Actuarchi and the press.

Readers of my New Year article will hardly be surprised by this news: Actuarchi is today moving to a paid subscription model. I can already hear the grumbling, but allow me to explain my reasons.

Why go paid?

The web is far from free, something many people unfortunately overlook.

Since I started in 2009, the costs have piled up. First came the beginner's mistakes: professional software at a professional price. Then I moved to a CMS (WordPress, in this case), but once again, while the structure is free, you still have to pay for the foundations and the façades.

You will tell me there is always a free alternative here and there. Perhaps, but to achieve a quality, functional result, nothing is free. What is more, from the outset I have cultivated a taste for innovation, trying out new features and new services. Some have been failures, others successes.

For my part, I have always tried to offer a quality site that keeps pace with digital developments. That is what recently led me to this new version, with responsive design, so that it adapts to smartphones and tablets. I have also left behind OVH's good old shared hosting for Gandi's high-end servers, in order to considerably improve page loading times, which, once again, suffer from my generosity with graphic documents.

If I take stock of my spending today, counting software, plugins, hosting, domain fees and a registered office address (yes, I would rather not publish my home address), I come to nearly three thousand euros. It is time for me to find a solution that, on the one hand, lets the site run without costing me money and, on the other, lets me keep developing it. A new events calendar, filterable by date and geolocation and with publishing from the members' area, is certainly the next project.

Information is not free.

Beyond my modest personal finances, I want to defend the idea that information cannot be free. I mean quality information, not rewrites of AFP news wires. This is obvious for the printed press, but less so for the digital press. Yet, contrary to received wisdom, it is far from cheaper when you want to offer a quality service. Take smartphone apps: their development cost is similar to that of a website, except that you need one for Android, one for Windows, one for iOS and possibly one for BlackBerry. Then, bad luck, the operating systems evolve. When you are Google, the undisputed leader, and you release a new version every three months, you keep your dear developers busy, and well paid, unlike some others. If you do the sums, you will not have lower costs, but you will have lower revenue.

For several years now, online advertising prices have been falling steadily. Perhaps sites like Facebook, or the Google search engine, are influencing this trend; in fact, they certainly are. In the more specialised construction sector, the emergence of English-language platforms with no journalists has not helped matters. I still remember discovering, in 2009, that Chilean site which now claims to be the world leader. Its founders presented themselves as a prestigious team of architects. They do hold a degree, but after looking up their CVs, it turns out they have never practised. I can understand that choice of direction; I have nothing against it. However, when I came across a plan identical to the one I had published on my site a few weeks earlier, I started asking questions. I had laid out that plan myself from the AutoCAD file the architect had given me, removing some of the dimensioning layers and the technical duct layouts. Moreover, it turns out the files had the same name; surprising, isn't it? Less so than the striking similarity of the projects published, not to mention the first projects labelled as being in Paris (for the sake of the audience) when they were outside the Île-de-France. I find this site particularly pitiful and, personally, I have not pointed my mouse at it for over a year. So please, those of you who are architects and email me to say you have just completed a project and that I can find it on one of these platforms: know that this is the surest way to get your email sent straight to my bin.

I may be saddened by these sites, but our dear French publishers sadly do no better. Sorry to offend some, but I do not understand why the Groupe Moniteur insists on heading straight for the wall.

The strategy of this market leader runs completely against the challenges and the market of digital information. First, the price gap between print and web is considerable. Allow €7,050 for a one-page advertisement in AMC (circulation of 13,216 according to OJD), whereas for the website you should expect a CPM (cost per thousand impressions) of €60–70 on LeMoniteur.fr's architecture section (110,000 visitors, 750,000 page views). Of course, there are far more visitors than print readers, which is hardly surprising, but I invite you to compare the cost of reaching 1,000 print readers with that of reaching 1,000 web visitors. You can then weigh it against the visit ratio and also the amount of advertising (3 banners on the site; 36 pages of ads in the issue of AMC I have in my hands). I am leaving aside the offers that bundle print and web, fortunately… Clearly, one generates more advertising than the other. I think it is important to start putting in place models that work economically, because behind these declining companies, it is the quality of information that is disappearing.

Second, I do not understand their pricing policy. The Groupe Moniteur offers the digital version of Le Moniteur on its own site (€309 for 52 issues). At the same time, it is also available on relay.com, where it qualifies for the offer of 10 issues for €9.90 a month, that is, €118.80 a year, and you can add other magazines such as Le Moniteur des Entrepreneurs for the same price. There is no such offer for AMC, which costs €25 an issue or €150 for a subscription on their site.

Now, I know that many publishers see the web as a promising new market with few competitors. They also know that the Batimat trade fair (which will probably be promoted to you on Actuarchi) is fast approaching. Bad luck once again: they are not the only ones to have noticed this event and the potential for getting their new news site talked about at a fair that will bring together more than 400,000 professionals. Everyone is pressing ahead on their own, putting in place a model that, even without competitors, is not economically viable because it is free. I dare not imagine it with competitors, but I invite everyone to start by looking at Le Courrier de l'architecte. In 2011, the site showed €15,000 in advertising revenue but a net loss of €290,000.

I hope more than one journalist will understand my article (a fairly comprehensive cross-section of the specialist press subscribes to the site).

And what about the photographers?

It is worth noting that print magazines pay photographers a reproduction fee (the price varies according to size, print run and number of images).

Actuarchi enjoys a certain flexibility in this respect, for which I thank the photographers for their generosity; otherwise, you would have to allow about €300 per image. Clearly, Actuarchi cannot afford to contribute to that.

I would not be against paying reproduction fees if I could, but today the market is not ready. Firstly, even without those fees to pay, the sites are not profitable; secondly, all sites must be on an equal footing; and lastly, the current prices do not suit the web.

Forget advertising

I do not believe in advertising. Do you fit the windows you saw in an advert?

Personally, advertising has no influence whatsoever on my purchases. I am not saying it is dead, only that it has no value in certain market sectors. Would you not be shocked if your doctor prescribed a particular drug because he had seen it in an advert? Personally, an architect specifying a façade cladding for that same reason shocks me just as much.

Besides its limited value, I often find it cumbersome and ugly. As you can see, the new version of Actuarchi gives pride of place to content. The size of the photographs and plans adapts to every screen.

Actuarchi has managed to stay free of advertising since its creation. Beyond the benefit to the visitor experience, it is editorial freedom that is preserved. I despair at the influenced articles and the countless advertorials in some magazines and websites.

Restricted content

The content currently online will remain freely accessible. Content published by contributors and by Actuarchi Communication will also remain free. Some of my own articles may be freely accessible; the rest will be reserved for subscribers.

Note: articles published under the name Actuarchi Communication are pieces of information that I pass on unaltered, either because I do not have time to work on them, or because I consider them complete and have nothing to add.

A loss of readership on the cards?

I am not trying to break audience records. As you can see, projects are chosen not for their flashiness but for their architectural, technical or environmental interest. I do not belong to that amazing architecture elite that is rife among the younger generation. I have no one to woo, neither manufacturer nor advertiser…

However, I am hardly worried about my readership. This small drop could be seen as a qualitative selection of the readership.

In the hope that you will understand my approach,

See you soon for the next article.