# SDMB Charging for Access - Comments **URL:** \ **Category:** About This Message Board\ **Created:** [November 9, 2001, 7:17pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/sdmb-charging-for-access-comments/92489 "2001-11-09T19:17:14Z")\ **Posts on this page:** 20\ **Page:** 9
**Author:** ![TubaDiva](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/tubadiva/32/507_2.png) [@TubaDiva](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/TubaDiva)\ **Post date:** [November 13, 2001, 5:20am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/sdmb-charging-for-access-comments/92489/161 "2001-11-13T05:20:19Z")
> [@](#): > > \*Originally posted by MrVisible \* > I haven’t heard a single person on this board claim that the Reader doesn’t deserve to make money off this site. They’ve put enough into it, God knows; they should recoup their costs, get enough for maintenance, and as far as I’m concerned, make enough to have the admins and mods retire from their day jobs and just run the place from cabanas in the Philippines. Go right for it; this place is amazing, and I have no problem with the people responsible making some money from it. > > What people are saying is that pay-to-post is the **wrong** way to go about it. People are posting examples of boards it has killed; people are suggesting ways that it can be avoided. Financial consultants are offering their services, free of charge. What you’re seeing here is concern for the future of the board. > > This site has thousands of viewers, thousands of posters; it’s a vibrant community of intelligent, generous, and loyal people, all more than willing to help out the board in any way we can, **as long as it will keep the board alive**. > > There is credible testimony in several threads now that indicates that this scheme will result in the slow death of this board. No-one here wants that. What we want is to find a way to make sure that the boards turn a profit, and stick around. While the p-t-p scheme will probably generate a revenue stream for a while, it will dwindle to nothing as people go elsewhere, for free. > > > [@](#): > > > > _Originally posted by **Tuba Diva** _ > > In fact, what they’ve done is very small in scope and most commonsensical: they went to the people that use this site and asked you for your opinion. > > I seriously beg to differ with that one. What they did was announce a pre-registration for a subscription. The page the survey is on indicates that the only possible options are continuing as is, shut down the site, or charge for posting privileges. Then it goes on to explain why this is a necessary step. What would have been reasonable, commonsensical, is to tap into the resource at your disposal; ask the Teeming Millions how they would keep the board alive. As you’re finding out, there are a lot of suggestions, and a lot of offers for help coming in; it would have been a lot easier to pull together the community in support of the boards had this whole thing not started with what reads like it’s a done deal. > > The outrage you see on the boards is not at the Reader trying to turn a profit; that’s fine. Admirable, even. The outrage is at the fact that, while other methods exist, the first one being attempted is the one least likely to work, and most likely to kill off the board. > > MrVisible > Member > Sheesh, indeed. As a corporate entity the Reader cannot accept donations. This is not PBS. Why won’t they spin it off into a nonprofit? That might be more convenient for you and more palatable to other users, but what would it benefit the Reader? Ed was straight up honest with you about the situation. I don’t know what else to tell you. I’m very attached to this site and want to see it survive if at all possible. I’ve spent a good chunk of the past five years of my life toiling in the SD vineyard and while it’s been close to being my life’s work (gods, that’s pathetic) it’s not my livelihood. I don’t expect it to be so either but it would be nice if it was around at least a little longer. I would do a lot to save it and so I don’t have as much patience as perhaps I should. your humble TubaDiva Administrator ---
**Author:** ![KellyM](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/k/57b2e6/32.png) [@KellyM](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/KellyM)\ **Post date:** [November 13, 2001, 5:30am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/sdmb-charging-for-access-comments/92489/162 "2001-11-13T05:30:59Z")
> [@](#): > > \*Originally posted by TubaDiva \* > **Why won’t they spin it off into a nonprofit? That might be more convenient for you and more palatable to other users, but what would it benefit the Reader?** The Boards would benefit the Reader more if they were being run by a non-profit with appropriate agreements with the Reader than if they were gone altogether. I think it’s pretty obvious that going to pay-for-play will kill the Boards. The question is, can the Reader keep them up without pay-for-play? And if not, will they just pull the plug? ---
