Know what I'd love to see? The clasifieds becoming a subscriber-only feature. From a moderator perspective, that'd remove a vast amount of arseache.
That's slash the traffic though surely?
It might help keep people honest.
My understanding is that the classifieds were intended for forum users to help each other out by selling odds and sods. There's a lot of "classifieds only" users these days, which seems at odds with the ethos of the board to me.
Just IMHO, though.
Perhaps rather than Subscriber Only they could only be available to people with a certain number of main forum posts?
Or maybe make them Subscriber Only to sell something, but anyone can buy stuff and reply to threads there?
Know what I'd love to see? The clasifieds becoming a subscriber-only feature.
I suppose that, if advertising money isn't really worth that much it would be the way to go, because at a (perhaps completely wrong) guess I reckon site traffic would fall significantly.
I would subscribe again if I liked the mag a bit more, I haven't read it for a while (I can't find any!) and I found that I largely didn't read it when I did subscribe. Then came all the "new customers only" offers so I didn't re-up.
But if you weren't a subscriber at that point then you'd get the new customer only offer. Gifts at signup are available to all so long as you have been lapsed more than 3 months.
What about a new "subscriber" classifieds? More than a certain number of main forum posts will just result in Freeloaders posting crap (which i'm sure we can differentiate from normal posts 🙂 ).
I like the mag and subscribe but if I didn't I'd probably pay the cheapy "help the forum" fee, particularly if it meant I could access "slightly less likely to get ripped off" classifieds.
Stu.
There's a lot of "classifieds only" users these days, which seems at odds with the ethos of the board to me.
It's long since left the days of 'Ethos'. STW Towers is a ruthless, international mega-corp, exploiting the naive mountain biking public by pretending to be a bunch of Hippies 'op North.
(possible some of this might not be true)
Looking forward to getting my P back when the paperworks done
so my aging original Ipad can use the site easier
If you want to shape the future of Singletrackworld then you could do worse than go register over on grit.cx and see how that site works. That's the testbed for the next version of Singletrack so tell us what you like and what you don't like over there.
If we're in for a free for all comments thread then:
Classifieds, make em' pay a £5'er to advertise or Subscribe (P) not freeload. If you are a (P) then it'll be free.
Clip the sodding links to eBay ad's.
Photos of goods only, then a description.
B'out it from me, don't change it anymore. I like it here.
Ah, that's STW Mk2, which will have all those new features we're getting in 2007?
FFS...
😉
But if you weren't a subscriber at that point then you'd get the new customer only offer.
I was a subscriber. My intention was to have another look at the offers after my sub had lapsed (3 months). I didn't get around to it as I didn't miss the mag that much.
It seems to me that the forum which should be a sideline has massively outgrown the popularity of the mag. The problem is monetarising it. Paywalling it is a massive risk, loads of other sites are free at point of use and all of a sudden your biggest asset could become severely diminished. If you were to go down this route, I think you'd need to massively increase the main site content to more than other sites. More articles, vids, products etc etc (a la pinkbike) and get the scoops (ST seems to be a bit late getting us news etc).
(2) Readers need to change their assumption that they have a right to read the content on a website free of ads if they so choose.
Unfortunately, as the article alludes to, that horse has probably bolted for anyone who already uses filters.
If a user no longer sees any adverts (1) they're not very likely to take a step 'backwards' to having to see them even if they behave much better, and (2) they're unlikely to know that they behave much better as they won't see them in the first place.
I know you and I have had this discussion many times (hence my mildly amusing tag), but on here I want to participate in the forum and read about bikes. As I'm not in a position to be buying anything new bike related at the moment, no amount of advertising will change that, so no net loss to you were I to not allow the adverts down my internet connection, using my data, onto my screen. Also, as I'm on a bike website, I'm unlikely to be receptive to yet another singles ad (and I suspect my wife would make me somewhat less receptive were I to be).
I appreciate that I am far from your only past and potential future customer, and am certainly not your only web visitor, but I suspect I won't be alone in my reasoning. As more people become aware of the ability to turn averts off on the internet, more people will do it.
