April 18 2008
Encyclopedia Britannica Now Free For Bloggers
Michael Arrington
28 comments »
Encyclopedia Britannica is used in often case studies as a definitive example of how new technology can disrupt a business. Everything was great for the nearly 250 year old privately held company until the Internet came around and category five hurricaned on their parade. According to Comscore, for every page viewed on Brittanica.com, 184 pages are viewed on Wikipedia (3.8 billion v. 21 million pave views per month). In short, they are a classic example of the Innovator’s Dilemma (see also the Music Industry).
You can purchase the 32 volume Britannica, which has 65,000 articles and 44 million words, for just $1,400. Or you can access it on the web for $70 per year.
And now, you can get access to the online version for free through a new program called Britannica Webshare – provided that you are a “web publisher.” The definition of a web publisher is rather squishy: “This program is intended for people who publish with some regularity on the Internet, be they bloggers, webmasters, or writers. We reserve the right to deny participation to anyone who in our judgment doesn’t qualify.” Basically, you sign up, tell them about your site URL and a description, and they review it and decide if you’ll get in. I wonder if Facebook, MySpace and Twitter users are eligible? They all certainly “publish with some regularity on the Internet.”
Once you’re in, you get to link to the full version of articles – people clicking the link can read that article but they can’t go and read other parts of the Britannica site. Participants can also embed widgets like the following:
Half Pregnant
Britannica is doing a lot of things right – a relatively small staff of a hundred or so editors manages 4,000 unpaid (I believe) contributors who are recognized experts in their field. But, like the music labels, they still somehow feel as though people should pay to consume their content. And that means search engines can’t index their content. And that means they don’t exist.
Instead of going free and opening up to all, they’re using the new program to simply price discriminate. Give people who may link to the site free access. Everyone else has to pay. So in effect they’re aiming to be half pregnant – they want the benefits of web linking but don’t want to give up the subscription fees from the fools who continue to pay them.
As an outsider, Britannica’s future is clear. Eventually, and if they don’t go out of business first, they’ll be forced to make all their content freely available on the Internet, and will probably create a wiki-like format that allows user editing. Their differentiating factor from Wikipedia will be that they have experts guiding articles, so they’ll have a claim to be more authoritative. This is, by the way, the business model of Citizendium, created by Wikipedia co-founder Larry Sanger in 2006.
The sooner they do that the more likely they’ll be around for the long term. Perhaps they can even continue to sell those 32 volume sets to a few libraries. But it’s hard to give up that online subscription revenue. When this fails, they’ll try something else.
Comments
RSS feed for comments on this post.


April 18th, 2008 at 11:32 pm
Actually, Encarta (on CD) was the first to rain on the parade.
April 18th, 2008 at 11:33 pm
that was just a light sprinkle.
April 18th, 2008 at 11:33 pm
as much as i like wikipedia, its just not comparable to the encyclopedia britannica. Someone needs to archive the truth, and i dont know if wiki is capable of that
April 18th, 2008 at 11:35 pm
We now have an alternative to wikipedia, albeit not as hip and current… Hmm, I will probably forget about Encylopedia Britannica again for the next year or two.
April 18th, 2008 at 11:35 pm
Thanks for the heads up. I will apply for access. No doubt you are right about the biz model. Good analysis.
April 18th, 2008 at 11:36 pm
I doubt that EB will go wiki because that model is simply FUBAR.
I suspect that EB will need to find another model of web distribution.
April 18th, 2008 at 11:39 pm
Old school mentalities with gated gardens die hard. Good to see them attempting to adopt to reality. Maybe they will start evolving more quickly before it is too late.
April 18th, 2008 at 11:44 pm
If Wikipedia were the “hurricane” that ruined EB’s parade, then Google Search would be the big old Tsunami.
EB’s move is one timid step in the right direction. I feel bad for anyone who is working in the dead-tree business.
The day Google posted record profit, New York Times posted record loss. So it goes.
