“Don’t let the back end run the front end”

I’ve heard that saying many times over the years, and there’s some wisdom to it. You want to make the best possible offer with the customer in mind, not the offer that makes your systems people happy.

But … the more I get involved in the back end — either from the IT side or the fulfillment side — I realize it’s not so simple, and that ignoring the back end as if that’s going to help you on the front end doesn’t work.

Systems aren’t creative or flexible. They’re designed to do certain things. As a programmer colleague told me, systems (computers) are very good at doing one thing a million times. Marketers often want to do a million things one time.

Another way to look at this is something I call the Frank Rule (although it’s not really a rule): “We’re going to do all this set up and create all these special rules and exceptions and churn and we’re going to get one order.”

When you add exceptions and special rules for weird circumstances, two things are likely to happen: (1) you create lots of manual work to force the system to do your bidding, and/or (2) your system becomes a mind-boggling mess that nobody wants to touch.

For example, let’s take one very narrow slice of the publishing pie. Renewals.

It starts off very simple. For every order on file, we want to send out renewal notices 3 months before expire, then again at 2 months, 1 month, at expire, and 1 month past expire. Easy peasy.

Until marketing says they want to make an early bird offer for the first effort, or they want to attach the renewal notice to the issue, or they want to add a free issue, or ….

There’s no end to the creative sorts of offers that can be made, and that’s just for one product at one company. When you start to mix in different kinds of products with different terms, different prices, different special offers, club discounts, etc., it can get very complex.

The system needs to try to accommodate all these variations, but it also needs to be stable. If the programmers change the system to accommodate Company A’s quirky renewal series, they don’t want to mess up Company B’s series in the process. After a while, the system starts to look like a very complicated house of cards, and everybody’s afraid to do anything with it.

So how do you work in that sort of environment?

Clearly you start with the offer. What do you want to do, irrespective of the system’s constraints? Then you see if the system accommodates that offer. In those cases where it doesn’t, you have a few choices. (Which don’t include pitching a fit and screaming “why can’t you just ___?”)

1. Do a workaround. E.g., the system can’t take an order without a proper postal address, but you want people to be able to sign up with just their name and email address. So you supply a generic postal address with all these orders. (How does that happen?)

Unfortunately, that messes up your reports, which sort based on zip code, so somebody has to manually export the data and redo the reports.

You can do this sort of klugy thing, but you need to stop and ask if you’re going to spend more in manual workarounds than you’re going to make with your genius offer.

2. Use a different system. When system A doesn’t do exactly what you want, it’s tempting to use system B — just for this offer. But this often creates lots of other problems.

Will orders placed through system B go into the same customer service / account management areas on your website? Will customers be able to login with their regular credentials? Will these orders report properly to accounting? Will you have to build a new interface with your email system?

Is it all worth the churn?

3. Change your offer. Or, in other words, let the back end drive the front end.

It’s frustrating. Even maddening. But it’s often the right choice.

There are times when you can do a workaround or use a different system without making of mess of everything, but … not all that often.

Please join my thought experiment on print publishing

Why are advertisers putting so much of their money in digital and generally leaving print?

One big reason is that advertisers can do so much more with digital ads, both in targeting and in tracking.

But why is that limited to online? What if we could change printed magazines to make them more like a page on a website?

Targeting ads on web pages is enabled by all the spooky demographic and psychographic data the ad system has on the visitor. As you know, you’re being tracked all the time, and your online profile says a lot about you — what you buy, what you read, where you spend your time, what you’re interested in, what you’re likely to click on, etc.

All this data is being collected so advertisers can find exactly the right audience for their product or service. If the advertiser wants an audience of 50+ year old men with a net worth over $1 million and an interest in retirement, the ad system can easily accommodate that because it has access to that data on a huge number of prospects. (I’m glossing over the details, but you get the gist.)

This is how Facebook and Google attract all the advertisers. They have tons of data and can create very targeted audiences. Especially Facebook, since you have to login to Facebook. Their spooky analytics know way too much about you.

But what if a publisher had all that spooky demographic info in his print fulfillment system, so he could target print ads just as precisely as a website can target digital ads? To make the concept a little easier to follow, imagine Facebook wanted to do a print magazine. Just as they customize everybody’s feed online, they could customize every issue of the magazine to the individual user.

