readers if advertisers were influencing editorial, and they would stop reading, then it wouldn't be a good place to advertise.

I read The Guardian because even though it's got advertisments for financial services, it at least is still prepared to call out Barclays Bank on an alleged tax dodge scam.

Readers gravitate to good editorial and appreciate that advertisers support that.

There's also a difference between consumer tech news (gadgets & apps) and industry tech news. MIR coverage stradles both areas, which I like as a general interest reader, but is possibly harder to commercialize.

When SMS Text news became MIR Ewan should probably (possibly?) have got a direct sales person on the case right away. Even a few grand here and there at regular intervals makes a difference and you can start building commercial product around independent, quality, content. It is not easy.

Re: Mobile Industry Review goes subscription-only from 30th March

Mike42 — Tue, 17 Mar 2009 18:18:48 -0000

Ach, this whole business-model-thing for PR/Ad revenue for sites like MIR is as broken as the one for financial analysts who shout 'BUY' 95% of the time, until it turns to crap then it's 95% 'SELL'. My 7-year old can do that.

What company's gonna invest serious cash in a vehicle that may promote the competition and bag your own gear? When you have a hundred gadget blogs dead keen to review your new schwag, why pay?

Who benefits from the straight talk? We the consumers. Is there a model reliant on us to get value by contributing cash? Nope. Proved that myself last week.

Yes, a few PR budgets could have funded MIR, but convincing the PR advisors that is a good idea is like asking the chicken to suggest a good axe shop nearby. They will always say "nah, stick with us and we'll find someone who's free".

Re: Mobile Industry Review goes subscription-only from 30th March

South77 — Tue, 17 Mar 2009 16:58:07 -0000

Great post. And kudos all round to MIR team, contributors, and message boarders.

Trade publishing (call it blogging, if you like) is a difficult business. If companies want coverage (obviously they do to judge from the amount of PRs in the world) there should be some way of supporting the media that provides it. Basically, you have to have a pay to play element.

It gets difficult because media should be independent, otherwise people won't read it, and then more difficult because advertisers are not comfortable with too much straight talk, which is what makes MIR interesting and readable.

Paid research is a better model, because people actually want to pay to be told stuff straight. The catch here is you have to be good.

I am astounded (still) that comanies pay way more for PR to "place" them in media than they do to actually support media directly.

Re: Mobile Industry Review goes subscription-only from 30th March

Ewan — Tue, 17 Mar 2009 16:09:20 -0000

Here we go Barney, here's some answers to your questions.

"What is bugging me (or at least has been until today) is who on earth would have bought the rights? What content was it they were actually interested in and at what price?"
EWAN: I can't disclose the name of the company. The content they're interested in is as I set out on the post above - news, analysis, perspective, bit of video, with a bent toward their particular operating industry.

"In other words the only major value I can see in the MIR content is that of the video which is after all the most costly thing to produce."
EWAN: No. They value written content with a focus on reports discussing specific areas.

"I was kind of under the impression that like so many others James, Ben & Dan had given their time and efforts freely (or at least without being paid) to help create the MIR shows. If James is moving on does this mean the others will follow? Is this the end of the MIR show?"
EWAN: In most cases, James Ben and Dan gave their time for free and I paid for all expenses. e.g. They didn't pay anything when we went to Rome etc. This is indeed the end of the MIR Show as you know it, but James, Ben and Dan are free to do as they wish.

"Ewan talks about the new subscription model in “we” and “our” terms but will there even be a team to back him up?"
EWAN: Yes. I'm hiring some report writers and researchers. I can't afford to hire any of the contributors on their market rates -- and I don't think they'd be into this sort of thing even if I could.

"Did they get a pay day, should they have stood to gain financially from the changes, they were of course the creatives behind the content?"
EWAN: Did Ben Dan and James get a pay day? I think you've entirely mis-read the reality. They were giving their time for free and I was paying their expenses. I was paying for absolutely everything and I couldn't find a model that would allow me to continue to do so without stressing. To be clear I spent 33k in January alone on MIR. Me. We had the occasional supporter/advertiser, but it was me who funded it all. So we're not talking in terms of gaining financially. The financial gain I get from this 'transaction' is that I stop spending so much per month.

"Personally I can understand a move to a subscription model in part but seriously doubt that in its current form and without the support and goodwill of the community (who if they are like me feel a little deflated) I can’t see the “phenomenal reach” that is promised to would be subscribers."
EWAN: The current form of MIR ends next week. The client doesn't want the community. They want reports, they want a bit of news and analysis, they want some sit down video interviews. They don't want MIR in it's current form.

"There are a number of other questions running around my head mostly to do with the viability of the subscription strategy and Ewan’s ability to deliver but that can wait for another post methinks."
EWAN: My ability to deliver? Alas, the failure point was mine for assuming (and quite possibly delving in to that horrible, horrible no man's land of 'hoping') that the industry -- or the readers, working for huge, huge budget-rich companies -- would value our output enough to help out now and again. That's where I got it wrong, so I accept any criticism you'd care to level at me in this regard.

Just in case you're not quite there with the reality -- can I draw your attention to the post asking for assistance to help take the team to CTIA in Las Vegas. The first time I've really ever asked for support. Having spent upwards of, I don't know, 60k this year inc. Mobile World Congress, I thought, 'surely, surely someone or a few companies will help out.'

I got 11 responses to the post within 48 hours. Every single one said words to the effect of, 'sorry, no budget to help out, but could the team interview us on camera?'

So when you allude to the support, goodwill and such of the MIR community, we have to be very, very clear -- British Airways won't accept that in return for flights. That's the reality and I had to operate within it.

