Societies typically seek a stable and sustainable balance between two basic long-term objectives: to promote and develop a particular field of knowledge by widespread dissemination of high-quality publications in that field, and to sustain themselves as organizations by supporting various other beneficial activities besides publication. As the editor for STC and a member of the Project Phoenix team, I am looking for ways to achieve this balance with STC publications and seeking advice on three proposed content solutions for 2011.
STC Publications—Current Content Strategies
With the continued popularity of Web-based publishing, 2010 has been a year of transition for STC publications as the Society shifted from print to online publishing as its primary delivery system. Current STC member publications include:
- Intercom—a monthly magazine with articles focused on practitioners’ professional education needs, provided in multiple formats (e.g., PDF, HTML, FlipDoc).
- Technical Communication—a peer-reviewed academic journal, published quarterly, that concentrates on expanding the body of knowledge for the profession (also provided online and through Ingenta [for institutional subscribers]).
- STC’s Notebook—a blog offering information, announcements, and advice with opportunities for readers to comment.
- News and Notes—a monthly summary, sent by email to all members, of the most important announcements, email messages, and blog entries.
The deliverables for Intercom and Technical Communication were intended as intermediary content strategies that would provide members with multiple ways to access the publications, moving away from the expense and lengthy production times of print. For 2011, Project Phoenix is investigating our options for publication strategies that will provide more open access with new features (e.g., public discussions and video content) and products (such as mobile editions).
Future Content Strategies
STC is exploring providing some or all of Intercom and Technical Communication content openly to the public so that the publications can be used to build substantial brand equity for the Society, including search engine optimization and social media integration. New features for the publications will also include interactive capabilities, such as searching and commenting on content.
Three Content Strategies
For the two primary STC publications (Intercom and Technical Communication), three potential content strategies have been discussed: closed, semi-open, and open.
Both publications are currently using a closed strategy model that requires paid membership and logging in to access full content. Nonmembers and the general public can currently read abstracts or “teasers” of content, but they must become members or subscribe to see full publication content. This strategy has two primary advantages—content is “exclusive” to members and STC controls content delivery and pricing. However, disadvantages include a small subscriber base, restricted advertising and non-dues revenue, and limited brand recognition outside of membership.
A semi-open or progressive content strategy would allow members and nonmembers to access content “for free,” with some restrictions. For example, this strategy would offer members access to all content, but nonmembers would be restricted to limited access or a limited view of content (e.g., they could download one article for free, but they would be required to pay for an entire issue. Some engagement would be obligatory, such as registering to comment or providing an email address or other contact information (for increasing membership). Another option would be to allow all visitors to view content on the publication website freely, but to require purchase of all other formats for downloading or storing content. Examples of magazines and journals that have adopted a semi-open or progressive strategy include IEEE Spectrum, McKinsey Quarterly, and The Economist.
Some of the advantages to a semi-open strategy include exposing STC and its members to a larger audience of technical communicators (without giving away all content for free), generating significant new subscription-based revenues (with an appropriate pricing structure for nonmembers), and increasing advertising opportunities. However, a semi-open content strategy does not drive as much use and engagement as an open strategy.
An open content strategy would allow members and nonmembers alike to access all content “for free,” without much restriction. This strategy would offer the public open access or a wide view of content with a minor engagement required by the reader to continue, such as registration to comment or providing contact information or readership data (i.e., a cost that is not financial). Examples of magazines and journals that have adopted this strategy include First Monday and Kairos.
Advantages to an open strategy are that it exposes STC and its authors to a larger audience of technical communicators, promotes discussions between members and nonmembers around the advancement of the theory and practice of technical communication, brings in more non-dues revenue from advertising, and increases membership through member recruitment ads (including video) and visitor data (i.e., potential members). A possible disadvantage to the open content strategy is that subscription and membership revenue may be reduced.
Further Discussion
Having provided these three strategies, I’d like to open the topic for discussion. What strategies would you like STC to consider for Intercom and Technical Communication? What advantages and disadvantages do you see in the content strategies above? Should the strategy be the same for both publications, or should they be treated differently? I look forward to your suggestions and feedback.
You already know that I believe the open approach is the way to go. I see a lot of discussion of dues revenue here, but the purpose of STC is to advance the theory and practice of tech comm. Making the content available to the general public helps support STC’s basic mission.
My vote is to make items as “open” as possible. The fact of the matter is, even though we pretend that the Intercom articles are “behind the wall” and available to members only, anyone with access to Google can find a way to access the article.
For example, it took a *single* Google search to discover that the “Digital Self Defense for Technical Communicators” article that requires member login (http://intercom.stc.org/2010/11/digital-self-defense-for-technical-communicators/) is freely available from another URL: http://www.nxtbook.com/nxtbooks/stc/intercom_201011/index.php?startid=6
The “value” that *I* get from my STC membership is *not* the information that STC provides (because, there are many, *MANY* sources available on the ‘net)…. it is being part of a vibrant community that I value the most. And we can’t have a vibrant community if we build walls around ourselves.