I’m not sure any printer currently offers that level of print customization, but there’s no reason why it couldn’t be done.

Now, take this little thought experiment to the next step. What if the price of the magazine depended on whether or not the subscriber is a good prospect for advertisers?

Yes, yes, I know we’re all equally valuable in some cosmic sense, but we’re not all equally valuable to advertisers. Advertisers want to get their ads in front of people with specific interests, who are willing and able to take some action. Usually that action involves buying something.

The imaginary Facebook magazine that’s sent to a very valuable prospect — e.g., just to make it crude and obvious, somebody who buys a lot of stuff — will make a whole lot more ad revenue for Facebook than the magazine that’s sent to another person — who doesn’t buy anything.

The business model for this magazine would change for each individual customer. The guy who buys lots of stuff might get the magazine for free, since Facebook would make more than enough from ad revenue to pay for the production, printing and mailing of each issue. But the miser who never spends any money has no value to the advertisers, and therefore none to Facebook, so he’d have to pay for his magazine.

This new business model would be a mix of the controlled circulation model and the regular subscriber model. When a potential customer goes to the magazine subscription page, the spooky analytics in the background would check to see what audience niches he fills. If he’s a very valuable prospect, he might get the magazine at a low price, or even for free. But if he’s not in any of the niches the magazine wants to advertise to, he’d have to pay full freight for the subscription, since the magazine won’t get any ad revenue from him.

I don’t know if anybody can do this in the real world, but it’s an idea to ponder.

Right now we’re in a weird place in this print / digital question. It’s become quite clear that readers like print, but print has a hard time paying for itself, so print is … dwindling. There’s no reason it has to.

Will Google micropayments rescue publishers?

As you know, advertising is in a slump, and it’s hurting many publishers.

While print should be doing just fine, because readers continue to like print, print advertising is not doing very well, except in some small niches.

Most of the ad money is going to digital, so some people want to abandon print and follow the money into digital. But … that’s not necessarily a good idea.

Digital ads have also fallen on hard times. The combination of programmatic ads (with lower CPMs) and ad blockers has been a drag on publisher revenue, but the trajectory of ad spending has been a problem as well. The vast majority of new ad revenue is going to Google and Facebook. Advertisers are often choosing not to advertise direct with the publishers.

Publishers are trying to cling to some of the remaining scraps with ad blockers and — sometimes — with paywalls. So far it’s not been a grand success.

If you listen carefully, you can sometimes hear the collective groan from the publishers. “Who will invent some magic technology and rescue me?”

Enter Google and micropayments.

The headline in a recent Financial Times article is very telling. Google to allow publishers to charge users who utilise ad-blockers. (Link is to search results for the article.)

Isn’t that so very nice of Google, to “allow” publishers to do that?

Okay, I admit it. I’m being deliberately unfair about the headline. They’re using “allow” in the sense of “enable,” not “give permission.” But I find the double meaning amusing.

From the article …

Google will enable publishers to ask readers who use ad-blockers for micropayments….

That’s what we want, right? If we can’t get 10 cents from ads, let’s charge the reader 10 cents for the article. Brilliant, huh?

No, it’s not. Let’s break it down.

Publishers can already do that. Technology to detect ad blockers already exists, so it’s not terribly difficult for a publisher to set up a paywall for people who choose to use ad blockers.

So … what’s unique in Google’s offer?

First, they’re doing the technology lift, and publishers are usually not also technology companies and don’t want to be in that business. Second, people may be more likely to want to create an account with Google than with some small publisher. After all, from the user’s perspective, the prospect of creating an account to pay $0.25 on 17 different web sites is not that attractive. Centralizing it makes sense.

Then what’s the problem?

Since Google will be taking the payment, Google will be getting the customer information, not the publisher. Or, in other words, publishers — who have been repeatedly suckered by the big platforms — are about to be suckered again.

Let me rewrite the headline for this grand new development.

Desperate publishers can now earn pennies on their expensive content while helping Google build its empire.

Or how about this?

Publishers sell the chance to collect their readers’ names — for a pot of lentils.

It’s the same old story. This is yet another sucker play, which means publishers will probably fall for it.

We are way past the time for publishers to abandon this idea of making money off “free” content. At least as a primary revenue stream.

It was a mistake from the start, and it’s not going to get better. Publishers need to use free content to create relationships that lead to a recurring relationship with recurring payment.

