In a move that could have repercussions in the industry, Salon.com succumbed to the ad-sales rot that's plagued online media in recent months.
The company announced Tuesday that their readers will have a choice: Either they continue to read for free, dodging new, bigger CNET-style ads, or they pay $30 a year to read Salon's daily news and views, plus bonus content, in a blissfully ad-free environment.
What this means for the future of Salon -- and online media sites in general -- is unclear. But Salon readers and media analysts seem to agree that Salon's decision was inevitable given the current market climate.
"Now, we must ask our loyal readers to help keep Salon's unique voice booming," wrote Salon editor David Talbot, in a letter to readers expressing the reasons and regrets behind the company's move.
"Too much of our public life is banal and dull-witted; we are surrounded by a media universe that is a daily insult to our intelligence. This is why we hold dear such treasures as our local public radio stations -- they help keep us from mentally decomposing," Talbot wrote.
Over the past few months, Salon has resorted to layoffs and staff salary reductions to lower its overhead. More recently, the postponement of Salon Radio, a weekly public radio show that was slated to launch March 1, was an indication the company was still struggling to make ends meet.
Salon competitor Slate.com, a news site now owned by Microsoft, was an early experimenter in the online subscription model, but switched back to completely free content when the scheme failed to attract a large enough audience.
Other sites, including TheStreet.com, have also tried subscription models, but with little luck. The Wall Street Journal, which continues to charge for much of its online content, is one of the only major news sites that has made paid subscriptions work.
"The climate has changed," said Forrester media analyst Dan O'Brien. "Until recently, free content was subsidized by IPO and VC money. But once those sources dried up, these sites have no choice but to pay their way."
Salon readers, and Web audiences in general, have been conditioned to expect quality content for free, O'Brien said. If the absence of ads and extra content is enough to entice loyal Salon readers to pay, that's a sign that people's expectations are changing.
Scott Rosenberg, senior vice president of editorial operations at Salon, said Slate's failed experiment doesn't necessarily mean paid subscriptions won't work for Salon.
"We feel like the times are different now -- there's a wider understanding among the Internet public that there isn't likely to be, in the long-term, as much choice and quality of content," Rosenberg said. "Online users are willing to contribute to pay for it."
Rosenberg pointed out that despite the poor ad market, Salon's been experiencing record-breaking traffic in recent months. The site had 2.7 million unique visitors in February.
"I think it's a smart move," said Bill Mitchell, online editor at the Poynter Institute, a journalism school in St. Pertersburg, Florida. "I don't know what publishers can do but to try to develop revenue in ways that don't sacrifice the editorial integrity of what they're doing."
As for the beefier ads, Salon has done user surveys to find out what readers think of them, but wouldn't comment on the results.
Posters on Plastic.com, however, had a lot to say on the subject.
"When I first encountered adds of that size on zdnews I was shocked and annoyed. And now, well now I read the same news, but on yahoo instead," wrote "cargoculture."
But many Plastic posters rallied behind Salon's decision.
"I don't mind the ads," wrote one Salon reader. "I now have a natural reflex that closes popup windows before they even think of starting to render. The issue is not the annoyance to the user ... the issue is supporting what you like. What is a couple of dollars?"
