Archive - A Backward step?
Sun, Nov 4 2012, 9:13PM
Oops!
I was just getting to grips with the wonderful Gramophone Archive and now I find it has been changed so to access it I need to subscribe. I have no problem with that, afer all why should you make such a terrific resource available free of charge. BUT, as I understand it, access to the the archive is only available as an app for the ipad. I do not have an ipad or a smart phone and have no intention of buying one, so where does that leave me? I cannot access the app and therefore have no intention of taking out a subscription to the digital version, which I was just about to do.
I hope my understanding is incorrect and someone will tell me that I can still access the archive on my PC
Tue, Nov 6 2012, 6:26PM
#2
RE: Archive - A Backward
Very helpful, Thanks
Mike
Sat, Nov 24 2012, 10:04AM
#3
RE: Archive - A Backward step?
I'm less than impressed. I used to keep my old paper copies so that I could refer to them if I wanted to buy a CD. I threw them out when the archive became available on the web site. Now it seems I have to pay. Thanks a lot.
Sun, Dec 9 2012, 6:13PM
#4
RE: Archive - A Backward step?
Yes, you and me both, and I'd bet we're not alone! I've only got about 5 years of paper copies and have thrown out at least 25 years worth because of Gramofile and then the archive (poor though it was). What's bad is that this requires an annual subscription just to keep up access to the archive - at least the old Gramofile was a one off payment, and you could wait quite a few years before it felt necessary to update it.
Gordon
Mon, Dec 10 2012, 10:00AM
#5
RE: Archive - A Backward step?
Dear ptoye and gordonmd,
Thank you both for your posts and I do sympathise with your situations. Unfortunately in order to
improve the archive service we had no option but to fund it by charging for
access as maintaining and updating our products on the ever increasing number of platforms and devices is very expensive. The model we have chosen is different to most other digital publishers who charge for access to each copy of a back issue on top of an annual subscription. By comparison we think our offer represents good value for money.
You can find more information about the archive here.
We are always pelased to see that when we change anything about Gramophone there will always be allot of correspondence, both positive and negative. Without both kinds of feedback it is hard to know whether we are going in the right direction but hopefully we get it right more often than not.
Kind Regards,
Luca
Mon, Dec 10 2012, 10:33PM
#6
RE: Archive - A Backward step?
Luca, thanks at least for sticking your head above the parapet.
I've just tried to access the archive for the first time in some months, and found that I was unable to login. It seems that my previous registration, which was in use for several years, has been cancelled without notice.
I now realise that access to the archive requires a subscription to the magazine. You are of course free to take that commercial decision, but with a basic level of customer service and common courtesy you could at least have notified existing users. Or if you withdrew my registration because of infrequent use, why not warn me first?
You say that "maintaining and updating our products on the ever increasing number of platforms and devices is very expensive". Well, I'm not asking you to extend the number of platforms and devices that you offer the archive on. Indeed, I find it odd that access to an archive on a smartphone is deemed to be an essential requirement.
But what really annoys me is that I was an archive user, and you didn't bother to tell me that you were cancelling my access.
Richard J.
Tue, Dec 11 2012, 9:40AM
#7
RE: Archive - A Backward step?
I live in Belgium and buy my magazine in a bookstore "Waterstone" in Brussels. Before I could consult the archive. Unfortunaly this is no more possible now.
Tue, Dec 11 2012, 6:01PM
#8
RE: Archive - A Backward step?
I don't mind paying for a subscription, but think the archive should be free to subscribers (instead of adding an extra charge). For non-subscribers it should incur a small fee, but nowhere nearly as much as we are being asked for now.
While I find the archive interesting I will never pay that amount to access it. Maybe others think differently, the Gramophone accountants will be able to work that out after a year and see if it was a good decision.
Also, I find the charge for print+digital editions excessive. If you subscribe to the print edition you should get the digital version for a moderate extra charge.
Wed, Dec 12 2012, 3:02PM
#9
RE: Archive - A Backward step?
Dear richardj,
Apologies you didn't hear that the old archive was going to be closing down. However, we did run an online news story about the development in the build-up to the change. Should there be a similar development in the future we will look to inform users by email.
Despite not owning a smart phone yourself I hope you can understand that it is our responsibility to make our content available in formats that suit as many of our readers as possible. I hope you can see why we took the decision to upgrade our service so that readers can get access to the archive on these new devices as well as on home computers.
Many thanks,
Luca Da Re
Wed, Dec 12 2012, 3:13PM
#10
RE: Archive - A Backward step?
Dear PatrickMertens,
We made sure that the archive would be available anywhere in the world but I appreciate that as a newsstand reader having to pay the full price for access would be frustrating. I am afraid that the only way to get the discounted rate would be to become a print subscriber.
Many thanks,
Luca Da Re
Wed, Dec 12 2012, 3:34PM
#11
RE: Archive - A Backward step?
Hi ganymede,
Thank you for your feedback as it really helpful to get as much feedback on the new archive as possible. We always expected some readers to find the new service more compelling but we still think that £25 extra for access to over 1,000 issues of the magazine is not unreasonable.
One of the most frequent comments so far has been from readers who have only been to pleased to pay £25 so that they can liberate part of their home from stacks of copies of the magazine. Everyone's priorities and interests are different.
Many thanks,
Luca Da Re
Wed, Dec 12 2012, 4:31PM
#12
RE: Archive - A Backward step?
In the States, it appears as though we cannot buy an e-subscription--only the print version and then a surcharge for the archive. To have lost my access to the archives (as imperfect as most found them) is bad enough, but to bundle it only with a print subscription is a large additional expense.
I've been a reader of Gramophone since analog/LP days and understand that the archives should be a premium benefit for subscribers. But I do resent paying for two subscriptions, and I'm going to have to weigh the expense very carefully if this is still the case at my renewal time. I'm hoping that the company will heed the comments here and determine the real cost of reducing its subscriber base through a pricing policy it may amend anyway.
Best,
Bill
Wed, Dec 12 2012, 4:37PM
#13
RE: Archive - A Backward step?
Hi,
US users can buy a digital-only subscription here by typing the code ADIGITAL12 into the box near the bottom of the page. If this doesn't work, please could you send an email to gramophone@haymarket.com?
Thanks,
Rachel
Wed, Jan 9 2013, 12:51PM
#14
RE: Archive - A Backward step?
Dear Luca,
Your comment to ganymede on 12 December wasn't exactly accurate: it's not £25, it's £25 per year. That adds up over a lifetime!
But I still feel that withdrawing the archive service without notice is unreasonable.
You do not need an iPad or iPhone (or an i-anything else) to access the magazine and back editions. I subscribed this week and have it open on my laptop as I type.
Luca has written at greater length and very helpfully elsewhere in the dedicated thread.
JKH