No more banner ads for subscribers

About This Message Board
81

Another voice of thanks for the explanation, and of support for the idea of the multi-tiered approach.

I’d also like to second the “pay for features” notion. I definitely appreciate the stripped-down, no-frills, thoughts-first environment of the SDMB, but there are still some low-annoyance enhancements available for the message board that I believe could both generate revenue and significantly enhance the user experience and grow the membership base.

Several enhancements have been proposed (avatars, for example), but there’s one I haven’t seen yet that I think deserves some consideration. It’s currently available on the only other message board I visit with any frequency (attached to the movie-related website chud.com), and has worked really well for them. It’s a “reputation” feature, by which registered members can give thumbs-up or thumbs-down reactions to individual posts, thus creating a sort of ranking or rating metric for the user who created the post. As reputation is accumulated, a graphical representation of the metric is included with the user’s basic profile information shown on each post (i.e. underneath “join date,” “posts,” and “location”). Note that reputation goes both ways; if the board, collectively, thinks you’re an idiot, instead of the slowly lengthening green bar signifying positive reputation, you get a red bar instead. And the system is designed so no user can single out or hound any other individual; it forces you to “spread around” your ratings, and prevents you from rating the same person twice in a row.

I have no idea if it’s a standard feature in a more advanced version of vBulletin, or a customization specifically created for chud.com, or a third-party plug-in, or what. But it’s a neat little touch that I think would fit in extremely well in our environment.

82

[QUOTE=JohnT]
One of your financial guys is gonna do the math…

3.5 million page-views per month for subscribers.
$10/thousand impressions
3,500 “kilo-impressions”
3,50010 = $35,000
$35,00012=$420,000/year

Assuming $15 revenue per subscriber

$420,000/$15=28,000 subscribers.

But the SDMB has nowhere close to 28k subscribers. More like, what, 6k?

$6k*$15=$90,000
$420,000-$90,000=$330,000

That’s a lot of money left on the table.

To be honest, given the numbers, it doesn’t pay to have a subscription base that can’t view ads if you’re going to do ads at that $10/thousand rate. Even assuming that 3/4 of us get po’d and leave, the CR would still make $8,750/month in ad revenue ($105k/year) in page views for subscribers.

I mean, hell - at that $10/thousand impressions rate, it doesn’t pay to give up impressions to subscribers at all. At 20 impressions per day for a heavy user (which is what you’d expect subscribers to be), you’d recoup your lost subscription revenue in less than 3 months. Over the course of a year, that 20 impressions/day heavy user is going to generate near $75.
[/QUOTE]

I would hope that the financial guy in question would do the math correctly. As Ed noted, the rate they’re getting for the space is $1 per thousand impressions, not $10. So your revenue is $42k, not $420k. Rather a big difference.

Also, the page views are a function of their being something here to view. If 3/4 of the people who are creating the content leave, then the page views would drop. As I noted in one of the Pit threads on the subject, there is no way in which this is not a bad decision for the business.

I do think that a two-tiered approach is worth considering. I would suggest that some functions such as PMs remain Member-only functions, if only to give some incentive for those of us who do pay to keep doing so. As noted previously, it ain’t hard to block the banners.

83

[QUOTE=InvisibleWombat]
Except avatars.

If TPTB even consider adding avatars, then item #1 on the list of requirements should be that paying subscribers can disable them.

[/QUOTE]

The avatars can be turned off by users, this is built into vBulletin. It is under User Options. So no problem there.

84

[QUOTE=CarnalK]
JohnT, I’m having trouble seeing payoff rates for banner ads - where did you get your numbers? If your numbers are correct that means that the Reader has been making well over $420K on guest impressions, since there are more of them than the member impressions you calculated. I have to think that the SDMB would be way the hell over the break even mark if your calculations were very accurate.

Also, I was under the impression that a lot less advertisers nowadays are willing to pay by the # of impressions rather than # of click throughs.
[/QUOTE]

He had the numbers wrong from Ed’s initial post. They’re getting $1 per thousand for “remnant” ad space. Which goes a long way towards explaining why the ads sucked so bad – they were the banner equivalent of v1@gra spam.

