First, Cooks Illustrated is an incredible resource. I've been a subscriber for years, both in print and for the (indispensable) website that collects all their recipes. No CI recipe has ever failed me; most document in meticulous detail why each choice was made.

Second, Cooks Illustrated may have the same editorial policy as Consumer Reports, but it's really not the Consumer Reports of food. 80% of their content is original research on recipes and techniques. At the end of each issue, they have 2 "Consumer Reports"-like sections, one on a piece of equipment and one on an ingredient. But that's a feature, not the engine.

Third, in fairness, CI has other revenue streams: a lucrative line of cookbooks (several new ones are issued every year, and their flagship cookbook also goes through many editions) and 2 popular PBS television shows, which PBS stations pay them to run. Most magazines don't operate like this.

> Most magazines don't operate like this.

Yes they do:

Gourmet: Cookbooks, PBS show

Saveur: Cookbooks, Travel Tour Packages

Bon Appetit: Cookbooks (at least)

Food + Wine: ?

Cooking Light: Cookbooks, pretty sure there was a TV show for a while

Fine Cooking: Cookbooks

Martha Stewart Living: Cookbooks, TV, merchandising, etc

Disclosure: I frequently do photography for Saveur, and my wife is an editor.

It may be more true of food magazines than publishing in general, but --- leaving out Martha Stewart Living (that's like bringing O Magazine in; a magazine with a lucrative sideline in television!) --- do the line of cookbooks from these magazines come anywhere near the size of Cooks Illustrated?

CI does what looks like 5-10 a year. Does Saveur?

5-10 cookbooks a year sounds terrifying. The QA on those must be terrible--not sure how they could afford that number of recipe testers for each title. I tend not to buy any cookbook that has a number in the title or is part of a 'series'.

Saveur does one every few years, on different themes-- Saveur Cooks Classic Italian and Saveur Cooks Classic American are still doing pretty well-- they're great references for the classics.

No, the QA on those cookbooks is better than the QA on most software. That's the point of Cooks Illustrated. You don't even have to trust me; read a CI recipe: they've documented everything they did wrong. They not kidding: they made that coffee cake 45-50 times to get it right. Also, check out their "board of advisors"; they're name-brand people. Bittman used to be on staff, and restaurant chefs are on their tasting panels.

What's funny is, CI used to have a third Consumer Reports style section where they rated other cookbooks, by turning their (large) kitchen and staff loose on the recipes and evaluating the results. CI does a better job QA'ing other people's cookbooks than they do.

Interesting, I think I may subscribe.

How is the photography in the online recipes?

They are real big on illustrations (see article for example). There is a good amount of video on the site too, which is useful. You can sign up for a free trial period, though I do believe you gotta give up payment info first (and will be charged if you don't cancel before the trial is up).

You know what would be neat? A service like Paypal where you could sign up for 30-day trials for things, and it would automatically cancel the trial on day 29.

I would love that, but I doubt websites would support it :-)

Why would they need to? It could work like a pass-through payment card, like the expense tracking services use.

Oh, I didn't know there was such a thing... yeah in this case it could be a useful service....

The photography is so-so, but there is usually always one picture of a dish. Technique, historically, was demonstrated in illustrations but they have moved to video in recent years.

Visual depiction is not their strong suit. Their strength is overwhelmingly in recipes and analysis. You are buying their scientific approach to recipes and expert analysis of tools and dishes.

No one gets it for the photography. They have black and white photos and drawings when needed to clarify things. It is well worth it.

Too much choice sucks. Too much choice with too little information sucks even more. Consumer Reports and CI directly address this problem, and they do it fairly well.

ConsumerLab is another one. They just test vitamins and dietary supplements and post their results on their website.

http://www.consumerlab.com/

The problem they address is not choice, but difficulty attaining of safety information. It's easy, for example, for metal impurities to get into supplements like DHEA. The FDA is not going to step in, so a free market alternative arises.

I am a long-time subscriber. Cook's Illustrated almost makes cooking into a low-risk venture (especially when cooking for friends). My personal pot-luck guarantee/favorite: Teriyaki Stir-Fried Beef with Green Beans and Shiitakes. Subscribe to their email list just to read the Editor-in-Chief's emails - show how you can live on a farm and off the land if you provide value to people who don't live on a farm..