**Author:** ![robby](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/robby/32/11048_2.png) [@robby](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/robby)\ **Post date:** [November 13, 2001, 5:36am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/sdmb-charging-for-access-comments/92489/163 "2001-11-13T05:36:07Z")
> [@](#): > > \*Originally posted by TubaDiva \* > \*\*As a corporate entity the Reader cannot accept donations. This is not PBS. > > Why won’t they spin it off into a nonprofit? That might be more convenient for you and more palatable to other users, but what would it benefit the Reader? > > your humble TubaDiva > Administrator\*\* Well, it certainly won’t benefit the Reader if the SDMB dies. Like I’ve said before, I am willing to pay. However, I’m afraid pay-to-post will kill the board. ---
**Author:** ![kniz](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/k/c37758/32.png) [@kniz](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/kniz)\ **Post date:** [November 13, 2001, 6:43am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/sdmb-charging-for-access-comments/92489/164 "2001-11-13T06:43:10Z")
[list][list][list] **I move to adjourn** ---
**Author:** ![kabbes](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/k/e99b99/32.png) [@kabbes](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/kabbes)\ **Post date:** [November 13, 2001, 10:11am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/sdmb-charging-for-access-comments/92489/165 "2001-11-13T10:11:51Z")
Melodramatic? Why yes! Yes I’m being melodramatic. It’s not every day that one contemplates the extinction of one’s favorite cyberspot. But I’m not being melodramatic in the way you think, **Tuba**. You have no argument from me _at all_ that the Reader deserves to make money from this. I just don’t think that this will do it. Gaargh - I hate dealing with hippies and artists (big wink). No business sense whatsoever. Look. If you want to make this work, you have to identify exactly what outgo you expect. That is what several people - e.g. **KellyM** , **London\_Calling** and I - have been trying to do in this thread. Then you need to identify the revenue stream. For that you need data. The past is a guide to the future, so long as you make the appropriate trends and adjestments. You need to identify the elasticity of demand - i.e. how many people will pony up the bucks at each price. (Incidentally **Green Bean** - look again at what I wrote. I specifically talked about take up percentages at different rates, citing (in effect) 7.5% take-up @ $7.50, 8% @ $5 and 5.5% @ $10 as possible examples). What you can’t do is stick your finger in the air and pick a price out of your ass, then hope it all works out OK. Price models. Cashflow projections. You tell me that the Reader wants to make money, I’m telling you that to do that you need a business plan. You tell me that the Reader can’t afford no fancy-schmancy high-faluting big-city financial types, I’m telling you that _we have those right here on the boards willing to give their time for free_. I think that pay-to-play _can_ work. But I think that: 1. Pricing needs to be treated with _extreme_ care 2. There **must** be some kind of hook 3. The registration agreement needs to be totally reworked and passed by lawyers. 4. You have to accept that there will be a shift from _guests_ to _customers_ on the boards, who will expect certain things for their money. What is more, new blood will be harder to come by so it will be far more important to hang on to who you have. One thing to sum it up, and it’s something already mentioned: _It’s hard to make money off of a closed business_. So try not to break your toy. In other news: coincidentally enough, as I was trying to think of a decent “hook”, I came up with one idea we’ve already seen in effect on this thread! Namely: **Have Cecil post more**. After all, most traffic comes via fans of the column. If you could pay to have the chance to converse with the master himself, it would certainly be a selling point. pan ---
**Author:** ![Cecil\_Adams](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/c/ad7895/32.png) [@Cecil\_Adams](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Cecil_Adams)\ **Post date:** [November 13, 2001, 12:46pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/sdmb-charging-for-access-comments/92489/166 "2001-11-13T12:46:24Z")
> [@](#): > > Yet another time Cecil ignores me completely. Listen, Anthracite, if you think I’m getting sucked into another one of those deals where I personally greet everybody on the board (thread, whatever), you’re crazy. That said, how’s Mom? Little Jack? His disposition is so much improved since you had him dewormed. Ah, look at the time, I must run. Don’t be a stranger! The things I do. ---
