What has happened at Popular Woodworking magazine?

[lowell holmes]

I can't find the May issue. I think I was so disgusted with it, I threw it away.

[Simon MacGowen]

I can't find the May issue. I think I was so disgusted with it, I threw it away.

One woodworker's trash is another woodworker's treasure?

Simon

[Rob Damon]

I am just curious. If the current paying members continue paying $6/yr, just how many new contributors are needed to keep the doors open; 100, 1000, 5000, 10000? What is the order of magnitude that we are looking at?

[Jerry Olexa]

I am just curious. If the current paying members continue paying $6/yr, just how many new contributors are needed to keep the doors open; 100, 1000, 5000, 10000? What is the order of magnitude that we are looking at?

Agree....Once we quantify, we can identify the need and address it...Great suggestion.

[Keith Outten]

I'm traveling today but I will address each point provided tomorrow.

[Tom Stenzel]

Judging from the number of ads that I see on SMC I'm getting a substantial proportion of total number of ads!

OK, just kidding. But I wonder if the problem isn't everyone is using ad blockers but are using tracker blockers. So we see the ads but as far as the counters are concerned we don't. I do use a tracker blocker so I might be part of the problem.

Even if the tracker issue is true I don't have a solution as far as ad revenue. I don't see any way around a subscription revenue system

Edit: I checked and found I have ajax.googleapis.com tracker on SMC blocked. I wonder who else "white listed" their ad blockers for SMC but forgot about the trackers?


-Tom

[Malcolm McLeod]

I am just curious. If the current paying members continue paying $6/yr, just how many new contributors are needed to keep the doors open; 100, 1000, 5000, 10000? What is the order of magnitude that we are looking at?

Agree....Once we quantify, we can identify the need and address it...Great suggestion.

I think I asked/suggested something very similar when this topic was previously active ... maybe 12-14 months ago? There was no response.

There are 2 ways to go here IMHO:
1. Act as a community, bust open the books, tell the contributors what's needed financially, and appeal to the generous nature of those here - sort of a go-fund-us campaign. I will decide how generous I wish to be. I read posts from many contributors who seem to support this and even Mr. Outten has appealed for this model on occasion. I don't pretend to know the numbers or if this can be sustaining, but visitors could perhaps still be welcomed and maybe limited to read-only status?

2. Be a business. Go to a paid subscription, bar freeloaders (visitors), set a price, and let the customer decide if they receive fair value. Clearly this seems to be the path we're on.

I am sure there are other options and hybrids of these two, but I can't quite see how they would work (you can't have it both ways?). ...Pick one and run with it. The awkward part at SMC is that the members provide the content, but advertisers pay the bills. We'll each have to figure out how to reconcile ourselves to that irony.

Others have said the same, but I'll repeat that whether you're a brick-and-motor store, a paper-and-ink magazine, or a electron-shuffling website, the lifeblood of virtually any 'business' is visitors. You can't sell something if visitors don't come thru the 'door'. Mr. Outten has repeatedly explained this IS a business. I respect that and will continue to support a business that provides a service I value.

FWIW, I first came to SMC via a Google search - - for something I don't even remember. I stumbled on a thread that caught my professional attention; I realized I could help, but had to register in order to provide that. I came back several times to see if I was successful (ego is an ugly thing). I read other content I found useful (thanks to other's egos). So I became a contributor. I will offer that if I had been required to pay for the privilege of helping Mr. Baker repair his elevator, he would probably be walking. (Sorry James!!)

My apologies to all if this sounds scolding or judgmental, I am shooting for as dispassionate as I know how, but I am not much of a word-smith. Good luck to all.

[Pete Taran]

Malcolm,

I think you are hovering over the target. Keith has been conspicuously quiet since his pledge of almost a week ago to address the points and suggestions given.

[Tony Zaffuto]

The solution, then is for Keith to remain silent until voluntary contributions either are sufficient to keep SMC as it is, or he has to make changes.

[Jerry Olexa]

Malcomb, I like your first option...Those of us that truly love/respect the SMC forum, would IMHO be willing to contribute extra if needed at times like this...let us know...

[Edwin Santos]

Malcolm,

I think you are hovering over the target.

Maybe you meant he's buzzing over the target (in keeping with your other artful post)?

Time will tell whether the queen bee likes the honey he put on the table.

Edwin

[All in good humor]

[Frederick Skelly]

Speaking personally? I wish Keith would just rip the bandage off and get it over with. Subscriber-based will either work ..... or it wont. I don't know. But let's move forward and find out.

YMMV.
Fred

[William Adams]

The problem is, as noted, the subscriber system makes it very hard to bring in new members.

I'd also argue that it goes against the very premise of openness and information interchange which the Internet was founded upon --- folks have been flacking concepts such as Ted Nelson's Xanadu for half a century now, and none of them have really worked.

[Brian Holcombe]

The early websites may have worked on that premise but it really has not worked out, the survivors have all needed to pull revenue from something other that large advertisers to remain viable.

I think it’s easy to forget that free information on the web costs someone something so it only exists so long as those that provide it can afford to do so and want to do so.

[Hilton Ralphs]

The solution to the "the subscriber system makes it very hard to bring in new members" as William mentioned is quite simple really.

Just limit non-members to viewing only the last 48 or 72 hours of posts. This way someone who is redirected to the site can get an impression of the type of rich content without the ability to search or browse for older content.

Ads will still show so the companies that pay the bills are still happy and the subscriber fees can be stay at 'contributor' level.

It doesn't have to be only one way or the other.