What is a subscriber based forum?

[Ken Fitzgerald]

When did the fact that the forum is a business come to light, that it has not been a known fact from day one says a lot to me. OR did it start out as a forum and not a business and change somewhere down the line. Nothing is open or transparent about this at all and I would have no issues at all if all it had been known. Ken, I don't think anything I have said would class me as a jerk but if that is what you think then fair enough I must be.

Chris, please point out where I called you a jerk. I was merely suggesting that people, plural, the reason my statement used the term "everybody", should realize Keith as the owner has the right to make the decision that is right for him from both a financial and personal perspective. When Keith makes said decision, people should respect his decision, make their own resulting decision and not be publicly trying to call Keith out over his decision. I really think most members including you fail to realize or fully appreciate the amount of time Keith and Jackie spend in the background keeping the Creek flowing.

Point blank. It is my understanding that post Badger Pond, from the beginning of the Creek, Keith formed a corporation to isolate himself against personal legal liability incurred with running this forum. Thus it was a business out of legal necessity not for personal gain. I have seen an executive of a corporation make subtle legal threats here at the Creek when they felt one of their products was being unfairly criticized and Moderators/Administrators were allowing it to continue. When due to changing business conditions Keith's initial business went bankrupt, it was discussed at length here at the Creek in public view what to do and that the Creek might cease to exist. One of the Moderators not the Keith suggested and began a campaign to get members to contribute financially to keep the Creek alive. Keith coupled the idea of paid advertising along with membership contributions to keep the Creek financially afloat. Mind you at the time Jackie, his wife was a school teacher while Keith was working for a university and running a sign company out of his shop. I don't know if Jackie has retired but I know Keith has retired from the university but he still has a sign company operating out of his shop. In the background, Keith and Jackie have very generously given their time to keep the Creek afloat. Often you have to contact companies and sell your website as a potential advertising website.

With the economic down turn a few years ago coupled with the advent of ad-blocking software, corporations are spending less for online advertisement. Advertising income has decreased and regular scheduled expenses have continued to rise.

I left a corporate run tool users website because it was under moderated. Beginners were badgered by those who set themselves up as the resident experts and the uncivil treatment, often in a profane, demeaning fashion, was allowed to continue. I have not been back to the website in well over decade. IMO it is the TOSs of the Creek with Moderator and Administrator enforcement that gives the Creek it's civil nature and allows for an educational, often entertaining environment for all levels of woodworkers, professional and hobbyists.

I retired at the lowest level from 2 large recognized global corporations. I admire the courage that Keith and Jackie have demonstrated in providing the Creek for the rest of us to use. I will never understand people that have that type of courage. I don't have that type of courage thus my career with large corporations.

[Larry Frank]

I have a concern that Keith will get fed up with the innuendo and toss in towel. He has a business and this website is a sideline. I take him at his word on the finances. I would have already done that given the comments.

If you do not want to join, then that is your choice.

[Ken Fitzgerald]

I have a concern that Keith will get fed up with the innuendo and toss in towel. He has a business and this website is a sideline. I take him at his word on the finances. I would have already done that given the comments.

If you do not want to join, then that is your choice.

I agree whole heartedly.

[Frederick Skelly]

I really wouldn't care to see his financial statements, but if there was a glaring flaw in the business model that I could help with, I would certainly offer my recommendations or assistance. That is what others have done in these related discussions, yet they are consistently dismissed by the old guard and invited to leave.

Mike, that's the part folks arent hearing. Keith has said he cant hire a programmer. And with the possible exception of the server farm idea, he's explored about as many options/ideas as he wants to. Right or wrong, hes not looking for more ideas. And if you go re-read posts where folks were invited to leave, most originated in some sharply pointed comment they themselves made on their way out the door.

Just a different perspective.

Be well.
Fred

[Frederick Skelly]

If you ask members to contribute what could turn out to be a large sum of money (albeit individually this might be insignificant) we are going to want to know the details. If this is Keith's business and I am the potential customer then I'm entitled to ask questions without being called a 'jerk'. Do these cost include a salary component for Keith and others involved with the business, if so what's the yearly salary?

When you buy a car, do you expect the dealer to show you his accounts?

[Doug Dawson]

When you buy a car, do you expect the dealer to show you his accounts?

Just to play the devel's advocate, it's not hard to find out what the dealer is actually paying for the car, in the interest of leaving him a nice profit. (BTW he's making all his real money off of parts and service, FWIW.)