A subscription model would be better, just slowly migrate so that you have to have a 'P' to post in classifieds, then post in the other forums. Free to read anything, to attract new members.....
The Ad based model can't last.
It seems to me that the forum which should be a sideline has massively outgrown the popularity of the mag.
Well strictly speaking the forums came first 😉
http://web.archive.org/web/20000619164009/http://www.cgi2go.com/boards/index.cgi?user=GoFar
Zokes, that would make sense if ads paid by the click, but they don't - they pay by the impression (CPM is the terminology). So you blocking the ads DOES cost us revenue, whether you respond to the ads or not. And the more people that block the ads the more resources we will be forced to put into preventing those people from viewing the content.. and that will inevitably mean accessing the forum. Just like the Times, publishers like us may look to a smaller but higher paying audience to pay for the content.
Wrecker: It's not an asset if it doesn't earn money, no matter how big the audience. We have 1.6 million uniques a month. Singletrack is one of the top 1% of websites in the world in terms of traffic (yes really!). If you come here for the forum only then the forum has value and I will look to ensure that we monetise that value. Currently registrations cost nothing in terms of cash from the reader and for that you can participate fully in the forum. That may have to change in the future and if that means fewer people in the forum but more cash in our account then that is something I am bound to consider.
People turning off the ads and then continuing to use the forum is the main force pushing me to look at other options.
Zokes, that would make sense if ads paid by the click, but they don't - they pay by the impression (CPM is the terminology).
So, indiscriminate spam would have the same effect? How about some technology that just makes all the ads transparent. You get your CPMs, and I get my screen...
Because that would be dishonest.
So how about you agree that the ads being in your field of view are worth the price of entry? The choice is still yours of course and if you think the price is too high you don't have to use the forum. But you can't use the forum without paying for it in some form or another.
We present you with two options..
1) Pay no money to us but accept the ads
2) Pay money to us and remove the ads
This option...
3) Pay no money to us and block the ads
.. is unsustainable and we'll try and prevent that.
Normally I'd hesitate to make this comment, but since we are discussing this, zokes comment suggests another option
4) Pay no money and accept the ads but hide them
It might be dishonest, but you'd never know 😈
3) Pay no money to us and block the ads
.. is unsustainable and we'll try and prevent that.
Even that won't work long term, right now it's quite easy to detect if Ads are blocked, but it would be easy to make them totally invisible to the website and if enough sites start blocking blockers, the blockers will just get smarter.....
BTW.. Subs to the site are now £1.49 for EVERYTHING!
ie. Mag archive AND App access. For £1.49 you get 13 years of mags plus the latest issue.We previously only allowed mag archive access to the £2.99/month subscribers and app access was annual subs only.
Any existing subscribers paying more and getting less are having their accounts adjusted over the next few weeks and you will get an email shortly to explain how you will be paying less and/or getting more from now on.
That's interesting. I recently got to use the app on a 7" tablet and was really impressed. If I moved to digital-only, do STW make more or less money altogether?
that would make sense if ads paid by the click, but they don't - they pay by the impression (CPM is the terminology). So you blocking the ads DOES cost us revenue, whether you respond to the ads or not.
I've always justified doing That Which Shall Not Be Named using the two-pronged "I pay for a subscription" and "I wouldn't click on them anyway".
I'd not realised the ads were per impression not per click, so I've just whitelisted this domain.
I'd not realised the ads were per impression not per click, so I've just whitelisted this domain.
Given that big P by your name, has it made any difference to your experience? Because it probably hasn't made any difference to their CPM!
People turning off the ads and then continuing to use the forum is the main force pushing me to look at other options.
Autosport seem to be going down the route of premium and free content (just like here) but then also limiting the amount of free stuff you can access each month. Of course, you can get around it (cookies) but most people won't and I have come close to buying a digital sub (but it's just a little too expensive still).
(FWIW I am actually a ST mag subscriber... need to get that sorted...)
Back to the OP...
If add blocking is a bad as napster (I assume the old good napster!) then what is recording TV on Sky+ and fast forwarding the adds?