April 18th, 2008 at 11:45 pm
Too little too late unfortunately…
April 18th, 2008 at 11:51 pm
Michael, I hope they do it really quickly. Wikipedia is half broken! Most of the time you wind up arguing that the earth is round and it revolves around the sun, not the other way around like a few still think!
The mass deletionists just want to cut the articles down to small pieces and then get rid of what is left via a deletion process. I do not like it, Delete, Delete, Delete!
Reasoning and consensus just does not work with these type of people. It is not that they are right or wrong, is that they got the Power! You disagree with them they will come up with some lame excuse to ban you!
See for yourself
http://www.igorthetroll.com/bl…..mediation/
April 18th, 2008 at 11:55 pm
Ok late, but not later than Web 3.0…
April 19th, 2008 at 12:00 am
@ Mike Arrington re: Encarta
By 2000, encyclopedia sales were 10% of their 1990 record highs.
This was mainly Encarta’s (Microsoft) fault.
April 19th, 2008 at 12:20 am
Nice news

I will give it a try
April 19th, 2008 at 12:20 am
Sorry but as usual web 2.0 “gurus” only understand a small portion of the real story.
The economics of the current web simply don’t support a web 2.0 utopian view of content creation.
Great content produced by a business requires real business models, not “put adsense next to it” business models. Adsense is by far the most efficient way to monetize reference content, and it simply does not, and cannot, pay enough to create expert, authoritative, edited content. A few rules:
1. When people are in “research mode” they don’t look at, or care about ads, no matter how relevant.
2. Perceived value is value. Paid content monetizes better then ad-driven content for content which is valuable.
3. Opening up Britannica completely destroys their perceived value, as suddenly they are competing directly with Wikipedia, rather then creating a superior, paid-for version.
4. Paid content works. Ask WSJ.com, ask enotes.com, ask audible.com, ask all the niche content providers on the web.
5. This move is about Google, not wikipedia per se. They need incoming links to rise higher in Google.
April 19th, 2008 at 12:22 am
Oh and #6– the library market is 100x bigger then the ad market for reference content. Think about that for ten seconds. Britannica derives most of their profit from the library market.
April 19th, 2008 at 12:27 am
Igor The Troll claims wikipedia is “half-broken” and points to this as proof:
http://www.igorthetroll.com/bl…..mediation/
At cursory glance he violated enough rules to get banned from contribution and assigned a mentor.
After reading his talk page, this sound like another vindication of the (iterative and) difficult balancing act that wikipedia engages in. How many trolls does it take to write wikipedia? Answer: none.
And, this is off-topic to EB, unless he was claiming that EB will re-emerge as wikipedia continues to “brake” [sic]
April 19th, 2008 at 12:31 am
harold, good points. I guess you are not spending your valuable time arguing with Wikipedia Trolls.
Maybe Britannica can do a nonprofit online version and collect donations like Wikipedia but have real editors with Brains edit articles not Neanderthals bashing acknowledged editors on the head with delete bats.
April 19th, 2008 at 12:32 am
I don’t think that Britannica is likely to do well either but I think that this: “As an outsider, Britannica’s future is clear. Eventually, and if they don’t go out of business first, they’ll be forced to make all their content freely available on the Internet, and will probably create a wiki-like format that allows user editing. Their differentiating factor from Wikipedia will be that they have experts guiding articles, so they’ll have a claim to be more authoritative. This is, by the way, the business model of Citizendium, created by Wikipedia co-founder Larry Sanger in 2006.” is a bit too certain about their future.
The fact is, this is still a very new environment. We don’t know exactly how it will work out. Wikipedia has worked phenomenally well, despite initial doubts from many (like myself) that such a system could ever function in the presence of vandals.
However, marketing agencies have still not had time to incorporate Wikipedia into their efforts. Wikipedia relies on the fact that volunteer contributors are more dedicated than vandals and trolls (and generally more conversant with the Wikipedia system; I would guess that many trolls do not realize the ease with which an editor can identify multiple edits from the same address and revert them once one change is made). However, when there are businessmen working 24/7 to manipulate Wikipedia, things may become different. Wikipedia articles on popular politicial figures often suffer a certain degree of bias today; it can be expected that product and company web pages would be possible targets for marketing efforts.