I think we all have an interest in seeing that SMC survives this, which is at the core of most people's comments.

I realize (and know personally) how it is possible to get very burnt out supporting a forum like this or any other.

[Frederick Skelly]

Just to play the devel's advocate, it's not hard to find out what the dealer is actually paying for the car, in the interest of leaving him a nice profit. (BTW he's making all his real money off of parts and service, FWIW.)

I think we all have an interest in seeing that SMC survives this, which is at the core of most people's comments.

I realize (and know personally) how it is possible to get very burnt out supporting a forum like this or any other.

Hi Doug.
You're absolutely right! What I was trying to say is that you cant find out how much the dealership is making - the total picture from sales, service, leasing, etc. They arent going to open their books just to sell me a car. I wasn't clear enough.

Have a good one.
Fred

[Wayne Watling]

When you buy a car, do you expect the dealer to show you his accounts?

Nope I would not.

The difference is that members are being asked to help pay the costs of the forum, to help keep it alive, help prevent it from going under. As far as I can tell there is no sign out front with a price tag that says 'As of this date the cost of membership will be $6/year' , members are being asked to defray the costs, so if that's the case I don't see the problem with viewing the costs. Is this a for profit or not for profit business (community service type business)? If I've misinterpreted that then why not just charge the price (and I'm all for that), I wouldn't expect anyone to disclose any personal details of their for profit business.

You can take the attitude 'like it or lump it' but more than likely that won't get you too many new paying members. My suggestion to put the cost out there publicly was a genuine one knowing that people might be more willing to pay even larger amounts if they can see the justification for themselves. As someone else noted, some of the members might have some ideas of how to lower those costs, without knowing the costs that's not really possible.

[Mike Kreinhop]

I really wouldn't care to see his financial statements, but if there was a glaring flaw in the business model that I could help with, I would certainly offer my recommendations or assistance. That is what others have done in these related discussions, yet they are consistently dismissed by the old guard and invited to leave.

Mike, that's the part folks arent hearing. Keith has said he cant hire a programmer. And with the possible exception of the server farm idea, he's explored about as many options/ideas as he wants to. Right or wrong, hes not looking for more ideas. And if you go re-read posts where folks were invited to leave, most originated in some sharply pointed comment they themselves made on their way out the door.

Just a different perspective.

Be well.
Fred

Programming knowledge is not required to set up or manage a vBulletin or Xenforo based website. A caveman can do it and a night's stay at a Holiday Inn Express is not required. Knowledge of cPanel and WHM is a plus, and I am confident such talent already exists within the SMC membership.

My training and experience with programming ended during the Assembler, PASCAL, and ANSI C days (I avoided COBOL), so my programming skills are no longer relevant and are definitely not required. Yet I have no problem navigating through the modules in cPanel and WHM when required. Fortunately, for managed servers, even this is not required since the hosting company performs any OS patches as part of the basic support. The last website I set up required less than an hour in cPanel, and that time was spent mostly setting up the Administrator and Moderator email accounts and database passwords. That was two years ago and I haven't logged into the cPanel interface since.

I take your point on the pointed comments; however, I hope the acerbic responses are not an indication of the changing character of SMC.

[Frederick Skelly]

Wayne, Mike,
You're both making some valid points, but I think we're just going to have to agree to disagree. Nothing wrong with that, IMO.

Mike, I'm right there with you on keeping it friendly. I deleted a post on this topic today, after somebody called me out for crossing the line. Friendly is important to me too.

You guys take care.
Fred

[Jim Becker]

Nope I would not.

The difference is that members are being asked to help pay the costs of the forum, to help keep it alive, help prevent it from going under. As far as I can tell there is no sign out front with a price tag that says 'As of this date the cost of membership will be $6/year' , members are being asked to defray the costs, so if that's the case I don't see the problem with viewing the costs.

1) It's likely that in a very short period of time the cost of membership will not be voluntary anymore...that's why the title of this thread is what it is
2) The ask for voluntary contributions up until the present has been possible because in the past, advertising took care of a large portion of the business costs involved with having this very large, busy forum online. As has been mentioned innumerable times over the past year and earlier by Kieth, that is no longer the case, so things have to change. There has also be discussion in the past about the various ways that might help reduce operating cost such as moving it to the cloud, but invariably, the operating cost is more because of the significant bandwidth this forum requires to operate the way it does. Hosting isn't the big cost...bandwidth is

The bottom line is that SMC is a private business. If Keith wants to change the model, he's entitled to do that. He could just sell it lock, stock and barrel, too, and probably make quite a bit of money. I've known Keith for a very long time and my impression is that he'd rather stay at the wheel and keep it online rather than pass it off to some corporation. But honestly, I wouldn't blame him if he decided to bag it...