But this is the important part. The big platforms do not want to help with that. They want the names, and the credit card numbers. They want the recurring payments. And they want to sucker content providers into doing the hard work for them — i.e., making valuable stuff for people to read. The platforms don’t really even want publishers to exist. They just want “content providers” to keep feeding their model.

What publishers really need is a solution where they get the customer names. If Google wanted to help (hint: they don’t), that’s what they would be offering.

(As a side note, the link above is to the Google search results and not directly to the article because FT has a paywall. If I were to link straight to the article, all you’d get is an invitation to subscribe. But since the FT has implemented Google’s “first click free” policy, you can get the article if you google the headline and click to it from the search results.)

From free podcasts to for-pay audiobooks?

I hate to disappoint my loyal readers, but this is the rare Krehbiel Report where I don’t suggest an answer. Not even a half-baked one. I’m curious what you think about this.

Yesterday I was listening to a podcast a couple of my kids said they liked. It was sponsored by Audible — the audio book company. That struck me as a rather odd choice.

The podcast is called “Welcome to Night Vale,” and it’s essentially a quirky short story. Kinda like The Twilight Zone. (It wasn’t my thing. But if you like Twilight-Zone-ish stories, you might like this book of mine, which is free today on Kindle.)

I found it strange that Audible would sponsor a podcast like that because it seems like such natural competition for audio books. In fact, it seems that sort of podcast is one of the primary free alternatives to the paid product. So why would Audible sponsor it?

Since the two products are similar, people who listen to that sort of podcast might be a good market for audio books, so it makes some sense from that perspective. But people who are downloading free stuff aren’t (in my experience) a good market for paid content. So … again … it’s an odd call.

More importantly, by sponsoring the podcast, Audible is helping their competition. (Or, on the other hand, perhaps they’re encouraging more people to get interested in audio stories.)

I suppose it’s working, because Audible has a standing affiliate deal for podcasters.

If it is working, it’s an interesting model for the free to paid transition.

This question reminds me of something else near and dear to my heart. The old Facebook issue, and whether publishers should participate.

I think publishers who put their content on Facebook are (among other things) selling Stalin the rope he’s going to hang them with. But if Audible can make a living selling their paid content through free channels (like podcasts), then maybe not.

What do you think?

Should publishers censor their content to further social goals?

A lot of interesting currents in popular culture are raising questions about the ethics of publishing. The two most obvious are (1) free speech issues, and (2) whether profit or management drives content in the daily news.

The main free speech question is whether a publisher should censor what it publishes based on some moral or social rules. This isn’t a new question, but it has a new importance in an era of “social justice warriors” (aka “cry bullies”) who throw tantrums if a contrary view is given a platform.

An example along these lines is the conflict over Simon & Schuster’s decision to publish Milo Yiannopoulos — a self-described provocateur.

It’s an interesting question, mostly (to me) because the politics of censorship seem to have flipped. Speaking broadly, it used to be the left that advocated free speech (e.g., the dispute over Lady Chatterly), and now it’s (parts of) the left that want to shut down speech — albeit by private protest and not usually with the strong arm of government.

The success of some conservative writers has incentivized many publishers — whose staffs usually skew liberal — to (perhaps cynically) decide that the money is more important than the message. So … Yiannopoulos and Coulter and others may have views the publishers hate, but they love the sales.

Publishing is a business, after all.

The second issue is similar in that it gets to the motive that lies behind the publishing decision.

This article, for example, raises the specter of a rich, globalist elite at war with the common man.

China’s president will preach the advent of a new world order in Davos next week before the high priests of globalisation, who are facing an uprising from voters against their orthodoxy of open markets and borders.

Some people believe that a cabal of globalists is trying to force a new attitude on the public to help the globalists with their transnational business interests. The trouble — for the globalists — is that a lot of people aren’t buying it. Brexit and Trump are taken as signs of the revolt.

How does the media fit into this picture? Is Big Media a tool of the globalists and the purveyors of elitist propaganda?

The question reminds me of other conversations about the news. Does the media answer to the public (e.g., how many clicks on an article) or to the boardroom (e.g., the people who pay the salaries)?

As with most things, it’s certainly some combination of both. But it’s interesting to see how it plays out in popular opinion, where we seem to have two competing memes going on.