**Author:** ![TheLoadedDog](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/t/35a633/32.png) [@TheLoadedDog](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/TheLoadedDog)\ **Post date:** [November 13, 2001, 1:00pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/sdmb-charging-for-access-comments/92489/167 "2001-11-13T13:00:38Z")
> [@](#): > > \*Originally posted by Cecil Adams \* > \*\* > > > [@](#): > > > > Yet another time Cecil ignores me completely. > > Listen, Anthracite, if you think I’m getting sucked into another one of those deals where I personally greet everybody on the board (thread, whatever), you’re crazy. That said, how’s Mom? Little Jack? His disposition is so much improved since you had him dewormed. Ah, look at the time, I must run. Don’t be a stranger! > > The things I do. \*\* Now now kids. Off to the Pit with you. ---
**Author:** ![London\_Calling](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/l/49beb7/32.png) [@London\_Calling](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/London_Calling)\ **Post date:** [November 13, 2001, 1:10pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/sdmb-charging-for-access-comments/92489/168 "2001-11-13T13:10:21Z")
Mornin’ (again) **kabbes** – > [@](#): > > \*Originally posted by kabbes \* > Gaargh - I hate dealing with hippies and artists (big wink). No business sense whatsoever. Of course the thing about arty girls is always that once you get 'em wasted, their oyster is your world. Okay, a quick recap of a couple of points : > [@](#): > > \*Originally posted by kabbes \* > This in itself means that the concept of “half-life” may be flawed when dealing with dopers, unfortunately. > > One thing may be skewing the results however: back in 1999, the joiners must have been pretty serious Dopers. The board was tiny compared to now, so the casual registers with 0 or 1 posts were far rarer. A higher percentage of serious dopers possibly means longer life. Certainly the joiners from 1999 have a “half-life” of about 15 months compared to 4-5 months for joiners a year or so back. If we remove this data, there is a better case for a static half-life. Better but not great - I still think that it trends even so. > > Assuming n posters join at time t0, the number y expected to still be posting at time t years later is (drum roll please…) > > n. 0.0091342.3-t.t > > Phew! > > What that means is that we can say that t years after a poster starting, the probability that said poster is still active is: 0.009134t. 2.3-t > > This I declare the new kabbes’ hypothesis. > > For stat-heads out there - the above shows a 99.8% C2 probability level, meaning it fits very well indeed! Then, in relation to this issue: > [@](#): > > _Originally posted by kabbes \* > OK: very very rough figures. From the 394 sample members_ taken from a reasonable spread of start dates I already have in my database, about 10% have posted more than 0.75 times per day. > > Assume 3/4 of these register. > > That gives 1350 subscribers out of 18000 current members. If this makes sense, what causes a little bell to go off in my head is that your analysis assumes (if I understand you) 10% of those who joined in 1999 are still posting at 1+ per day, as are 10% of those who joined in Feb 2001 – I’m just having trouble thinking that is the best way to consider the data. For example, wouldn’t it be better to discount those who posted once or not at all, and then build in the ‘lifespan’ analysis ? Am I being thick ? ---
**Author:** ![London\_Calling](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/l/49beb7/32.png) [@London\_Calling](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/London_Calling)\ **Post date:** [November 13, 2001, 1:14pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/sdmb-charging-for-access-comments/92489/169 "2001-11-13T13:14:35Z")
**KellyM** – Thinking onwards about your cost breakdown: - The **Server** is underpowered at present user levels but if we assume that’s going to shrink after PTP maybe The Reader will allow use of the space given they already have the hardware (and assuming they don’t plan to use it for anything else) and it’s good for their regular business ? - Ditto the **software** (already in situ). So no installation/configuration costs. - **The T1** is $800 a month including full plumbing (?) and shared with the rest of the site. How about saying the suits would be off the valium for half that = $400 a month ($4,800 per annum) - **Labour** (‘Labor’ even) – ouch. You think the board itself needs $30,000 labour a year dedicated to it (not a shared cost with the Reader ?). It’s just that I kind of got the impression that **jdavies** turns up with a couple of spanners and a soldering iron every other Saturday on a semi-charitable