Hey THR readers, subscribers and potential subscribers. We’re here to discuss how we may evolve in the near future. Our readers come first, so we want you as part of the conversation.
First things first—and we hope this isn’t news—we are a subscription-based site where the audience comes first. Our content focuses on human-powered backcountry turn making. As far as the resort ski/riding scene, we don’t commingle the disciplines. Our only take is that we prefer you lower the bar while on the chairlift. Other than that, we’ll stay in our lane. Tips up.
This past season, The High Route went live on Sept. 1, and we tried to keep it simple. Readers were offered several free articles before the paywall kicked in. We offered $6/mo or $27/annual subscriptions. As of today, July 9, this is our 242nd post (this includes podcast episodes—which are free). For a small enterprise in its first year, we are proud of that.
As with any tour plan or real-time decision, being nimble and willing to pivot is a must; plus, we all know the value of a smooth transition. This is not to say we are going anywhere, just that we might change our model. Also, we are dreaming up some cool new projects while we wither in the summer sun, waiting for snow to fly. We’ll be executing those in the near future to develop more useful stories and serve our readers and listeners.
When we began The High Route, we came into it with an open mind. All of us at THR come to the scene as community members first and savvy business people second or even third.
Currently, our model is single-tiered—a subscription provides access to all the content. Behind the scenes, we’ve had hours of discussions exploring what sites and magazines we subscribe to and what we value about those outlets. We’ve discussed pricing strategies (such as whether we should charge less for an annual/monthly subscription) and whether to jump into the realm of curating a premium membership/subscription model. This premium tier could look like exclusive podcast extras and office hours with some of our writers to discuss gear, trip planning, and technical know-how, for example.
On the flip side, we’ve even ruminated on the merits and pitfalls of adopting the public radio model. Essentially, we would remove the paywall and allow readers/listeners to donate if they are able.
We can’t make any decisions on our future without hearing from you.
The easy thing to do is remain with the status quo. As noted, we are open to change. Please let us know your thoughts about evolving the THR model. You can email us too at editor@the-high-route.com if you are not a subscriber but are reading this. (We’re also glad to hop on a call, just let us know.)
Thanks for your input, and remember if you want to stay out of the backseat, it’s all in the hands.
Can’t pretend to know anything meaningful about subscription models, but just wanted to chime in to say that the frequency and quality/independence of content this season has definitely been worth more than $27 dollars.
I have no idea about the economics of a site like this but I like the annual subscription model but the $27 fee seems too low to me.
I would hate you to adopt a model more beholding to advertisers as the Wild Snow model became very tiresome especially when it went through the various ownership changes.
We knew Lou was a Dynafit fanboi but when Cripple Creek bought it etc., the reviews just became pure marketing and I lost interest. Remaining as independent editorially seems especially important.
The podcast are great as is most of the content.
Id like to see more expedition reports but on the whole it’s an awesome site and one whose opinion I trust.
Disclaimer: I have no business knowledge. So, the first thing I’d say, is choose the model that will allow the site to construe to exist, whatever that might be.
But with that out of the way, here are my thoughts:
I am happy to pay for (quality) content. The website and publishing it costs money, and the writing and editing takes time. I am happy to pay for that. Just like a nice drink or bite to eat costs money, it is worth it because it brings me joy.
I think the current subscription price is on the low side considering the amount of content you put out.
So, I think a slight increase would be fine, while maintaining the current level of information.
After that, if a still higher subscription payment equates to a higher amount of content then I’m all for it. The biggest gripe I used to have in the days of paper magazine subscriptions, was the low quantity. Of course, the prerequisite is good quality, but I trust you already committed tot that.
So, I for one, would love to either have the general subscription rate increase, along with the number or length of articles, or to have a tiered model.
I agree with other commenters that $27 for the year has been fantastic value, and would be fantastic value even at a higher price. Also really love the office hours/premium subscription idea. I fear that the public radio model might not pan out quite yet, NPR has such a huge listener base that they can raise $ even if a low percentage of listeners actually donate, and it feels like you’d have to have a relatively high percentage of readers choose to donate for that to pencil out. That being said, it would probably take very little effort to add a ko-fi style donation button for existing subscribers to donate more if they so choose. Keep up the amazing work!