Advertising...?

[Ian Barley]

I will prefix by saying that nothing in this post is intended as a criticism, express or implied, of anybody who has participated in this forum in any way shape or form. It is an attempt to share some thoughts to possibly (or possibly not) help with thinking about this challenge.

I have gone through a paradigm shift in my thinking about SMC in the last few weeks or so. You see, I thought I was a part owner (See note 1 below). I always thought of SMC as a kind of club which was owned by its members and that Keith, Aaron et al were kind of like a voluntary committee that kept it running on our behalf.

But it isn't a club, or at least it has become evident that I am in a minority in seeing it as such. Keith owns it. He can do whatever he wants with it. If he decided to throw a banner ad across the middle of every page he could. I don't expect that he will because if, as I have come to believe, he sees it as a commercial property then he would only be devaluing his property by doing so. Because while Keith owns the domain name and the web server and the pipe that the 0's and 1's flow down he does not own the only really valuable asset that this site has. It members. This site is only commercially valuable because of people like tod and Steve Clardy and Mark Singer and Jim Becker and Marty Walsh and... and... and... They are the people with knowledge to share and a spirit to share it. (Everybody else's name should be in the list as well but I can only type so fast - if I missed you out don't be miffed). Basically, if Keith makes the place uncomfortable then the talent (all of us) is liable to walk leaving him with a historically interesting domain name and not much else.

On that basis I am not excessively worried about what Keith may decide to do in the future, either here or on "satellite" sites. If he does anything to massively change the tone and style of this site he will be damaging his own interests. I don't think he is foolish enough to do that. If he creates "Son of SMC" and I don't like the way it looks, works or runs I won't visit it. If it effects the way that SMC itself is managed then I have the absolute right to stop visiting here as well, as does anybody else, again to the detriment of Keith's commercial interests. This isn't any kind of threat. It's just a realisation that Keith being able to realise a commercial income from his contribution to this site is not a source of risk, it is a source of security. Similarly any putative advertiser who tried to strong arm "editorial policy" would simply risk reducing the range of the audience that he was trying to reach.

Note 1 - I feel the need to clarify that I am not a $6 a year contributor and that is why my User strap does not say "2006 Contributor". From where I am paying $6 costs me about $8 in bankers fees etc. I made a multi year contribution in 2005 because it is the only way that makes economic sense for me. So my belief that I was apart owner was financially as well as contributionally founded.

[Marty Walsh]

I will prefix by saying that nothing in this post is intended as a criticism, express or implied, of anybody who has participated in this forum in any way shape or form. It is an attempt to share some thoughts to possibly (or possibly not) help with thinking about this challenge.

I have gone through a paradigm shift in my thinking about SMC in the last few weeks or so. You see, I thought I was a part owner (See note 1 below). I always thought of SMC as a kind of club which was owned by its members and that Keith, Aaron et al were kind of like a voluntary committee that kept it running on our behalf.

But it isn't a club, or at least it has become evident that I am in a minority in seeing it as such. Keith owns it. He can do whatever he wants with it. If he decided to throw a banner ad across the middle of every page he could. I don't expect that he will because if, as I have come to believe, he sees it as a commercial property then he would only be devaluing his property by doing so. Because while Keith owns the domain name and the web server and the pipe that the 0's and 1's flow down he does not own the only really valuable asset that this site has. It members. This site is only commercially valuable because of people like tod and Steve Clardy and Mark Singer and Jim Becker and Marty Walsh and... and... and... They are the people with knowledge to share and a spirit to share it. (Everybody else's name should be in the list as well but I can only type so fast - if I missed you out don't be miffed). Basically, if Keith makes the place uncomfortable then the talent (all of us) is liable to walk leaving him with a historically interesting domain name and not much else.

