Web pages Infested by mouse hover pop-ups

[Keith Outten]

Unless I can find another source of revenue to replace what we will lose The Creek will become a subscription based Community. Visitor access will be the first to be removed, probably at the same time we convert to Xenforo which won't be much longer. Our costs will decrease over a period of time when we eliminate visitor access. Our bandwidth consumption will drop right away and we won't need to purchase more expensive servers and other network hardware in the future. Visitors consume more of our resources than Members do, they always have.

It's really not about profit its about paying our bills. We have to have the necessary revenue to pay for bandwidth, software, new servers, a server administrator, etc. A web site of this magnitude is not to be confused with what it costs to operate a simple web page or even a medium size web site for a company.

Nothing is free, nor can I support this Community from my own pocket which is what I did for the first few years. The change in costs for an annual subscription won't change much from what we ask for today. I set the 50 cents per month donation at that rate in order to assure that even a child could afford to be a Contributor based on their allowance but I assumed that more people would donate. Most people offer a higher donation than the minimum and that is always appreciated. Even so remember that we have to pay state and federal taxes plus the percentage that PayPal gets so we don't receive much of the 50 cents that some people donate now.

I am pretty sure that a reduction in advertising support will effect a large number of web sites and communities in time. We are just one of a large percentage of web sites that operate either totally or through partial advertising assistance. We are operating now from funds saved last year, I prepay the majority of our bills annually so what we collect this year will take care of us in 2019. If we don't collect enough money to support our minimum costs we will cease to exist, but you will all know well in advance.

[Roy Petersen]

Unless I can find another source of revenue to replace what we will lose The Creek will become a subscription based Community.

Have you heard of "paywall" scripts? News sites use them, some better than others. You visit with an ad blocker on, and it will pop up an interstitial page/popup that blocks viewing it and tells you to either shut it off or pay something for access. Upside is, no free ride. Downside is, search engine bots may also get thwarted.

I'd say that's a viable alternative to look into rather than shut off all public access, especially when it's more likely a visitor than a regular member clicking on ads (though from what I've read it's impressions and not clicks behind the revenue).

[Pat Barry]

Why do the subscription fee and the current contribution amount (assuming there is indeed a minimum) have any relationship with each other?

Simon

As ad revenue drops, subscription costs will need to increase to make up the difference unless: the site is already making tons of money and the reduced income from lost ad revenue isn't unacceptable to management; or the site makes operating cost reductions to offset the lost revenue. Simple cash flow problem.

[Jim Becker]

An unfortunate decision, and one that will cause me to stop contributing (since it would be forced) and go elsewhere.
Though I understand the need to be able to profit in order to run servers, I'm not a fan of subscription only sites.
No great loss, I'm sure, but there you have it.

This isn't about profit...it's about defraying cost. Large forum communities like this require infrastructure that has to be refreshed every few years and the bandwidth consumed isn't inexpensive. Advertising payed a large amount of this in the past, but that model no longer generates what it used to. This is not unique to SMC, either...it's hitting many kinds of content on the Internet at this point and is the reason why more and more sites are requiring subscriptions. It's the only way to stay online.

[Simon MacGowen]

As ad revenue drops, subscription costs will need to increase to make up the difference unless: the site is already making tons of money and the reduced income from lost ad revenue isn't unacceptable to management; or the site makes operating cost reductions to offset the lost revenue. Simple cash flow problem.

Your analysis about increasing subscription costs (relative to contribution rates) would be correct if the site were already subscription-based. But it is not and therefore it is not a simple cash flow issue as you described it.

Simon

[Pat Barry]

Why do the subscription fee and the current contribution amount (assuming there is indeed a minimum) have any relationship with each other?

Simon

Its not that complicated. Ad revenue plus contributions equals income.
Eliminate the ad revenue from the equation and substitute subscription fees for contributions and that new income source must match the nagnitude of the old one or you lose money. Since it is apparent that contributions themselves won't be enough it only stands to reason tjat the subscription cost will be higher than the current minimun contribution expectation. Its not that complicated.

[Simon MacGowen]

Its not that complicated. Ad revenue plus contributions equals income.
Eliminate the ad revenue from the equation and substitute subscription fees for contributions and that new income source must match the nagnitude of the old one or you lose money. Since it is apparent that contributions themselves won't be enough it only stands to reason tjat the subscription cost will be higher than the current minimun contribution expectation. Its not that complicated.

Ad revenue plus contributions equals income.

Let's use your income formula for the moment (which is incomplete). You made an assumption that I am sure is going to be invalidated when the subscription model becomes effective: the to-be-introduced subscription model works the same as the current contribution model except for the dollar amount. If that indeed was the case, why not just change the min. contribution amount?

