{{ searchResult.published_at | date:'d MMMM yyyy' }}

Loading ...
Loading ...

Enter a search term such as “mobile analytics” or browse our content using the filters above.

No_results

That’s not only a poor Scrabble score but we also couldn’t find any results matching “”.
Check your spelling or try broadening your search.

Logo_distressed

Sorry about this, there is a problem with our search at the moment.
Please try again later.

Ian Grant is the MD of Britannica UK, responsible for the EMEA regions. I've been talking to Ian about how EB has adapted to the internet, the threat from Wikipedia, and its plans for the future...

Has Encyclopaedia Britannica been slow to adapt to online competition?

I think one thing that hasn't been made clear when we are discussed in relation to the internet is the fact that Britannica has been online for the last twelve years. Also, the consumer website that most web users will know of is a small part of our overall business. The larger point is that we have four main areas where we cater for customers online: consumer, academic institutions, libraries, and schools.

What proportion of EB's revenues come from its online operations?

Roughly 60% comes from online, of that around 15% comes from subscriptions to the consumer version of the websites, so this represents a relatively small pat of our business.

We criticised the user experience on Britannica.com on this blog recently, any plans for improvements?

I did read your article and thought that the comments you made, such as the issues with client side scripting slowing the site down, and the search function, were appropriate. We did redesign the website recently, it was much plainer before, but we are doing a lot of reviewing and testing at the moment, as we look to improve. 

Also, our president Jorge Cauz has been talking recently about giving people more ability to contribute to the site by editing articles that are already on the site and adding new content.

How will this process work? Will it be as open as Wikipedia?

We have a strict editing process that any new edits and entries have to go through before they will be added to the website or the published editions of the encyclopedia. Entries will have to be fact-checked by our staff.

Britannica has 4,500 contributors around the world, consisting of academics and various other experts in their fields, and their entries and edits have to go through a team of 100 editors before approval. This rigorous process is what makes EB reliable, and we would not compromise and risk lowering the quality of our content.

We are testing the offer of a space for people to comment on our articles, update or check any facts, and write additions to our articles. If we feel that material submitted by the public is suitable for publication and incorporation into the encyclopedic database, then it will be assessed, fact-checked, edited for style and incorporated into the database, citing the writer responsible for the edits.

Finding the right balance between user-generated content and curated information is a challenge, and something which we have in common with newspapers, as they adapt to online trends.

Can you update articles as quickly in response to changing events?

We update on a daily basis, but it still goes through the editorial process. Our editorial team has changed its practices on this in the last three years. For instance, we were able to update entries related to Benazir Bhutto in response to her assassination last year. Her Britannica biography, and entries on Pakistan and India were all updated and published online within two hours. This was not a wikipedia-style process but a curated process.  

Britannica doesn't provide news or current affairs, so it is not as important for us to update as quickly as the BBC or to provide instant comment on events. What we do well is to provide deep context, to give people the history behind events and tell users about the details underlying events. 

The value we deliver is that of confidence - users can have confidence in the accuracy of the information we supply.

How much of a problem is the popularity of Wikipedia?

I think the comparison is a non-debate, because we offer something very different. Wikipedia is a fun site to use and has a lot of interesting entries on there, but their approach wouldn't work for Encyclopedia Britannica.

My job is to create more awareness of our very different approaches to publishing in the public mind. They're a chisel, we're a drill, and you need to have the correct tool for the job.

Is Britannica profitable?

Yes, across the Europe, Middle East and Africa regions I am responsible for, we have grown the business in each of the last two years. This is in our three main categories of users, academic institutions, schools and consumers, and these customers are prepared to pay for the quality of content and the confidence in the material that we offer. The subscription renewal rate for institutions like libraries is about 98%. 

Have you considered going for a free model for the consumer site to attract more traffic and links?

The site was free at one point, about eleven or twelve years ago, but perhaps we were too far ahead of our time then. We had no commercial model, our servers crashed with all the traffic to the site, and the changes didn't work at all. This model was introduced by the new owner at the time, who felt we had to adapt to the internet, and it took us years to recover from this.

Even now, I'm not convinced that the free, ad-supported model for the consumer website would work. Advertising can be hard to come by and undermines the value proposition.

There is value in the publishing process which articles on Britannica go through, and we have to balance the need to pay professional contributors, writers and editors in order to maintain the quality element of our proposition with the mission to deliver globally online and in print timely information in which users can have complete confidence in.

One example we have to be wary of is German publisher Brockhaus, which has been published since 1808. It tried and failed to move everything online by providing free editorial material supported by advertising. It's a dangerous approach.

People can still link to our content and visitors will be able to access articles on the site, though at some point, Britannica says its product has a value and provides the offer of a month's free trial. Once users take up this offer, we have very high conversion rates - up to 50%.

However, it's important for us to get across to people the value of the content, so we are looking at alternative ways of doing this.

How important is SEO for Britannica?

Google is an important channel to market, and we have been using it to promote niche areas, such as our recently launched products for homework help. We rank well for phrases related to this area. We employ a search agency to look after this and our paid search marketing.