The first is that the media is being pulled in one direction by the tyranny of clicks and advertising. As I like to say, “All’s well, details at seven” doesn’t get eyeballs on the evening news, but “the new threat your kids face at the bus stop” does. That well-established reality pushes news coverage towards the sensational and the scary. (Along the lines of Dirty Laundry.)

Fear sells papers. So does sex. So do crazy conspiracy theories. And if that’s the stuff that pays the bills, that can become the yardstick by which journalists are measured.

“How much traffic did your story get?,” not “was it accurate?” (or helpful).

The second meme is that these media empires — and their content — are controlled by rich people with an agenda. I see this stuff all the time on Facebook. People try to discredit a source because it’s funded by Soros, or Big Oil, or whomever.

Which is it? Does the globalist cabal control the media, or is it all “give the public what they want”?

Perhaps that’s too either/or. Why can’t it be both? E.g., the globalist elite doesn’t care what the public thinks about most issues, so … fine. Let extremism and sex and crazy ideas drive that part of the business, but when it comes to trade deals, or immigration, or … whatever they talk about at Davos … then the Big Boss steps in and tells the editors how to cover the story (if they know what’s good for them).

It would be an easy thing to believe, but I don’t buy it. At least not to that extent.

I’m sure there are journalists who would sell their soul to get the 8:00 spot, and I’m sure that when some rich guy with an agenda buys a media empire, he hopes to use it to push that agenda. But there are also plenty of decent people who would blow the whistle on such editorial control, and it’s no longer possible for the Big Boss to control all the sources of information.

For good or ill, we have this crazy, wild-west thing called the Internet — and, for that matter, 10,000 cable channels — where anybody can say (or read) what they want. Sure, Twitter and Facebook censor people from time to time, but it’s not as if they’re able to stop anybody. Milo Yiannopoulos seems to have survived his Twitter ban. In fact, it might have helped him.

The Big Boss might control the big platforms, but (1) his ability to shape the news is limited, and (2) there are plenty of other sources not controlled by the Big Boss. And these other sources are growing daily.

All of which has to be enormously frustrating for this alleged conspiracy of globalists who want to fashion the world to suit their business needs. They think they should be able to sway public opinion with all their power and influence. Just buy out the media and get some bubble-headed beach blonde to ridicule the opposition (with a twinkle in her eye).

But … it doesn’t seem to be working, does it? The swarm warfare of the public is overwhelming the carrier-based approach of the elite.

Which leaves us with an important question. Do publishers have a responsibility to police their content?

I’m not talking about accuracy, or grammar. I think that goes without saying.

Rather, do publishers have some sort of social responsibility, or mission? Or do they just publish whatever the people want?

Is news a commodity, like the candy bars in the vending machine? Stock the ones that sell. Or is journalism a calling to something more significant?

I think it is and has always been both. You’re going to have organizations that want nothing more than a fast buck, and you’re going to have organizations that stick to principle. And it seems to me that is a very good thing.

“Grow or fall behind” says Hearst’s David Carey

Successful subscription publications usually have a life cycle that resembles a flattened out bell curve. They start off growing, reach a comfortable plateau, then decline — mostly because markets and interests change.

The decline can be postponed by frequent re-imagination and re-targeting. But without new titles, or revised old titles, the trajectory is pretty straight forward. Grow or decline.

David Carey mentions that in a very interesting interview with Mr. Magazine.

We believe that if you don’t grow; it’s not a question of just standing still, you actually fall behind. And so we are happy to keep pushing ahead with the growth agenda ….

Carey and Michael Clinton — two successful executives from Hearst — note that they are still heavily into print. Perhaps they've plugged their ears against the siren song of the digital disruption chorus. Says Clinton …

We like to say that we’ve been through every media revolution possible. When the telephone was born it was going to displace magazines. When the radio was born it was going to displace magazines. When the television was born it was going to displace magazines. (Laughs) So, we’ve been through every media revolution imaginable ….

Right. The "it's different this time" stuff gets old.

And speaking of print, Ryan Dohrn, the founder and CEO of Brain Swell Media, and publisher of Sales Training World, sent some great comments inspired by last week's Krehbiel Report. If you don't recall, the subject was how to make print advertising more relevant in the digital age.

1. It is imperative that sales people are trained in today's language to sell print. Most are using old school techniques taught for generations. These outdated approaches are killing the sale. One of the biggest sales techniques to master is the understanding that print advertising drives the "Familiarity Factor." People are more likely to click on products when then are familiar with the product or brand. Thus, print boost ROI on digital advertising.