The reason for the subscription model is to make the "contribution" mandatory and the effect of the switch is unknown until it is implemented. Setting the subscription fee is more than adding x dollars to the current contribution amount. You have to estimate the number of subscribers at different levels of subscription fees. You also have to plan for some of the current contributors who no longer want to be part of the subscription membership which will be a loss of revenue from the current baseline.

Then, if people are not contributing at the current min. contribution amount, why do you think people would be subscribing when the fee is even higher than the current min. amount?

There are many questions that need to be addressed when you switch from one revenue model to another (the revenue streams also have to be studied), and yours falls short of the usual standards required of a proper business analysis.

Simon

[Ole Anderson]

I tend to agree with Roy. Warn users with an active adblocker to disable it in order to have access. I see a similar warning on many other sites. No big deal. And I have never had an annoying ad pop up on the creek even before using the blocker. I use AdBlock but have it disabled for SMC. Very easy to do. Do it once and it remembers.

My advice? Install AdBlock, then go to the SMC page, LEFT click on the AdBlock icon and choose "Don't run on pages on this site". There you go. So far I have 574,000 blocked ads. I use Chrome, not sure how it works on other browsers. I do use it on my iPhone with Safari also.

[Pat Barry]

Ad revenue plus contributions equals income.

Let's use your income formula for the moment (which is incomplete). You made an assumption that I am sure is going to be invalidated when the subscription model becomes effective: the to-be-introduced subscription model works the same as the current contribution model except for the dollar amount. If that indeed was the case, why not just change the min. contribution amount?

The reason for the subscription model is to make the "contribution" mandatory and the effect of the switch is unknown until it is implemented. Setting the subscription fee is more than adding x dollars to the current contribution amount. You have to estimate the number of subscribers at different levels of subscription fees. You also have to plan for some of the current contributors who no longer want to be part of the subscription membership which will be a loss of revenue from the current baseline.

Then, if people are not contributing at the current min. contribution amount, why do you think people would be subscribing when the fee is even higher than the current min. amount?

There are many questions that need to be addressed when you switch from one revenue model to another (the revenue streams also have to be studied), and yours falls short of the usual standards required of a proper business analysis.

Simon

So, you agree with me then. Thanks

[Simon MacGowen]

My advice? Install AdBlock, then go to the SMC page, LEFT click on the AdBlock icon and choose "Don't run on pages on this site". There you go. So far I have 574,000 blocked ads. I use Chrome, not sure how it works on other browsers. I do use it on my iPhone with Safari also.

More sites now request you to whitelist them when they detect you are using an adblock or the like. I found that some sites block you when you visit them, but if you exit and revisit their pages (without changing your adblock settings), you are free to roam. I don't know if it is a design feature of theirs or it is a technical miss.

Simon

[Carlos Alvarez]

Does anyone expect that new people will subscribe if they can't view the content first and see that it's of value? Or will there be a trial sub option? Otherwise I can't imagine why anyone new would ever subscribe.

[Simon MacGowen]

So, you agree with me then. Thanks

What did you drink this morning?

Simon

[Pat Barry]

What did you drink this morning?

Simon

So, you actually think, with your economic model, that the subscription price will be LOWER than the current requested contribution? I doubt it. Why not become a Contributor? Why feel entitled to voice opinions, use the site regularly, block ads with your ad blocker software, and then not help out financially?

[Carlos Alvarez]

It was already noted that visitors consume the MOST amount of resources. IE, they cost the most. And that they cost more than is being generated from their ad revenue. Therefore, WE subscribers are subsidizing the visitors. Therefore, it should require less income from subscribers to run the site when the visitor traffic is gone.

[Simon MacGowen]

So, you actually think, with your economic model, that the subscription price will be LOWER than the current requested contribution? I doubt it. Why not become a Contributor? Why feel entitled to voice opinions, use the site regularly, block ads with your ad blocker software, and then not help out financially?

You are mixing up two different issues in your reply but that is ok, or at least it is better than your last seemingly unhinged response.

First, I said different levels of subscription fees and no where in any of my posts did I suggest that the sub. fee should be lower or higher. You are the one who suggested that it should be higher, and I was curious to find out the rationale behind your suggestion. I thought you had some economic footing or data to make such a statement, as I do not look at the price setting as simple as you made it out to be. Yours pretended it to be a simple addition/subtraction exercise. It might work that way if we were talking about a monopoly or government service where alternatives or real competition doesn't exist.

As for your second point, the answers vary depending on the users -- members or contributors -- and I wonder if there is just one set of reasons.

Simon