I like the idea of the semi-open strategy, as it appears to be the best of both worlds. For an employee such as myself, whose employer has cut STC memberships from the budget, this option still allows me to access articles I am interested in and to purchase an entire issue should I so choose. I have no problem paying for an issue; what I can’t afford is an entire STC membership just to be able to access the publications.
I think open is the best way to go, since the mission is to benefit not just members but the entire community of professionals. I guess I agree with Sarah. And for the same reasons. The inward-looking guild with secrets is dead. Those of us at KeyContent.org have thought that the best way is to make all the content not only open but collaborative, so you can add to it on an editable web page. Maybe that’s too extreme for STC, but the web makes it possible and there are times when projects can benefit from being open and allowing collaboration on the web in real time.
I like semi-open. We can tease them with one free article and then, if they register for more information, we’ll know that we have someone who is truly interested!
Linda
I vote for continuing the current closed information philosophy as the surest way to communicate and reinforce STC’s brand equity. It will bring in needed revenue, too. Major drawbacks to open or semi-open strategies are that they confuse or contradict the organization’s closed value system. STC is a pay-to-play organization, and it relies heavily on dues and fees for its continued operation. Its publications should be a big part of this buy-in model. How can STC communicate the value of its intellectual property without first putting a price tag on it, and then restricting access to those who demonstrate the value of that IP by becoming customers?
STC is pay-to-play by faulty design. That model died a decade ago, and we’re now severely feeling the ripple effect as we continually lose members year over year. We can sustain a slow but steady and certain death spiral, or we can change direction and leverage new strategies that have proven to succeed in more modern times.
When the experts are blogging on their own and providing useful, meaningful content for free, it’s pointless to compete with them on a pay-to-play level. Reinvent and redirect the costs and efforts.
I would say members are being lost because STC is charging more for dues and providing less for the money.
While “experts” are blogging on their own, articles in Technical Communication are well-researched and peer-reviewed. And even Intercom articles are passed through an editor.
Newspapers aren’t hemorrhaging readers because everyone uses the Internet or their entire classified revenue has fallen to craigslist. These are straw men. newspapers are failing because the vast majority have increased their cost of entry significantly, in many cases by 300% or 400% over a very short period. STC has done the same, just not (quite) by that high a percentage.
I advocate the open option, and have been for years. STC indeed has to consider membership numbers, but joining for access to journals and magazines doesn’t make sense. STC should be a distributor of information in support of its vision and mission. To only fulfill that role within the scope of its membership is a self-defeating initiative. Open the content to all, enable it for social sharing and bookmarking (despite the looming demise of Delicious) and get the STC brand out there in a useful, meaningful manner. The magazine model is dying (see http://www.magazinedeathpool.com/) and it’s foolish for STC to continue trying to sustain it, especially in a non-generalized market. Value in membership is not measured in the weight of your magazine rack, but in the quality of content, contacts, leads and practices that stem from that parent organization. Let the content be the byproduct of the organization and serve as marketing collateral fueled by social community sharing.
I vote for the open model. For revenue, pack the open content with ads, require user registration for additional perks, and try to sell add-ons — special books, webinars, conference events, stc paraphernalia, etc. I think nytimes.com has the best online model. Everything is free, and advertising is what generates the revenue. If you keep it closed, it will be akin to putting content in clay jars in caves.
And we don’t have time to wait 9000 years for the TechComm version of Sam Calagione to analyze and replicate that content. 😉
The NYT model is a sound one. And yes, if everything is online and public, then it can certainly be used to drive revenue toward related offerings such as webinars, books, and so on.
Yes, content is King, but if you keep the King locked up behind fortress walls, the masses will start questioning the nature of the kingdom.
I’m for the open model.
If STC wants to be regarded as a thought leader (or authority) for technical communication than it’s important to demonstrate that it is in fact a leader. Providing open access to leading Intercom or Technical Communication articles helps STC demonstrate it’s relevance to the profession at large and could be a great recruitment tool. “Join us and we’ll show you that we’re a thought leader” relies on a $200+ leap of faith for a non member hoping that they will find value.
Let’s demonstrate our value by sharing our excellence.
Thanks for starting the discussion, Liz.
A key factor in the decision to move to an open or semi-open model is how much the drop in subscription revenue is offset by increases in advertising revenue. It’s hard to make a decision without knowing that. However, the lack of data won’t stop me from popping off with an opinion. 😉
For Technical Communication I think the open model is the only one that makes sense. This is the repository for the latest thinking about the profession — similar to our body of knowledge. If the BOK is open (and I believe it will be), and if our goal is to advance the profession, then I think that Tech Comm has to be open.
I also lean toward an open model for Intercom, although not for the same reason. I agree with those who say that the main value I derive from my STC membership isn’t in my having exclusive access to these publications.
I’m of the opinion that you can’t look at publications in isolation from the rest of what Project Phoenix is supposed to be doing. The strategy we follow for publications has to fit into an overall idea of products and services (as Mike’s post clearly shows).