On that basis I am not excessively worried about what Keith may decide to do in the future, either here or on "satellite" sites. If he does anything to massively change the tone and style of this site he will be damaging his own interests. I don't think he is foolish enough to do that. If he creates "Son of SMC" and I don't like the way it looks, works or runs I won't visit it. If it effects the way that SMC itself is managed then I have the absolute right to stop visiting here as well, as does anybody else, again to the detriment of Keith's commercial interests. This isn't any kind of threat. It's just a realisation that Keith being able to realise a commercial income from his contribution to this site is not a source of risk, it is a source of security. Similarly any putative advertiser who tried to strong arm "editorial policy" would simply risk reducing the range of the audience that he was trying to reach.

Note 1 - I feel the need to clarify that I am not a $6 a year contributor and that is why my User strap does not say "2006 Contributor". From where I am paying $6 costs me about $8 in bankers fees etc. I made a multi year contribution in 2005 because it is the only way that makes economic sense for me. So my belief that I was apart owner was financially as well as contributionally founded.

Ian,

As I've said to tod, touche`!

The venue that Keith has created to share intellectual proprety is "the creek". I'm all for his attempting to capitalize on the value associated with said value. What I don't support is a for-profit venture that will de-value what the creek has become...the BEST woodworkers forum on the net, PERIOD!

How to isolate his new for-profit venture, and yet maintain the intellectual content that makes the creek what it is, is the challlenge Aaron and Keith face, and one I don't envy. Now that the facts have been made public, I trust them both to make a decision that will balance ROI and the value of intellectual content. Anything else would be fiscal suicide!!!!

So Keith, we're watchijng...be careful what you decide to do...

- Marty -

[tod evans]

ian,
once again a verbal pat on the back for saying very well what i`ve been trying to get across in my feeble attempts at diplomacy.
a very large portion of us have chosen to contribute to the forum both financially and more importantly with our cumulative years of hard earned knowledge.
personally i enjoy sharing what i`ve learned and don`t mind paying for the privilege, and i definitely am grateful to the countless folks who have provided me with the knowledge and inspiration to keep building and honing my skills both in woodworking and interpersonal/internet people skills.
BUT..........as i`ve tried to point out earlier, censorship of posts that do not violate the terms of service only to pacify vendors who may or may not provide advertising dollars is the quickest way to get me back in the shop and away from this darn keyboard. as much as i enjoy this forum and the friendships i`ve formed here when preferential treatment is given to anybody, myself included, because of either the promise of money or the threat of legal action my blood just boils, and honestly it`s no longer worth my time no matter how much i enjoy the banter. my biggest fear of advertising is that this type of censorship would become even more commonplace if money instead of threats where involved, hence my suggestion of a disclaimer or advertising agreement....
jay has offered another suggestion that would allow money to be made from the creek and/or a shop-tour sight that may very well be worthy of consideration as it doesn`t rely on advertising dollars to generate income?
obviously i`m not the brightest bulb here, but i can see some major potential issues if advertising money is accepted so please explore any and all alternatives that would generate money to achieve your financial goals without jeopardizing the creek i enjoy......tod

[Stu Ablett in Tokyo Japan]

................so please explore any and all alternatives that would generate money to achieve your financial goals without jeopardizing the creek i enjoy......tod

May I say, "We ALL enjoy!!"

[Frank Fusco]

I have learned a lot about SMC from scanning the posts on this thread. (No, I haven't read them all completely, I do have another life outside of SMC ).
I had never heard of Shop Tours and had to Google it to find it. Interesting, but where it fits in this controversy is still unclear to me.
I had never paid attention to the "contributor" thing, didn't know what it meant and didn't care. Never heard of the $6.00 bit and now I feel like a slacker. OTOH, I'm having to decide how many and which forums I wish to contribute in an effort to keep them floating. As of now, it is several and SMC may join that list. Not the six bucks, it's a matter when enuf is enuf.
As I said earlier, I come down on the side of advertising, it benefits everyone. If the owners/moderators bow to pressure from paying advertisers big or little (I could become one later) the forum would fade away. Pressure works both ways. As for the fear of being sued for opinions, I'm not expert on that and dunno. But, I do believe the fear is a trillion times greater than the actual possibility. Well.....yes, I do know, a bit. There is a difference between opinion and slander. Malice with intent must exist for a successful suit. That said, anyone can still sue anyone else for anything at any time. Might not be successful but the suit can still be filed. On the flip side, a company that sues for perceived injury is risking greater image damage than a word or two of criticizm. I would look forward to the advertising. It would be the financing for our opinions venue.