I'd not realised the ads were per impression not per click, so I've just whitelisted this domain.
Given that big P by your name, has it made any difference to your experience? Because it probably hasn't made any difference to their CPM!
I'd thought that even subscribers with ads turned 'off' still got some, but it turns out that they don't.
Sky is a subscription model. They get paid via your subscription whether you watch the ads or not. Sky are exploiting the best of both worlds in that they are earning revenue by charging viewers AND advertisers.
nemesis.. If you are a mag subscriber than you get Premier already. That means you can access the digital content as part of your existing subscription. If you need help getting that all working then subs@singletrackworld.com will sort you out.
Thanks Mark, I know, just need to get it sorted out...
It's not an asset if it doesn't earn money, no matter how big the audience
So the subscriptions and advertisement revenue do not currently cover the forum costs? How do all of the other hobby forums keep the lights on? Most don't have a mag to sell either.
You cannot remove the sub fees from the equation, it's part of the deal.
For record; I do not use adblockers.
Saying that a paywall will result in increased revenue isn't definite. Likely to be more successful the lower cost it is. I'm not against a reasonably priced paywall, but as I said the main site content would have to increase [i]massively[/i] and there would also need to be a commitment that there would be no advertising.
this is what I didn't get about my little 4od foray. I hardly ever watch live TV so I very very rarely have to watch adverts, just seemed a bit of a pisser having to sit through them if you forget to record something and have to watch if on catchup. Now thinking about it I guess C4 make revenue to cover* broadcast from the live ads then cover* the cost of hosting on demand stuff via the enforced ads on there.then what is recording TV on [s]Sky+[/s] freeview+ and fast forwarding the adds?
Wasn't aware of the CPM model either, another schoolday eh?
*plus a healthy profit obviously
The forum is built on top of free open source software and free content provided by its users. It's not all bad in this new world.
I can't help thinking that more ad-revenue would result from less obtrusive ads, that is if more revenue results from a click through, I'm not sure which model STW use. Or..maybe a cleverer algorithm that looked at the users posting history.
then what is recording TV on [s]Sky+[/s] freeview+ and fast forwarding the adds?
The ReplayTV boxes (from the early days of PVRs) used to be able to detect ads and skip them, but they went bust. I believe TiVo experimented with the same feature for a while. Not sure if they still have it now. However there are add-ons available for homebrew PVRs like MythTV that do automatic ad-skipping.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Commercial_skipping
4) Pay no money and accept the ads but hide themIt might be dishonest, but you'd never know
Dishonest perhaps, but is in effect what every single smartphone user does already with a simple double tap to zoom to the text they want to read the moment they open a page.
And as pointed out above, it's an obvious next step for 'filtering' software if sites push back too much on outright blocking.
As an aside, paywalls may work for sites where consuming is the main form of 'product'. However (and correct me if I'm wrong), a major part of this site's traffic is the forum, and behind a paywall, it may have substantially fewer contributors, despite the reasonable price discussed above.
Sky is a subscription model. They get paid via your subscription whether you watch the ads or not. Sky are exploiting the best of both worlds in that they are earning revenue by charging viewers AND advertisers
Smart arse 😛
OK, say I'm watching ITV, and I'm using Freeview+ or even VHS? Is that still as bad as Naptser(sic)?
What about watching a live broadcast on ITV but leaving the room to make a cup of tea when the adds are on?
My point is that it's entirely your decision to show us adds but its also our perogative to ignore those adds if we want to. Publishers who are used to paper are used to adds being hard to ignore but audiences in the 1,000s. If they want to embrace broadcast content with audiences in the 1,000,000s then they will also need to learn to cope with adds that are easier to ignore.
You (collectively) built an unsustainable business model and you need to fix that in a way that you are comofortable with and makes you money but don't expect us to just stop ignoring adds out of charity.
Note: I don't actually use an adblocker but do think it's obserd to expect people not to.
(It is interesting the the technology exists for PVRs to either automatically skip adds or to force people to watch them yet neither has been rolled out, some sort of uneasy truce?)
edit: Ha ha - Adb1ocker autocorrects to freeloading. I've just lost a huge ammount of respect for Singletrack World.