[Wayne Watling]

1) It's likely that in a very short period of time the cost of membership will not be voluntary anymore...that's why the title of this thread is what it is
2) The ask for voluntary contributions up until the present has been possible because in the past, advertising took care of a large portion of the business costs involved with having this very large, busy forum online. As has been mentioned innumerable times over the past year and earlier by Kieth, that is no longer the case, so things have to change. There has also be discussion in the past about the various ways that might help reduce operating cost such as moving it to the cloud, but invariably, the operating cost is more because of the significant bandwidth this forum requires to operate the way it does. Hosting isn't the big cost...bandwidth is

The bottom line is that SMC is a private business. If Keith wants to change the model, he's entitled to do that. He could just sell it lock, stock and barrel, too, and probably make quite a bit of money. I've known Keith for a very long time and my impression is that he'd rather stay at the wheel and keep it online rather than pass it off to some corporation. But honestly, I wouldn't blame him if he decided to bag it...

Thanks for the explanation Jim. I hope people will see these discussions positively, I believe discussion and openness is better in then end.

Selling to a corporation might not be a bad idea (i.e Sawstop) although the inevitable restrictions and heavy handedness might be too limiting for some.

[Jim Becker]

Wayne, several of the forums I visit besides here (two of which I also help manage) are owned by large corporations. The problem isn't heavy handedness or restrictions. It's the monetization of subscriber/user data. Keith doesn't do that.

[Rick Potter]

Late to the party here, but I must say I simply do not understand why there should be any argument here. But I am willing to throw in my thoughts........

I have been around since Badger Pond. I use the Creek as my main WW site, my ONLY social media site, and the off topic section is simply amazing for it's depth of people who seem knowledgeable on ANYTHING. I once asked a question about steering wheels on the conning tower of WWI German submarines, and got a knowing answer almost immediately (yes, there was one).

Without elaboration, this place, obviously, is a treasure trove of information about woodworking. I have learned much, and even shared a bit.

I do not care if Keith makes millions from this site, I wish he did. In reality, I wonder why, with a family and business to support, he bothers with all of us. I really appreciate the way the site is moderated, and does not allow rants to get out of hand, on any subject. It is refreshing to not have to deal with the asinine comments so many seem to feel necessary to make elsewhere.

I agree it was a mistake to not auto-renew our contributions. I also feel that it would be good to allow guests a limited number of visits before becoming members, and for members to have limited ability to post, before becoming contributors.

Money? We are arguing about raising the price from $6 to $12? A YEAR? In my world $6 is exactly what two large Cokes cost at Carl's Jr.

Sorry, but I cannot worry about transparency, whether the site makes money or not, or people who just need something to complain about. What I do worry about is when Keith will just decide we are not worth the effort.

Whew, I feel better now. Off to Carl's for lunch.

[Steve Clardy]

Late to the party here, but I must say I simply do not understand why there should be any argument here. But I am willing to throw in my thoughts........

I have been around since Badger Pond. I use the Creek as my main WW site, my ONLY social media site, and the off topic section is simply amazing for it's depth of people who seem knowledgeable on ANYTHING. I once asked a question about steering wheels on the conning tower of WWI German submarines, and got a knowing answer almost immediately (yes, there was one).

Without elaboration, this place, obviously, is a treasure trove of information about woodworking. I have learned much, and even shared a bit.

I do not care if Keith makes millions from this site, I wish he did. In reality, I wonder why, with a family and business to support, he bothers with all of us. I really appreciate the way the site is moderated, and does not allow rants to get out of hand, on any subject. It is refreshing to not have to deal with the asinine comments so many seem to feel necessary to make elsewhere.

I agree it was a mistake to not auto-renew our contributions. I also feel that it would be good to allow guests a limited number of visits before becoming members, and for members to have limited ability to post, before becoming contributors.

Money? We are arguing about raising the price from $6 to $12? A YEAR? In my world $6 is exactly what two large Cokes cost at Carl's Jr.

Sorry, but I cannot worry about transparency, whether the site makes money or not, or people who just need something to complain about. What I do worry about is when Keith will just decide we are not worth the effort.

Whew, I feel better now. Off to Carl's for lunch.

+1 on your comments.