85

[QUOTE=Cervaise]
Note that reputation goes both ways; if the board, collectively, thinks you’re an idiot, instead of the slowly lengthening green bar signifying positive reputation, you get a red bar instead.
[/QUOTE]
I’m not sure I’m in favor of a KotOR style reputation tracker :eek: … unless I can pay even more money to get my reputation cleansed. Kinda like paying for indulgences from the medieval RCC. And of course a star for my belly.

86

Two things I forgot to mention:

  1. I agree there should be more swag, and that there should be links to the store on every page.

  2. Banner ads are fine (especially if I can pay to make them go away), but pop-ups, pop-unders, and ads with sound are pure evil.

And regarding Cervaise’s “reputation” comment, it sounds like a simplified version of what Slashdot does. I quite like it. It’s especially good to have some controls on it. I’d like to see a system where if you rate someone you’ve rated in the past, your new rating replaces the old one (instead of augmenting it). That way, if an idiot cleans up his act, his rating will be able to improve to reflect that. The other possibility would be to have ratings expire.

87

Another thanks going out to all the big people, Ed.

I guess it comes down to this - 99% of people on the dope are amenable to change, and would do whatever they could to keep this ole girl going. But we don’t like change rammed down our throats with no warning.

I like the ideas being put forward here, and I sincerely hope TPTB listen to some of them and perhaps take a few on board.

88

[QUOTE=Dead Badger]
Well, it’s good to know that the new owners appear to realise that they won’t make any money off a community by ring-fencing and milking it
[/QUOTE]

Well, that’s nice, but it also seems like if-… make that when- CL hears us bitching about every single thing that happens with the board (and after eight years here, I can say confidently that that is not a hypothetical) they might just say, “fuck it” and shut the board down. It’s just some banner ads. You know, those things that’ve been around since the Nineties? They’re not a big deal. And considering how long Jerry & the Reader kept this board puttering along at a loss, I’d be thrilled to see some of these guys make some money off of this place.

89

I think the Amazon Affiliates program is phenomenal. In fact, there’s a vBulletin download to make it work.

I’m also pretty convinced that is the SDMB had an Amazon page (“Click here to view our Amazon store”) it would bring in a good bit of revenue.

I have an old shithook comedy 'zine site (not updated since 2001) that has a tiny Amazon store page and some links to Amazon books/music and I still make about $20/year off it. I am confident the SDMB could make a killing.

I’d even be willing to help program the store page if need be.

90

I tend to think personal reputation tools of the sort mentioned are only really necessary on unmoderated forums with overwhelming noise, something which isn’t true here. There’s certainly an appeal in getting some sort of peer-review-esque features in here, since we’re supposedly an intellectually-oriented community, but it needs to be done with great care.

Ratings can have value for specific content; community approval of or interest in a particularly spiffy OP/article, for example. But I think having everyone running around rating everyone else personally would rapidly turn in to a nasty beauty contest, and become a focus rather than an adjunct of everyday behaviour on the boards.

91

[QUOTE=Troy McClure SF]
It’s just some banner ads. You know, those things that’ve been around since the Nineties? They’re not a big deal.
[/QUOTE]
Yeah, I know. Indeed, I said as much, in stronger terms than you. Did you read the rest of my post?

Edit: Oh, I see, you mean in terms of user complaints. Well, I think those were born of a combination of the stagnation of the board in terms of users and features, and the way the ads were brought in. I don’t think anyone’s opposed to change per se; they’d just like to see some interest shown in the boards. And there are signs in Ed’s post that that is indeed what’s being shown, even if a bit cack-handedly.

92

Dear Ed:

Thanks for the response and detailed explanation. I’m glad to hear that Creative Loafing sees this board as a valuable asset, though I realize that it will likely make some changes (and, no doubt, whatever happens there will be the usual complaining over virtually any change, no matter how benign). I suspect the high level of outrage over this issue results in large part from the fact that it came on us (and in some cases blared from our speakers) with no warning.

I think a two-tier system could work, though the tier differences would have to be more than just banner ads given the ubiquity of ad blockers.

I think the SDMB is an excellent value given the low subscription fee, particularly as a charter member. I’d be pleased to pay for more features, though I would be leery of some suggestions which would vary the site’s clean, text-based look.

Good luck with finding the best new path. To the extent possible, I (and I assume many other members) would prefer detailed information in advance, and where feasible, the chance to comment on proposals before they’re implemented.