basis…okay, $30,000 it is. Feel free to re-think that, though 😉 - **Depreciation** on the hardware assets – what’s the depreciation on a 10-year old Skoda ? I guess that _could_ be a cost delayed until new hardware replaces the existing system and even then it could be shared with The Reader (a referred cost of 50% of $416 = $218 per month or $2,616 per annum) ? - **Admin re Subscriptions, et al** – No bloody idea: How about $100 per week ($1,200 per annum) ? - **Power** , mugs, odds and ends…not a lot, maybe **$1,000** per annum ? On that (semi-charitable) basis, we’re down to: $7,000 per annum (Bandwidth, Admin Subscription, Power) $30,000 Labour (possibly, maybe) $2,616 per annum (Depreciation) - but not kicking in until the existing hardware is replaced = $37,000 per annum, or (approx) $700 a week now Note: What _do_ the services of **jdavies** cost …? Any thoughts on the general thrust ? ---
**Author:** ![TubaDiva](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/tubadiva/32/507_2.png) [@TubaDiva](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/TubaDiva)\ **Post date:** [November 13, 2001, 1:24pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/sdmb-charging-for-access-comments/92489/170 "2001-11-13T13:24:10Z")
> [@](#): > > \*Originally posted by robby \* > \*\* > Well, it certainly won’t benefit the Reader if the SDMB dies. > > Like I’ve said before, I am willing to pay. However, I’m afraid pay-to-post will kill the board. \*\* The Reader loses money on this site and has never made any sort of profit from it whatsoever (unless you count the tons of goodwill the site has brought them), so yes, on a strictly cash basis it would benefit the Reader if the board died. Less hassle too. But they’re willing to explore ways for us to go forward. As users of this board we have a bigger emotional investment in the place than the Reader. To them, it’s business and perhaps we’ve lost sight of that fact. your humble TubaDiva Administrator ---
**Author:** ![TubaDiva](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/tubadiva/32/507_2.png) [@TubaDiva](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/TubaDiva)\ **Post date:** [November 13, 2001, 1:28pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/sdmb-charging-for-access-comments/92489/171 "2001-11-13T13:28:06Z")
PS I’m truly impressed with all the analysis I’ve read here. Y’all rock! your humble TubaDiva Administrator More than wiling to be schooled by people that know what they’re doing. ---
**Author:** ![Una\_Persson](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/una_persson/32/346_2.png) [@Una\_Persson](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Una_Persson)\ **Post date:** [November 13, 2001, 1:51pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/sdmb-charging-for-access-comments/92489/172 "2001-11-13T13:51:17Z")
> [@](#): > > \*Originally posted by Cecil Adams \* > \*\* > > > [@](#): > > > > Yet another time Cecil ignores me completely. > > Listen, Anthracite, if you think I’m getting sucked into another one of those deals where I personally greet everybody on the board (thread, whatever), you’re crazy. That said, how’s Mom? Little Jack? His disposition is so much improved since you had him dewormed. Ah, look at the time, I must run. Don’t be a stranger! > > The things I do. \*\* Woo! Finally! Now I don’t have to shave my privates and join a Fundie Board! 🆒 ---
**Author:** ![BooBoo316](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/b/e0b2c6/32.png) [@BooBoo316](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/BooBoo316)\ **Post date:** [November 13, 2001, 2:26pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/sdmb-charging-for-access-comments/92489/173 "2001-11-13T14:26:09Z")
Check out [this thread](http://boards.straightdope.com/sdmb/showthread.php?threadid=5284). The inventor of the product being discussed registered and posted to answer the questions about his product. How cool is that? **That** is what makes this place so special, and what I’m afraid of losing when we go to subscriptions. How many people with specific knowledge about a topic are going to pony up $20 or so bucks just to answer a few questions? I love this place and will pay to help keep it open, but I’m scared that after all the changes it won’t be worth saving. ---
**Author:** ![DocCathode](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/doccathode/32/18773_2.png) [@DocCathode](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/DocCathode)\ **Post date:** [November 13, 2001, 2:42pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/sdmb-charging-for-access-comments/92489/174 "2001-11-13T14:42:41Z")
I feel greatly relieved. In this thread, Dopers are actually _disagreeing_ with Admins instead of attacking them. As a result the Admins can give us answers instead of having to waste time defending themselves. ``` The quality of questions and suggestions and the thoroughness of answers have greatly reduced my anxiety. This is not a step Ed or anybody else takes lightly. TubaDiva has shown that she values the SDMB at least as much as I do(likely even more). Knowing that, we can trust them to weigh any decision *very* carefully. ``` On a side note-\*\* I gotta response from Unca Cecil!\*\* There’s no smiley with a big enough grin to express what I’m feelin now! ---