I guess it is a balance and as this is a fairly new form of advertising, it will evolve over time.
If the ads are too intrusive, people will either block them or be put off the products and the advertisers will have to rethink the strategy.
A forum is an interesting one as there are benefits for both users and owners. The users gets a platform to talk with like minded people and the owners have a commodity of XX unique visitors per month. Although hosting the forum costs money, there is a monetary value for the owners too in both advertising and driving far more people to their website than would be possible without the forum.
We have a sustainable business model. I'm sorry if I've given the impression otherwise. We've actually won an award for our business model 🙂
We already have a paywall. We've had it for several years now. What we are doing is adjusting our business model to reflect the changing way the world is using technology and consuming content. We have a new website in grit.cx that will further adapt to the way the market is changing and what we learn there will be implemented over here on Singletrack.
It's all getting a bit complicated now with the detail so let me bring it back to the OP. If everyone blocked the ads today.. I turn the site off for all but premier users tomorrow and send half the staff home because I would have no money to pay their wages. It is that simple. A huge chunk of our revenue would be turned off like a tap.
How are we dealing with the growing ad-blocking problem? We are developing revenue streams that are not dependent on them. This is working quite well for us. 5 years ago 85% of our revenue was from advertising - Now it's about 65%. I'm hoping that in a year or so that will be 50/50 but then I can't predict what will happen in the publishing world next month, let alone next year... so we'll just keep adapting as we go.. it's done is ok for the first 14 years 🙂
I want to know when we start getting paid to post, after all that's what the 1.8 million visitors are logging on see!
(Well possibly)
Believe it or not but we have a plan for that on grit.cx.. No really! 🙂
🙂What about watching a live broadcast on ITV but leaving the room to make a cup of tea when the adds are on?
not sure whether this is a valid analogy or not but I think it's a digital thing, back in the day tape to tape piracy was relatively easy to do but didn't appear to have publishers quaking in their boots, disc to disc again not too tricky but with the right burner you could do dozens at a time with zero loss of quality, whoops people start to worry. Come the interwebz and it being very [i]very[/i] easy to share stuff and everyone and his dog at sony were shitting themselves.
@d bl0cking is so easy to do - and is likely to turn into an unwinable arms race - that I guess it makes it scary.
Believe it or not but we have a plan for that on grit.cx
Seriously bad idea, my cats will start wanting a cut each time I post a photo of them on here!
[url= https://farm9.staticflickr.com/8215/8442356038_4718bed60c.jp g" target="_blank">https://farm9.staticflickr.com/8215/8442356038_4718bed60c.jp g"/> [/img][/url][url= https://flic.kr/p/dS2hjJ ]Jeff and George[/url] by [url= https://www.flickr.com/people/75003318@N00/ ]brf[/url], on Flickr
footflaps - Member
I want to know when we start getting paid to post, after all that's what the 1.8 million visitors are logging on see!(Well possibly)
Posted 5 minutes ago # Report-Post Mark - Resident Grumpy
Believe it or not but we have a plan for that on grit.cx.. No really!
Wehey? Eh?? Wot?
You will start paying US to post on the site?
Really??
C'mon, who wants to read the rubbish I spout?
*hop's on over to Grit.cx, but waits to be paid before posting!!
Come the interwebz and it being very very easy to share stuff and everyone and his dog at sony were shitting themselves.
HOME TAPING IS KILLING MUSIC!!!1!
I've waxed lyrical on this subject before, but IMHO the best thing Sony et al can do to make piracy less attractive is to stop being dicks.
Restrictions on loaning to mates, restrictions to second-hand sales, restrictions to playback devices, mandatory warnings and bollocks every time you install the disc, CDs that break red book standards, time-limited content that expires... you know what, I'll just download the bugger, at least I know it'll work when I want to watch it on my laptop at work or streamed to the Xbox.
Better to embrace the Internet rather than fight it, shirley?
Oh,
And embedded rootkits. That was Sony's piece de resistance, that was. Bastards.