[Michael Gibbons]

I'm not here to questions anyone business practices. I'm just wondering how hard would it be to place a "Shop Pics" forum in between the General Woodworking Forum and Neandrathal Haven Forum? Money,Time, Energy? I for one love checking out others members shops and tools and would find it much easier to go directly to a sub-forum to do just that. I'm not much into website upkeep and such but it seems to me that since this forum is already up and running it wouldn't take much to add another topic forum. Or am I guessing wrong?

.................Mike

[Jim Becker]

Michael, "Shop Tours" is something that Keith has in mind as a future resource, but it will likely be separate from the discussion forums and not based on a forum thread type software element.

[Michael Gibbons]

Thanks for the info, Jim. I was getting lost in all the arguing in the previous posts. By the way, Were the posts talking about adding the shop tours forums or something else?

[Keith Outten]

Michael,

Possibly I can shed some light on the Shop Tours subject.

Aaron and I would like to build and host a Shop Tours web site. Our plans are to build and host the Shop Tours project on a separate server and provide bandwidth separately from The Creek. This would be a commercial venture paid for via advertising. There are two reasons for keeping the Shop Tours as a separate entity from the Creek.

1- The Shop Tours will be a huge project with lots of custom programing and a lot of work. We would like to be paid for our efforts so it would be a for profit venture.

2- The Shop Tours we envision will be huge...possibly much larger than The Creek. The bandwidth bills will be monsterous due to our need to host lots of very large pictures, the traffic load and a comprehensive database.

We would need to find a very stable source of financial support for the kind of Shop Tours venture we have in mind. Ours would not be like any other, Aaron and I have given this a lot of thought and we have the means of producing a site that provides a user login for building a Shop Tour and provisions for updates. Our plans include a database backed site that would provide information based on user queries, we prefer not to say anything else about the database portion at this point other than to say it is what would distinguish ours from everyone else's

The issue we were considering was whether we would use the SawMill Creek domain for the Shop Tours module which we have now decided we will not. The reason we were considering using a sub-domain of SMC was due to the huge traffic we expect to see and the benefits to our woodworking forums from a close relationship with the Shop Tours.....it would be an incredible boost to SMC.

Because SMC is Member Supported and the Shop Tours site will be paid for via advertising it is best that we keep the two entities separate. A natural boundary will prevent any influence from advertisers from having an impact on our Forums.

We would love to have a Shop Tours area in The Creek but we can't figure out how we could afford to provide the kind of service we envision and pay for the labor and bandwidth to run such a monster. It can't be done with volunteer labor and the hosting costs will certainly be at least triple SMC's current expenses.

SawMill Creek was never meant to be a commercial venture. We have always felt and still believe that any outside influence would be disruptive to the very nature of a woodworking Community. There are no banners here or advertisers we need to please. As long as our Members continue to provide the necessary financial support for The Creek it will remain as it is today...a safe and comfortable place for woodworkers to gather and share.

February 2007 will be our fourth anniversary, promises made here have been promises kept on both sides. Our bills for 2007 are already paid in full based on our November fund drive and we are in the process of building a new server that will provide for our needs for the next three years...it is already paid for as well. Note that you still don't see any advertising here other than a very few that sneak their ads in periodically that we will eventually clean up.

The Creek is Alive and Well

.

[Michael Gibbons]

Thanks Keith. O.K. so what your saying is having posts with mostly pictures is a whole different animal which uses a lot of computer/server space so much so that you need a seperate server?

[Aaron Koehl]

Michael,

Space is cheap (storage). It's the bandwidth (and lesser, the CPU cycles) that is the real expensive commodity, and it is for these reasons why you would separate to a different server.