**Author:** ![kabbes](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/k/e99b99/32.png) [@kabbes](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/kabbes)\ **Post date:** [November 13, 2001, 2:47pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/sdmb-charging-for-access-comments/92489/175 "2001-11-13T14:47:02Z")
Yo **L\_C** I do see your problem, but I shall attempt to explain why everything is hunky-dory. To put it simply: No-one is claiming that 2 year-old posters and 2 month-old posters both have 10% posting at 0.75ppd or more. Of _course_ they don’t. But it doesn’t matter as long as there is a stationary population. Or to put it another way: 10% is a weighted average across all durations. You see, as long as the profile of the actual membership is represented by my 394 sample members, the calculated 10% will be a suitable figure to apply to it. To the extent that the actual membership differs in profile from my sample members, 10% will be wrong. But since my sample membership is based on a cross-section of the population by duration and since it seems to reasonably adequately reflect the incidence of actual members, I think that it isn’t a bad guess at the figure. If all is not clear, then I’ll try explaining it a different way. Or if I’ve not thought of something then please do speak up. pan ---
**Author:** ![hawthorne](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/h/c89c15/32.png) [@hawthorne](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/hawthorne)\ **Post date:** [November 13, 2001, 2:49pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/sdmb-charging-for-access-comments/92489/176 "2001-11-13T14:49:52Z")
> [@](#): > > \*Originally posted by Green Bean \* > Or in other words, kabbes–I am disagreeing with your analysis of the price elasticity of demand. I submit that the demand will be fairly inelastic if it is \<= $20. [anal economist] Demand curves are drawn for constant quality, which is not going to be the case here. If close subsitutes are available at zero price, apparent own price elasticity will rapidly approach infinity and we will reach a corner solution (ie no viable Board). [/off. Off, damn you] I’ll pay, but more in gratitude and hope than expectation. _As it is_, the Board is certainly worth to me the bottom end of Ed’s suggested price range (even with the $Australian at 50c). My concern is with the refreshing life-blood of newbies in GQ. A free trial sounds a good way to establish an addiction, but it’s got to be an admin nightmare. Unless you require a (unique) credit card number for the free trial, you’re facing our current sock problem with freeloading rather than trouble-making as its motivation. So I think the character of the Board is at serious risk, which would mean my willingness to pay might disappear in the second year. That being said, can I say this to the admins, mods and the Reader: this is a sad but inevitable development, and I appreciate your position. Whilst the conditions in the advertising industry are partly to blame, the main reason this has to happen is the sheer quality of this Board. It attracts and keeps good posters. And for that you deserve congratulations and the gratitude of a membership which has benefited from Cecil’s reputation and the way this Board has been run. But to be a victim of one’s own success probably feels Pyrrhic at present, and for that you have my sympathies. I hope that other Dopers are prepared to contribute (if they can) initially as a gesture of thanks, as seed funding, or as a gesture of good faith. Then see how it goes. ---
**Author:** ![kabbes](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/k/e99b99/32.png) [@kabbes](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/kabbes)\ **Post date:** [November 13, 2001, 3:05pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/sdmb-charging-for-access-comments/92489/177 "2001-11-13T15:05:46Z")
Alright. Let’s have another brief stab at costing. We’ll go with $37,000 per year costs (seems high, given the 0.4-0.6 FTE subsequently bandied about, but what the hey). And we’ll say that there is a population of 1,800 willing to consider the possibility of subscription. Charging $20 per head would require 1,850 members to meet costs. Problem. Charging $25 per head would require 1,480 members - a take-up rate of 82%. I think this is possibly a little high, but not impossible. Suppose instead that