In my chapter, for example, many people USED to join STC uniquely for the magazines. Basically, they saw STC membership as a somewhat costly, but still valuable, magazine subscription. These people rarely came to meetings or participated in other activities, and didn’t care.
Since the financial crisis, these people have mostly left us. The current price is too high to justify as a magazine subscription, and they have never been attracted to our other activities. This might be our own fault, or the problem of providing activities for members scattered as far away as 1000 km from the centre. But this demonstrates clearly how dues, local chapter policies, and publications are intimately interconnected, and a change in one without reference to the others can have serious, unforeseen effects.
I am in favour of a semi-open policy for Technical Communication, that should include reciprocity of access with members of other organisations – i.e. we should provide free and open access to members of other societies with related interests, provided they do the same for us with their publications. I am also for limited open access to the public (exactly what this means needs to be discussed in more detail and at greater length).
For the Journal, I think it needs to be available to university libraries, university tech comm departments, etc. free of charge, the articles need to get indexed by search engines, and we need it to have a presence in the academic community. Its availability outside the society should follow the model of similarly focused academic, peer-reviewed journals. This might include paid subscriptions for non-members (different rate than for members?) or other options.
At least, these are first thoughts and reactions, and they are highly subject to change, depending on what else we do as a result of Project Phoenix.
I agree that open access is the way to go to establish STC as an authority for all technical writers. There are so many other free resources on the Web that STC risks losing its voice in the field if only those who join can read the publications.
However, I do realize that revenue is important to the continued survival of the society. Another approach would be to offer subscriptions to just these publications at a cost that a writer could justify to his or her supervisor. If this is done, STC needs to place even more emphasis on providing additional value with membership, aside from the publications. Remember that not all of us live close enough to a chapter to participate (I truly wish I did!), so chapter membership is not a benefit for us, and the extra cost to join a chapter cannot be justified in that case. Also, in the past I’ve noticed that not all SIGs are as active as one would like – I have recently renewed (out of my own pocket), and I truly hope that this has changed. That means that in the past, for many of us, the publications have been the main value, and as others have pointed out, the cost of membership is too high for a magazine subscription.
Especially in this economy, writers and their companies need to see what value we get for the dollars we spend, and that needs to mean more than magazines or a chapter that is 2 hours or more away. Thankfully, I see many signs that STC is doing its utmost to provide value to members, and that is why I renewed my membership even though my company isn’t paying for it this year.
Tammy
I disagree with those who say membership isn’t about the information. Peer-reviewed research is the foundation upon which our discipline is built. Technical Communication is the venue through which a significant amount (though by no means all) of that research is delivered.
For example, the research about QuikScan, about how it helps users better find, process, and read information, came via TC. A research paper in a scholarly publication such s TC carries a gravitas that a (free) blog will never have.
Here’s a simple, bottom-line question: If information in Tc and Intercom is openly available to all, what do we, as members paying ever-escalating dues get for our money?
I notice some suggest it is the interaction with out peers. But the social aspect of the Internet, while not fully supplanting what STC offers in this area, has grown and is more visible than information published by practitioners. Witness the LinkedIn groups, the mailing lists, the StackOverflow boards, to name just a few. (BTW, STC has failed miserably in this area by not providing its own forums for discussing relevant topics among our members.)
The job board? Certainly I’ve found a few openings listed there that have not been listed elsewhere, but from craigslist to Dice to many, many more places, the STC job board is by no means worth alone the annual dues.
So it comes back to information, especially the research-backed, peer-reviewed information. I’d wager this is the last bastion that keeps people from leaving STC en masse. It’s bad enough that the cost of TC is no longer included in membership (as dues went up. It’s bad enough that Intercom is no longer included in membership (as dues went up some more). If I–or anyone–can simply go get that information without paying for it, why would I then pay for it? Why would anyone in their right mind?
And then what’s left? To have a bunch of officers and a headquarters and the offer of web-based seminars. Why would I pay for that? (Answer: I wouldn’t.)
At my last job, a bunch of bSchool buzzword VPs got put into positions of power. All of a sudden, it’s “free” this and “free” that–and then let’s see what we can “monetize” after we get them in the door. Sure, free is nice (and so is “free”), but real people put real value in things they pay for. The Internet has upset that notion somewhat; people are expecting more and more information for free, and publishers’ attempts to make pay sites work have mostly fallen flat (Rupert Murdoch still keeps trying though). But most of the types of information that has fallen victim to this expectation is news (and news-like content). What TC and Intercom offer is not news. It is a different type of information, information that most people expect to pay for. People subscribe to magazines. Some charge quite a bit for subscriptions (Consumer Reports, for example), and yet they are not failing. While Intercom is closest to a magazine, TC most definitely is not. For that reason, keeping it a closed system is the only rational alternative to a massive flight from membership rolls.
P.S. Why is no one in this content strategy discussion distribution talking of Intercom and TC as EPUB-formatted eBooks?