Free Articles

[RDeschain]

How are certain articles determined to be Free? I'm kinda not diggin that Ray Murphy's "Searching for the next Encarnacion" is Free to non-subscribers.

Articles of that kind should not be free IMO.

[RAY@HQ]

Articles of what kind, exactly? (Honest question.) I hope you mean "good ones", since I wrote the EE one, but I suspect that's not it.

Of the 30-40 new articles we run every week, we typically make 1-2 of them free (plus Ron's weekly Master Notes, which is always free/runs concurrently in the podcast; and "outsider" articles like the NFBC pieces from Greg Ambrosius). When choosing which will be the free articles, we try to mix it up every week and offer different glimpses into the types of content that are available to subscribers.

And none of this is at all new, this practice basically hasn't changed even going back to the old site. The only difference is that now we have that prominent "free content" section on the home page, so you're seeing the free content all in one spot. Just remember how much stuff isn't free...

[RDeschain]

Articles of what kind, exactly? (Honest question.) I hope you mean "good ones", since I wrote the EE one, but I suspect that's not it.

That's exactly what I mean Ray. That article was another great one by you and it's content like that that gives the BHQ subscriber an edge over the rest.

But you're right. While I was always aware of the free content, having the free content section be more prominent on the home page is what drew my attention and distaste. But I understand that it offers a good glimpse into what is available to those that subscribe and it's a necessary marketing tool so I don't hold it against you guys. But that doesn't mean I have to like it...

=)

EDIT:

If it were up to me none of YOUR articles (as well as a few other analysts work) would be Free.....ever. And I mean that in the best way possible.

[RDeschain]

I JUST NOW read these posts in the Trout thread and couldn't help but see the relationship with respect to core group and "outsiders".

My sense is that HQ is now in that in between place, where they are trying to expand their audience (thanks to ownership change), while continuing to satisfy the foundational subscribers. There is always a rub there, and often the original fan base (subscribers/FPF attendees) feel it the most. While we'd love to keep this a small private party just to ourselves, understand that's not practical. So, it is on HQs editorial staff to find that right balance, increasing viewership while keeping core group happy. Unfortunately, the core group has now heard the 'don't draft Trout' bit three times now.

I'd claim success on having moved on when the topic doesn't show up in HQ Radio or HQ articles (these thread have a typically uncontrollable shelf life).

A little perspective on our community, and a few of the above points (as we veer off on this tangent)...

- Everything we do here is marketing, and always has been. Before baseball, my background was as a marketing director for several publishing companies. Every single item published or presented in our products is intended to make the reader/listener/attendee want more. CRAVE more. Frankly, this fundamental philosophy is a big reason for our success. 20 years ago, my material was not all that different from a lot of the other stuff out there, but if nothing else, I knew how to get it into the hands of the people who would pay for it.
- None of the above has changed since I sold the company. If anything, the marketing effort has gotten watered down since I relinquished control of it.
- Perhaps most important to the core point here, the sole purpose of the podcasts, Friday newsletter and free content on this site is to get new subscribers. Those are 100% marketing vehicles. If you do not like the redundancies, stick to the paid content here on the website. Everything else is injected full of PEMHs (performance-enhancing marketing hype).
- For better or worse, marketing is the life-blood of survival.