To your points on the subscription strategy, Barney, the transaction works fully with one subscriber, no further subscribers are required. So in that context I'm pleased that it's a done deal, I can relax, I can stop spending so much money and so much unpaid time on MIR. If in 3 years time, the client is unwilling to renew, then I'll stop providing a service.

Your comments relating to James and/or Jonathan heading off to the Cayman Islands with their proceeds -- well, that would be just phenomenal if I'd done a deal to sell MIR to News Corporation for $500m and hired the entire team on $10m 3-year talent contracts. I'd have loved to have been able to do so. Alas that isn't anywhere near the case.

Somebody has to pay. It was me -- and I reached the end of 'reasonable' and found an exit. Don't forget the MIR team who also helped produce the site -- don't forget that they were gracious enough to accept expenses and/or contribute their time for no direct recompense. I think your efforts on-going would be better served in thanking them for their efforts and supporting their next projects.

I'll be posting a note to this effect, in more detail, later on.

Re: Mobile Industry Review goes subscription-only from 30th March

barneyc — Tue, 17 Mar 2009 13:57:15 -0000

All this attention. So why not some more.

(In an effort to ensure content remains public the rest of my thinking is on my blog which I have no intention of having you lot subscribe to for - well no more than £250 a month!)

"Now that the dust has settled and my mind is free enough of normal and important things to offer up some attention to this I think I can see what’s been bugging me about this whole affair...." continued at http://www.exponere.com/200...

Re: Mobile Industry Review goes subscription-only from 30th March

Ewan — Tue, 17 Mar 2009 09:17:03 -0000

Give me a call, let's have a chat - 07769 658104

Re: Mobile Industry Review goes subscription-only from 30th March

Ewan — Tue, 17 Mar 2009 07:36:20 -0000

I can't afford to hire the MIR team, Gerry. They're all very successful people with high market rates!

Re: Mobile Industry Review goes subscription-only from 30th March

gerrymoth — Tue, 17 Mar 2009 07:24:21 -0000

Will this be a one man band service u'll provide or will the whole MIR team still be involved?

Re: Mobile Industry Review goes subscription-only from 30th March

Ewan — Tue, 17 Mar 2009 07:06:20 -0000

I've sold one subscription and that's all that is required. It pays for the entire running of the service they require. It's a 3 year deal.

Re: Mobile Industry Review goes subscription-only from 30th March

gerrymoth — Tue, 17 Mar 2009 06:39:36 -0000

Totally agree with you Steve.

I can't see how MIR will make money from subscriptions and will the industry react differently if MIR conversations/discussions are not made available to the public?

Re: Mobile Industry Review goes subscription-only from 30th March

Steve Procter — Tue, 17 Mar 2009 03:19:15 -0000

I still think this is part April fool and part you gauging the mood with a view to changing the model (but keeping something for the mass of readers). So either way I want to add my name to the growing list who need to tell you how important this professional "it's not a blog" resource has become to the many readers making our bread and butter in this industry.
-------------------------
Good luck in the future with your endeavours Ewan. You have entertained and educated us and totally deserve to go down whatever route you desire, and to seek out the money if you so wish!! Good luck!

But...

It was of course rather silly of the thousands of us who saw this site as a professional permanent resource rather than what it now just turns out to be - a hobby site run by a fantastic bunch of enthusiasts. As a long standing reader/contributor I feel a bit let down even though I truly mean what I say above. This blog has grown to be bigger than "just a blog", we all feel like we are a part of a proper professional news and views resource for the mobile industry. It feels like the ownership has become a collective. And there you were just a few weeks ago carrying cameras around and interviewing seriously big top execs at 3GSM; standing shoulder to shoulder with "proper" news companies. And pow! It's all gone in the blink of an eye. To think I'm writing this but in 10 days time the space filled by these words will just be a vacant vacuum of outer space is very very weird. Especially as the collective have had absolutely no say in the decision.

It strikes me that there is a list of readers and a website/url that has a daily viewership/readership. Your new business clearly doesn't need or want them or even need the website/url. So I am a total loss as to why you aren't keeping this site in situ and looking for volunteers, ideas, etc? Ok it might turn out to be crap without your incredible energy and resources and ability to find the stories. But why can this site not continue under different management, while you do whatever it is your new paymaster wants elsewhere?

And if that isn't possible, can you tell us (seriously!) how much you want for the list of readers and for the domain name?

steve/iTAGG

Re: Mobile Industry Review goes subscription-only from 30th March

Matt Heath — Mon, 16 Mar 2009 12:24:04 -0000

MIR will certainly be missed by me. Thank you for your high quality and entertaining coverage of the industry. Now where will I go to get my daily dose? :)

Re: Mobile Industry Review goes subscription-only from 30th March

South77 — Mon, 16 Mar 2009 08:47:46 -0000

To clarify, a readership of a free service that is unlilkey to ever buy anything from the sources funding the service (sponsors, advertisers, founders, etc) isn't directly all that valuable.

The trick is to figure away to make other lines of *paid* business viable. Conferences are the favorite option, but that's a munchy line of work for the most part.

Will be interested to see how MIR comes out of it. I admire a lot about the site and the commentators.

Re: Mobile Industry Review goes subscription-only from 30th March

South77 — Mon, 16 Mar 2009 08:33:31 -0000

The value of an audience is as important as the size of an audience when it comes to monetization.

Most PRs don't really have a clue about any of that.

What's weird is there are way more PRs covering the industry than reporters. How backwards is that? Unbelievable, but true.