My one criticism is the recipes are not typically health friendly (you can adjust) and the fact that they keep on sending me 'subscribe' email spam for 'Cook's Country'.

I am a recent cook-for-relaxation person. Going through their web site, the main differentiation factor is the tried-and-true recipe factor. Apparently they try each recipe 30-40 times to perfect it.

That is worth paying for. And the convenience of the Internet and the videos.

I could easily go to the library and pick up a book but it is a time consuming process.

So, yeah. If they want to take the time to perfect each recipe. Heck, I will pay for it.

I'm a subscriber to the website, it's a great product. I really enjoy the reviews. Recipe wise I usually look at what they and others do and then go my own.

Lesson learned: People will pay for premium content, even on the Internet.

The question is - will they pay even in this struggling economy? My friend once told me, if economy starts getting worsened, she would cut down her premium expenses first. That includes branded products, luxurious lifestyle, premium subscriptions, etc.

Yes, people pay for premium content but in this economy, businesses which are dependent on premium features will be the first ones who get setbacks.

My $0.02s of course.

Cooks Illustrated will probably just get bigger--cooking at home is cheaper than not and is one of those things people start doing when they want to save money.

you can cook at home by using free recipe sites as well. my point is, should we come up with business models for "premium" customers?

I'm not saying it's not a good approach. Rather I'm researching such an idea which targets premium customers who prefer personalization/customization. And that's when my friend responded that she wouldn't pay for my premium service since there are free or cheaper options available, which also "get things done".

Yeah but the point here is that CI is charging for a quality service for which evidently there isn't an equally good free or cheaper option.

Food is an interesting topic. This is one of those times where I wish I had access to unlimited data; but I'm willing to bet that if there was a choice between buying more music on iTunes and cutting off a subscription to Cooks Illustrated, the iTunes goes first.

People are hard-wired to think about food; since its right up there with shelter and procreation in terms of "things I need for survival". I can easily see people making justifications to keep paying for this sort of access until the bitter end of home budget cuts.

Funny, I was referred to this magazine by a friend today as well. I agree, at a time when I do want to cook at home more, I am willing to pay the small premium to actually read quality recipes and techniques rather than free sites that provide a hack-job of recipes like allrecipes.com or cooks.com

People will pay for quality. Why dumpster-dive for a free bag of not-actually-bad-but-they-had-to-throw-them-out potato chips when you can just walk in the store and buy them for a few bucks without getting your clothes dirty?

After reading this, I tried to become member to their website and they force me to chose a state even if I least my country as france and ask me for a phone number to be formatted according to the way americans format their phone numbers. I guess they don't get that many foreigners using their website....

I wonder if the 'timelessness' of Cook's Illustrated will become more of an issue, as time goes on. Can they really keep coming up with a new Thanksgiving turkey recipe every single year? Or will they eventually end up competing with their own past content?

That's silly. Will musicians run out of melodies? Or screen writers run out of stories? People have been cooking for thousands of years and somehow keep learning more. Food tastes are always changing, if you go back and watch old black and white Julia Child cooking shows she talks about a exotic herb called basil that you should definitely check out if you can find locally. Dried basil, the stuff that's hardly worth buying these days because fresh is so much better. Who knows what foods will seem commonplace in 50 years?

Your comparison is an apt one. Both recipes and music are things we think of as infinite, but are not (Proof: you can encode all music/recipes/whatever as a finite series of 0's and 1's. Hence, there is a finite (and easily calculated) upper bound on the number of recipes shorter than a certain length.)

Now, these representations are fairly long (and furthermore, music can't be made much shorter), so there are a fair number of variations.

In conclusion: Yes, they will run out someday. However, this may be after the heat-death of the universe. A bigger risk to their business model is humanity changing to not need food.

"Cooks Illustrated" is great but I prefer the recipes from their other site/magazine "Cooks Country." You might want to check out CC before subscribing to CI in case your palate is similar to my own.

It's just that good, that's how.