How Cook's Illustrated thrives while others are dying
37signals.com
37signals.com
Second, Cooks Illustrated may have the same editorial policy as Consumer Reports, but it's really not the Consumer Reports of food. 80% of their content is original research on recipes and techniques. At the end of each issue, they have 2 "Consumer Reports"-like sections, one on a piece of equipment and one on an ingredient. But that's a feature, not the engine.
Third, in fairness, CI has other revenue streams: a lucrative line of cookbooks (several new ones are issued every year, and their flagship cookbook also goes through many editions) and 2 popular PBS television shows, which PBS stations pay them to run. Most magazines don't operate like this.
Yes they do:
Gourmet: Cookbooks, PBS show
Saveur: Cookbooks, Travel Tour Packages
Bon Appetit: Cookbooks (at least)
Food + Wine: ?
Cooking Light: Cookbooks, pretty sure there was a TV show for a while
Fine Cooking: Cookbooks
Martha Stewart Living: Cookbooks, TV, merchandising, etc
Disclosure: I frequently do photography for Saveur, and my wife is an editor.
CI does what looks like 5-10 a year. Does Saveur?
Saveur does one every few years, on different themes-- Saveur Cooks Classic Italian and Saveur Cooks Classic American are still doing pretty well-- they're great references for the classics.
What's funny is, CI used to have a third Consumer Reports style section where they rated other cookbooks, by turning their (large) kitchen and staff loose on the recipes and evaluating the results. CI does a better job QA'ing other people's cookbooks than they do.
How is the photography in the online recipes?
Visual depiction is not their strong suit. Their strength is overwhelmingly in recipes and analysis. You are buying their scientific approach to recipes and expert analysis of tools and dishes.
ConsumerLab is another one. They just test vitamins and dietary supplements and post their results on their website.
The problem they address is not choice, but difficulty attaining of safety information. It's easy, for example, for metal impurities to get into supplements like DHEA. The FDA is not going to step in, so a free market alternative arises.
My one criticism is the recipes are not typically health friendly (you can adjust) and the fact that they keep on sending me 'subscribe' email spam for 'Cook's Country'.
That is worth paying for. And the convenience of the Internet and the videos.
I could easily go to the library and pick up a book but it is a time consuming process.
So, yeah. If they want to take the time to perfect each recipe. Heck, I will pay for it.
Yes, people pay for premium content but in this economy, businesses which are dependent on premium features will be the first ones who get setbacks.
My $0.02s of course.
I'm not saying it's not a good approach. Rather I'm researching such an idea which targets premium customers who prefer personalization/customization. And that's when my friend responded that she wouldn't pay for my premium service since there are free or cheaper options available, which also "get things done".
People are hard-wired to think about food; since its right up there with shelter and procreation in terms of "things I need for survival". I can easily see people making justifications to keep paying for this sort of access until the bitter end of home budget cuts.
Now, these representations are fairly long (and furthermore, music can't be made much shorter), so there are a fair number of variations.
In conclusion: Yes, they will run out someday. However, this may be after the heat-death of the universe. A bigger risk to their business model is humanity changing to not need food.