2. Do not let your advertisers force you to become a direct response magazine. Most advertisers are wanting to run a direct response ad in your magazine when they do not offer a product that is direct response by nature. For example, an advertiser is running an ad to come in this week and save 10% on a sofa. That sofa costs $3500. The sofa is not a direct response product. Yet the ad design is 100% focused on DR. A $3500 purchase requires social influence, price comparison and personal validation. Print does all of these things! Your sales team needs to be trained to point this out in vibrant way to your advertisers.

3. Unique ad content drives ROI metrics. Ad agencies are notorious for running the same ad in 10 magazines. This is a huge mistake. The ad content needs to be very unique and very special. This idea needs to carry over to the magazines website and all the eNewsletters, etc that the advertiser has bought from you as a Publisher.

4. Training is the key. Sure, that is my business, I get it. But, this is the truth. Millennial account executives often kill old media sales dogs because they are speaking the sales language of today's media buyers. Print is not dead. Sellers are just irrelevant in how they communicate how to use print to drive ROI.

Interesting stuff.

The bottom line, to me, is that we have to get over this either/or thinking. It's not print or digital, or print vs. digital. The future is very clearly print and digital, working together.

On a related note, James Wildman is trying to coin a new word: printism.

The preconceived opinion not based on reason or actual experience of the print medium; bias, partiality, unreasoned dislike, hostility or antagonism towards, or discrimination against, print – accelerated by those closest to it being too afraid to properly defend it for fear of being tarred with the career-stunting ‘dinosaur’ label.

I'm mostly with you, James, especially the "not based on reason or actual experience" part. But I'm not sure "printism" is going to stick. It certainly won't jump up there with racism and sexism. I think you're better off slipping a notch down the scale and going the "phobia" route. E.g., "he's a printaphobe."

Print isn’t dying. Print advertising is dying.

In the on-going arguments about print and digital and the future of publishing, I see a growing disconnect between what readers want and what advertisers wants.

According to lots of research, readers still like print. Even young people. (See links below.) But advertisers are no longer enamored of print advertising and they keep trying to convince us that print is dead.

Advertisers prefer digital ads for a lot of reasons, including that they’re more trackable and that you can divide audiences more precisely.

So the dearth of print advertising is causing some publishers to pull away from print, which is often not what the reader wants. (And is probably self-defeating for other reasons.)

The digital cheerleaders will say the solution is to get all those print-loving Luddites to give up their dead tree editions and start acting like modern people. That’s not a fair representation of what’s going on, but it’s also not the way to run a business. You’re far better off serving people’s needs than trying to change their behavior.

A better solution to this print-digital dilemma would be to find a way to bridge the gap between these different interests and satisfy both sides. That is, to offer advertisers the tracking and audience segmentation they want, and to allow people to read their magazines the way they want to read them.

So … how’s that done? How do you make print more appealing to advertisers?

Here are a few of my ideas

  • Encourage your print subscribers to create digital accounts so you have more data on your web users. This won’t solve the problem of getting more print advertising, but it will use the leverage you have in print to get more customer data so you can charge more for digital ads.
  • Work with advertisers to create more trackable print ads, with custom URLs.
  • Look into better segmentation of your print edition so advertisers can target the group they’re interested in.

I also asked a few publishing colleagues for their opinion on this topic and got a few interesting ideas.

  • From Lev Kaye: Allow your print-loyal readers to READ your content in print, but then offer them ad-sponsored value-add products which can only be delivered digitally, such as a ‘solution configurator’ or ROI calculator or some other interactive piece that takes input from a PC or smartphone and spits out a customized recommendation or solution.
  • From BoSacks: You should look into the progress of high speed digital variable presses. Very impressive.

    It creates a personalized/localized edition on the fly. I have seen samples that show that the fidelity is so good that the cosmetic companies have bought into the process. That means reproduction of high speed toner and paper has reached offset standards and that is very impressive indeed.

  • From Donna Jefferson: An advertiser wants their brand to be seen in a publication that represents their (the advertiser’s) brand in a positive way.
    Most readers still believe that print represents brands that can most afford to be there and the reader is more apt to have faith in a brand represented by print. Print reinforces, or even introduces digital campaigns (we sell lots of bundled packages that include print and digital).