Wikipedia will change and evolve and perhaps fork as well. I doubt that the Wikipedia of ten years from today will look exactly the same as the Wikipedia of today. Citizendium may work or may not. Perhaps the technological infrastructure for micropayments will make commercial availability of reference works more feasibility, or perhaps ISPs will begin to sell access to services as part of their bundle of services. Frankly, we don’t know what will happen yet, and I don’t think that it’s reasonable to definitively say what Britannica will need to do.
If I were Britannica, I’d probably do the following:
Personally, I really like Wikipedia, but I wouldn’t be so ready to write Britannica off yet.
April 19th, 2008 at 12:32 am
It’s Wiki that’s the hurricane. And Google with the freely accessible service and the ad-funded business model. At work I have free access to Britannica and the Swedish National Encyclopedia. I rarely check them out unless Google or Wiki fail me or there’s a niggling question in my mind about their results, and I definitely don’t automatically consider any of them to be more authoritative than the others out of the box so to speak. The OED (online with subscription) has a good claim to authority, mind, as does the dictionary section of the National Encyclopedia, but such authority is very rare, and Google is indispensable for digging up possible second opinions.
Roll on free Net access to all printed material – we’ll think of ways of evaluating and digesting it.
And everyone should (re)read Walter Benjamin on the Work of Art in the Age of Mechanical Reproduction (1936). A seminal work.
http://www.marxists.org/refere…..njamin.htm
April 19th, 2008 at 12:36 am
Richard, did you come down from the project to cite policy.
I do not think Michael’s blog will let Wikipedia link in comments because of Akismet, but go check out “Social network aggregation” on Wikipedia and you will see it just went through a deletion process. It was luckily a keep, but you had hoards of editors and admins argue that the term is not notable. Please give me a break!
April 19th, 2008 at 12:45 am
i don’t see any reason why EB would have to go the wiki route.
making their stuff available for free online? sure. but wiki? why?
April 19th, 2008 at 12:45 am
Encyclopedia Britannica used to be the Google of it’s day for college students
April 19th, 2008 at 12:57 am
EB will either go under or move to some kind of web-based model, in which case they will go under eventually.
Nothing lasts on the web, even Yahoo is on the block now. It’ a metaphor for our times, everything is temporary and the experience to the end user is of lower quality.
Things move quickly in the age of Walmart and China and the web, and most of it sucks.
April 19th, 2008 at 1:02 am
Re. web based models, I think Mark in post 18 had some great ideas. But they at best just delay the inevitable.
April 19th, 2008 at 1:51 am
or some large corporation could buy them to use the brand name, to create an online competitor for wikipedia and others.
April 19th, 2008 at 1:53 am
what you must realise is the academic prestige of writing an article for the EB: that goes onto resumes and impresses the betweeded, leather elbow-patched consortium. Ergo, you have the means of production. The outlet will then decide itself, probably web-based
April 19th, 2008 at 2:30 am
Even with all the fuss about user-generated content and constant updating, there are clear advantages for having a definitive and unchanging edition, be that online or in print.
For any research purposes, wikipedia is totally unquotable, while EB isn’t. Also, for today’s historians (especially for ones interested in the history of thought), EB editions from the beginning of the last century are a gold mine, and current editions will be in the future. If articles just evolve and change all the time, the aspect of being able to see what the zeitgeist was regarding things like, say, music, art, China, American Civil War, pasta, internet, venture capital… is lost.
Encyclopedia isn’t just about “facts”, it’s also cultural history. And having a system that can verify the facts in the encyclopedia, the structure that EB has in place and that Citizendium is putting up is still the way to go. While I think it would be great if EB would go fully and freely online, I hope they never allow user editing. Instead, there should be other ways of contributing, if deemed necessary. But being able to afford free online distribution by externalising content production to a bunch of keen amateurs isn’t they way to go.