Because we have so little communication from the Reader and Creative Loafing, we feel like a forgotten outpost, subject to being carelessly tossed out in some thoughtless corporate housecleaning. Perhaps it would be a good time for you to suggest that some of the Loafing higher ups come and sample the party here (either wearing their corporate hats or without announcing their affiliation). I appreciate the effort you put in as liason between the board and management, but sometimes I think you present a pretty small pipeline for communication. At the very least, you may want to send them a link to this thread, which has some thoughtful ideas for where we may go.

Thanks for all of the good work you and the staff do.

Bill

93

Good on you, Ed. Thanks. The ads were annoying, but the disregard for the members was a shock. I’m glad you guys spoke up and I’m glad the CL folks were willing to listen. This was the first time I seriously wondered about the future of the Dope, and I’m glad it’s been resolved. Put me down as another supporter of the two-tier idea: we do need some new blood here and allowing free guest posting would remove a significant barrier to membership.

94

[QUOTE=Liberal]
I didn’t see Jerry’s original post. He changed it. I did see Tuba’s, though. She thought it was temporary, so I guess it’s safe to assume Jerry did too, and told her so. Unless he’s lying, which probably isn’t the case. I mean, it’s just a job to him, so what would motivate him to cover anything up?
[/quote]
The thought of having his inbox suddenly filled with several thousands of emails all with the subject line of, “What the FUCK Are You Idjits Doing?” Jerry’s box no doubt is overflowing with enough crap as it is, and I can’t say I’d blame him if he did it as a “hunker down and hope the shit passes me by” attempt. Still, that means he knew it was a bad idea.

And maybe it’s the reason why I’ve never been able to rise in the business world, but were I Jerry, I’d have told Pat exactly how stupid the idea was and that he could expect to hear a lot of complaints. Now, we’re being offered promises of things that might happen. Sorry, but no. If they want cabbage from me, they’re going to have to make with the goods.

The way they need to change the Dope to make it a “high value” property on the intarwebs is to adopt the model suggested by this commentator.

95

Once again I must say, me too.

I’m pleased that the uproar was heard and I’m pleased with the current decision and I’m pleased with the compromise that is being considered. I’m only posting this AOL-esque because I think it’s important that those of us who are satisfied at the results let it be known just as we let our anger be known.

96

I think there are ways to monetize the SDMB, but the central message here is that this is not a Facebook type crowd and therefore requires a different approach. If you wanted to figure out a way to monetize the Newshour with Jim Leher, you wouldn’t look to Disney or MTV as models to follow, because the Newshour audience wouldn’t respond to it. The SDMB is a far cry from Newshour, but it is also very different from the messageboards you generally find on the internet.

97

Now, let’s think of tasteful ways to monetize the board? iTunes and Amazon, of course. But does anyone have any decent banner providers? Google is doing something bannerwise, and Project Wonderful is nice, but I do not think they’re right for the SDMB.

What are our criteria for acceptable advertisments? Not animated, no noise. Refined. The sort of thing you’d accept in a library?

Besides Amazon… thinkgeek affiliate? Newegg?

Sponsor levels?

98

The multi-tiered approach is good. I also think that many of the suggestions of other ways to generate income are wonderful and I hope they become implemented. Most importantly to me however, is the fact that we were listened to. So, a big thank you goes out to Creative Loafing for being thoughtful owners and another to everyone else who went to bat for us and then followed issues up with explanations. It’s heartening to see such passion and committment.

99

I’d have to read the whole thread again to catch up with all that clever number-crunching, but let me just say that I was impressed at the behaviour of TubaDiva, **Ed **and others. Good to see concerns being listened to and addressed.

I’m also glad to see that Creative Loafing seems not to be planning to kill off the board, 'cos I cannot be the only one who has been wondering that.

So far, so happy. :slight_smile:

Evil thought occurs: TPTB could have enormous fun seeking out the most irritating and loud adverts in order to ensure that newcomers pay up and join as soon as they see them. Nah, not serious about that. :smiley:

The banner ads were a bit annoying but nothing like as infuriating as those things that insert links in members’ actual posts. Now that is quite vile - we recently had quite a fight about those on another board. Compared to those, I would just have tolerated the banner ads here, albeit grumpily. I am glad they have gone, though.

And I could foresee the availability of more Straight Dope “swag” as a nifty way to waste money on fun stuff while feeling good about it. :slight_smile:

100

Thanks Ed- appreciate the info and the post.