Graham Charlton

Published 10 February, 2009 by Graham Charlton

Graham Charlton is the former Editor-in-Chief at Econsultancy. Follow him on Twitter or connect via Linkedin or Google+

2565 more posts from this author

Comments (5)

Avatar-blank-50x50

S Williams

The comments about Encyclopaedia Britannica and Wikipedia are interesting.

Britannica never thought that an open source product like Wikipedia would seriously challenge the credibility of its brand. They were wrong and Encyclopaedia Britannica's staff seriously misread the global market. They are now very concerned about the widespread use of a free Wikipedia vs their paid subscription model From a corporate and financial perspective, Encyclopaedia Britannica is in serious trouble.

It will be interesting to see if Encyclopaedia Britannica survives, but recent indications do not look good. It is the combination of a) the success of Wikipedia and b) improved search engines that has put financial pressure on Encyclopedia Britannica over recent years. Many libraries, schools & individuals are questioning the need to pay for sets of expensive books, or to subscribe to Encyclopaedia Britannica Online, when the content is free on the internet, and often much more comprehensive. 

over 7 years ago

Avatar-blank-50x50

Ian Grant

S. Williams has made this comment before on other blogs, without change.   this is simply lazy blogging.   I have answered it elsewhere, but will do so again.

I am commercially responsible for Britannica's operations in Europe, Middle East and Africa.   In these markets our academic, library, schools and consumer business grows.  Over the last two years, for example, more people have paid us more money each year in each sector to subscribe to our products.  Our subscription renewal rate in academic and library markets is 98%, indicating approval and confidence in what we publish and how we do it.

The difference between Britannica and Wikipedia is between mission, values and execution.   One is not better than the other - they are different and do different things.   In the schools context, for example, you have to be a consenting adult to understand how to read Wikipedia: you have to know how to read the medium, as you do with any other communications medium - newspapers, TV etc.   A schoolchild doesn't have the experience to do this:  she or he has no means of telling whether a Wikipedia article is written by a professor, a mad professor or a madman or all three.   In all my discussions with Wikipedia folk, they don't suggest that anyone should use the material in Wikipedia as facts in school or academic work without checking a second source.   Which is fine, they know what they are doing.

Britannica has a different proposition.   We have 4,500 contributors around the world who are eminent in their fields.   We commission them to write articles and pay them.   We have 100 editors who fact-check the material, edit it for style and tone so that there is a consistency of reading level; we edit it for language level, since we publish separately for adults, teenagers and children.   We refresh and update continuously.   People use Britannica because they have confidence in the material.

We believe this way of publishing offers editorial value to our users and that this value can be expressed as a commercial transaction.   For consumers we ask that they pay us the equivalent of One Pound Sterling per week.   We think this is very reasonable.   Teachers and students receive the material free in any institution that subscribes on their behalf - as growing numbers do.

I ask Mr or Ms Williams to be a little less Wiki and a little more Britannica in her or his public correspondence - and write fresh text rather than simply pasting old opinions.

Ian Grant

over 7 years ago

Avatar-blank-50x50

Andrew Hayward

I am with Ian Grant. EB have a fantastic track record of impressive coverage of a multitude of subjects by writers who are well known authorities in their specialist field and with good references to substantiate their writing.

Britannica is, quite frankly, the gold standard and is universally acknowledged. In developing countries it is still the brand that people tend to go to first. Wilkpedia is increasingly seen as a "corrupt" source of information and not totally reliable. Indeed, the founder of Wilkpedia said in the press only the other day that someone had added something erroneous about him and he was having a very difficult job getting the wrong information deleted from his profile on Wiki. I rest my case.

Now that EB have also developed a series of books to supplement their web presence, and these books are increasingly going into schools and libraries I have every expectation of the EB brand once more having a) a higher profile and b) a greater recognition of their quality of scholarship 

over 7 years ago

Avatar-blank-50x50

Jimmy

The idea that Britannica is more accurate than Wikipedia is largely a myth. A study in Nature found that when looking at science articles Wikipedia and Britannica had about the same number of mistakes. Britannica acknowledged their fallibility in the preface of their first addition, "With regard to errors in general, whether falling under the denomination of mental, typographical or accidental, we are conscious of being able to point out a greater number than any critic whatever. " And when it comes to breadth of coverage Britannica is a puddle to Wikipedia's sea and the webs ocean. That's why today Britannica can only attract a diminishing fraction of today's readers.

over 6 years ago

Avatar-blank-50x50

Anoon Imuskavard

They're a chisel, we're a drill, and you need to have the correct tool for the job.

The day that science invents magic, I'm going to resurrect Michelangelo, give him a drill and a giant block of marble, and see how he does.

over 5 years ago

Comment
No-profile-pic
Save or Cancel
Daily_pulse_signup_wide

Enjoying this article?

Get more just like this, delivered to your inbox.

Keep up to date with the latest analysis, inspiration and learning from the Econsultancy blog with our free Daily Pulse newsletter. Each weekday, you ll receive a hand-picked digest of the latest and greatest articles, as well as snippets of new market data, best practice guides and trends research.