the labour (or labor if you insist) cost is 0.5 of $50,000, i.e. $25,000. Total costs are then $32,000. That would require a take-up rate amongst the regulars of about 90% at $20, or 70% at $25. If this really is the cost of running the board (and please consider - do you _really_ need even 1/2 of a $50k per annum tech?), then I can see a $25 per annum fee being about right. Personally, I didn’t reckon on such a high cost - I assumed that there would be some way of sharing the labour cost by using a host that services a number of sites. Note that getting the cost down to $15,000 would result in only needing a 80% or so take-up of the regs at $10 each. But anyway - let’s assume $25. Clearly no newbie in their right mind is going to pay this. There is no reason for them to - they may as well go to a different board. Furthermore, we’re going to lose the one-off GQ/comments posters. They need to be hooked in. I think that one of the best ideas I’ve heard so far is that of making people pay for an _identity_. So they can post for free as “guest” but if they want to become part of the community, they have to cough up. Maybe this could be coupled with 50 free posts under a chosen name. Then maybe make the first year half-price. Combine this with a more regular appearance from **Cecil** (how you doing, by the way? Happy? Mrs Adams behaving herself?) and you have the beginnings of a marketable product. It still needs work, but you’ve started to address some of the more serious problems. pan ---
**Author:** ![Mike\_Lenehan](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/m/b5e925/32.png) [@Mike\_Lenehan](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Mike_Lenehan)\ **Post date:** [November 13, 2001, 5:15pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/sdmb-charging-for-access-comments/92489/178 "2001-11-13T17:15:53Z")
> [@](#): > > \*Originally posted by Slip Mahoney \* > \*\* > > > [@](#): > > > > I heard somewhere that the Encyclopedia Britannica is thinking of charging for access, too > > They _used_ to charge for access, but apparently the light went on when they realized that you can get information on the net for free. > > **C K Dexter Haven,** point taken. Stupid keyboard. \*\* No, they’re back to charging again. The light went on when they realized you can’t keep a business afloat by giving stuff away for free. ---
**Author:** ![Slacker](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/s/6bbea6/32.png) [@Slacker](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Slacker)\ **Post date:** [November 13, 2001, 5:24pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/sdmb-charging-for-access-comments/92489/179 "2001-11-13T17:24:34Z")
> [@](#): > > \*Originally posted by Anthracite \* > \*\* > > > [@](#): > > > > \*Originally posted by Mangetout \* > > \*\*Count me in, but if we have to pay for it, can we maybe have [img] and HTML (even if only in MPSIMS)?? \*\* > > I can answer this - not without a serious amount of Board re-coding. And based on the reluctance to do that, I am confident the answer will be “no”. \*\* Sorry if this has been answered (I don’t have time at work to read the 4 pages of this post), but if they upgrade the SDMB to version 2.whatever of vBulletin - they can do this quite easily. The latest version allows you to set specific settings for each forum. Also, AFAIK, it would only cost 30 bucks to upgrade. ---
**Author:** ![Mike\_Lenehan](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/m/b5e925/32.png) [@Mike\_Lenehan](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Mike_Lenehan)\ **Post date:** [November 13, 2001, 5:28pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/sdmb-charging-for-access-comments/92489/180 "2001-11-13T17:28:32Z")
> [@](#): > > \*Originally posted by Scylla \* > \*\*Does the business model being looked at for a subscription board plan for a break even proposition or are you looking at creating a profit center? > > (if it’s ok to ask.) \*\* Mike Lenehan of the Reader here, just happened to be in the neighborhood. We don’t have a break-even in mind, and the idea of a profit center makes me howl with laughter. Frankly, we hatched this plan as a way to keep traffic and membership at manageable levels. We found we were spending a lot of money just keeping up with new traffic; at the same time, you all were complaining about deteriorating service. We figured that by charging we could (1) eliminate a lot of half-hearted users and traffic, (2) slow the growth down to a reasonable level, (3) maybe earn back a few bucks of our expenses, and (4) experiment with a new and interesting business model. [Previous page](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/sdmb-charging-for-access-comments/92489.md?page=8) [Next page](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/sdmb-charging-for-access-comments/92489.md?page=10)