If you’ve got other ideas to add to the mix, please let me know.

P.S. — In support of my general argument about print and digital, see this article. And for more on the non-death of print, and how publishers have completely misunderstood the trends, see this and this.

Getting “media” right

My friend Ronn Levine with SIPA sent along this very interesting article. The tech/editorial culture clash

It’s a good article about the conflict between social media and news organizations, and it’s worth your time to read. But be careful about drawing the wrong conclusions.

What I’ve seen time and again with this sort of article is that people confuse “news” with “media,” or even with publishing in general, and as a result they get the wrong ideas about trends in publishing.

For example, consider this quote.

Every major news event in the world, from bombs raining down on Aleppo to the late night tweeting of presidential candidates, is broken through social media and seen through our luminous mobile phone screens.

That’s very true. People get their daily news from other sources these days, and often largely from social media.

But that’s news, which is only one part of the media, or of the publishing industry as a whole.

Most of the bellyaching about “the death of print” and the decline of “publishing” conflates and confuses these things.

Yes, news is in decline. When news was printed on paper, delivered by truck to newsstands and then by local kids on bikes to houses, there was a geographical limit to the reach of any given newspaper. As a result there was a market for lots of different papers in different cities.

That need doesn’t exist any more.

There’s simply no reason to have a Washington Post, a Chicago Tribune, an LA Times, plus 45 other localized newspapers — all covering basically the same stories. Most of them will have to fail in the modern environment, and the remaining few will have to consolidate.

But that’s an entirely different thing from Vogue, or Brew Your Own, or American Rifleman. Or, for that matter, Oil and Gas Daily or (dear to my heart) The FERC Practice and Procedure Manual.

National news is a horrible place to be right now. But local news and niche publishing are entirely different and live in another ecosystem.

The point is that structural changes to the publishing industry will affect different parts differently, so don’t buy into any rolled-up analysis that tries to explain everything from daily news to paperbacks.

Facebook is not the place for serious news

At the recent BIMS conference in Ft. Lauderdale I got a chance to catch up briefly with Lev Kaye, the Founder and CEO of Credspark. We expressed our mutual disdain for the latest silly craze that publishers are falling for — viz., putting their content on Facebook.

Lev sent me this very interesting video on the subject.

The Death of the Advertising Industrial Complex.

If you can’t watch the whole thing, watch the section from 19:50 to 21:55. Go ahead. I’ll wait.

If I were to summarize …

The problem with the ad model, simply stated.

We spend lots of time and money creating an audience that we then rent to other people rather than using it to promote our own business.

The problem with Facebook, simply stated.

We spend lots of time and money creating great content so Facebook can use it to expand its platform.

Pardon my French, but publishers need to learn to be their own bitch.

Create an audience for your own benefit. Create content to build your own platform and your own customer base. Don’t give stuff away. The great material you pay your professional staff to write has value. Act like it.

Publishers have to quit getting suckered by these big platforms. It started with Apple and the tablet craze.

Remember how everything was going to be on the iPad? Remember the derision that was heaped on those backwards, curmudgeonly Luddites who didn’t immediately forsake print and pour everything into an iPad strategy?

Are you buying an iPad for anybody this Christmas?

And in case you didn’t notice, the Apple newsstand doesn’t even exist any more. The revolution sputtered. I think it took a ride on a Segway.

But don’t just take my word for it.

7 Ways Facebook’s Big Algorithm Change Will Affect Marketers and Publishers makes the case decently well.

Publishers keep falling into the same ditch over and over again. It would be amusing if my career wasn’t at stake.

I would love to see a debate on this topic: Facebook, friend or foe?

Please note, I’m not talking about your personal use of Facebook. Go ahead and catch up with your nieces and nephews. I do. Share pictures of your latest catch and watch Mary’s cat jump into the Christmas tree. That’s all great fun — so long as you can stomach the hashtag activism and collective freak outs over faux news stories.

Just don’t put your serious journalism in that environment. Why in the heck would you? It’s like submitting your review of the latest DOJ ruling to the Weekly World News, right next to bat boy and revelations from Area 51.

Facebook was created as a way to find dates in college. It’s marginally more serious now, but still not the place for your paid, professional content.

And speaking of paid content, your kids would love a copy of this for Christmas: Escape to Mars.