Forum menu
That was my thought Jekyll, but then that would fall foul of the 'no commercial activity' rule I guess?
Sorry, I can't read the OP because a large pop up is blocking the screen. Apparently if I [s]pay for a premium membership[/s] use DuckDuckGo as a default browser, I am led to believe this advertisement will go away.
There, FTFY.
Works for me.
Mark and team seem to be working hard to define what publishing looks like in the online age and how it makes money. That may mean challenging the accepted norm from time to time and this looks just like one of those times. I suspect it will be an uphill struggle but hats off for having the balls to put this in place.
s'where i am too....
When does a video containg logos or sponsored title become an advert?
Will STW accept being charged by other publications on a tit-for-tat basis?
Not sure that ranting off like a 7 year old is the best strategy for securing your future customers? Will there be a picture of Mark's arse soon in a stairwell? Maybe a behind the scenes negotiation would have made better sense.
Mark is in the business of publishing. The business of publishing finds itself in the same perfect storm as the music industry found itself in a few years back. As HMV etc could tell you- that didn't turn out well!
For some reason people seem to think that all content should be free. And that people have some kind of divine right to facilities like this forum without paying for it. Like it's just provided by a magic fairy who doesn't need to eat, or pay a mortgage. Or pay the bill for a print run.
Manufacturers releasing advertorials dressed up as films instead of what they are .... adverts, to access a market somebody else has spent the time building, are basically taking the piss.
But if you want to have an 'ITS SOOOOO NOT FAIR!!!" bleat about how their massively financed marketing departments are really hard done by from those nasty people at a small independent publication...
Well said binners.
Having said all that, it does grate a bit when Chipps turns up on a Monday Night Pub Ride and pulls his gold-plated Santa Cruz out of the boot of the Singletrack Bentley...
Don't spoil your moment.
Having said all that, it does grate a bit when Chipps turns up on a Monday Night Pub Ride and pulls his gold-plated Santa Cruz out of the boot of the Singletrack Bentley...
I thought he brought those friendly Pilipino ladies with him to do all of the heavy lifting.
Back to the OP though... I agree with Mark.
Well said binners.
+1
😀
I think a few people need to reactivate their 'real world' filter, take their blinkers off, and realise that this is a business. A business that balaces (pretty bloody well in my opinion!) providing this site, the news page, classifieds, and forum, essentially for free, with bringing in revenue to pay for it. How on earth do they think it's being paid for?
If you're whining about it - which you don't seem shy of doing - then you need to wake up and ask how long you think that's sustainable for?
About as long as it was sustainable for HMV to have a prime store in every high street when everyone is downloading the content of that store for free! That's how long!
Just have a think about that! And stop bloody whinging!
Don't spoil your moment.
+1
I'm pretty sure companies pay to have their adverts on the telly don't they?
same thing right? Singletrack is a channel...Just on line.
The winners here seem to by people like Cut Media, who get real hard cash to make the actual videos.
For any major company The cost of producing the actual adverts/advertorials/films/whatever will pale into insignificance next to what they'll budget for putting it out there. The costs of traditional mainstream advertising are absolutely eye-watering!
I definitely agree with the principle, but as well as the article that sent Barney to Patagonia I'm sure I remember reading one exclusively about the making of such a video up in snowy Scotland. And as a direct result of the article I watched that video, and at least one more by the same team.
I'm not 100% down with how the money flows, but I would assume that generally contributors are paid by Singletrack so I'm not quite sure how that gets reconciled here.
That said I really enjoyed reading all the articles discussed and watching the videos linked (including Fresh Goods Friday) and am more than happy to keep paying my money for what I get here.
The winners here seem to by people like Cut Media, who get real hard cash to make the actual videos.
Do you believe that they have gold-plated Santa Cruz or Bentleys?
I'd bet that cut media aren't worth as much as singletrack are and make a fraction of the money that they do too.
Pursuing guys like cut is a total cop out. The money holders are the manufacturers and distributors.
Chipps turns up on a Monday Night Pub Ride and pulls his gold-plated Santa Cruz out of the boot of the Singletrack Bentley...
Euphemism
I agree with binners and therefore Mark
If they want to run adverts then they need t pay
I also think it unrealistic to think that all the internet will be free as somewhere STW has to actually pay the bills. its either mag sales or Premier or ads
I agree its probably better to make the actual big boys pay though
Pursuing guys like cut is a total cop out. The money holders are the manufacturers and distributors.
I agree, but I wonder who it is that's asking Singletrack to post the video? Is it Cut Media (for example)? I would have thought their work is done once the finished article is delivered, and then it's down to either the rider(s) or the brand to get it out there.
But is there a real difference between Akrigg going out filming and submitting a vid and, say, Greg May (I assume he's got a few sponsors - he does enough) going off into the hills on his own or with a photog, and submitting some ST-friendly whimsy to go with the pretty pictures?
I'm as famous as Akrigg now! With about 1% of the skills 😉
Sadly not sponsored persay - just a Salsa Fanboi who eventually blagged some free kit to ride in for the Tour Divide 🙂 I did pay for my Cutthroat - and Spearfish - and so on, I just work in an industry where I have had the option to meet some really nice people who've helped me out.
The Ortlieb kit for the Divide is a prime example of where people jump to assumptions - never asked for it, was just offered it with no "you must do this/that/get this exposure" contract. Never, ever had that in my life - doubt many have.
Most of the bikes I've had over the last few years have been heavily discounted, won't deny about that, but that is also due to having raced them at elite level for CX and reasonably fast for 24hr racing. You get some results, it makes it easier for a shop to get you on something nice - which most of the time is to promote a local bike shop - not a brand. But usually, its frame - you get a frame at cost+VAT+shipping at if you are lucky - the parts, well you pay for them yourself - maybe you'll get free spannering...can't turn that down.
Most of the kit I have, honestly it's stuff I buy myself - no kids (yet) and a very understanding wife! Or, occasionally I get it through STW or Grit, which is a real boon. But again, I have a real job behind a desk I do every day which pays for my bike bits - proudly race as a privateer and have done for years, people appreciate that and they try to help you. Is it wrong of me to try to help them back?
I used to feel disenfranchised when it came to seeing people on "free" bikes - the reality, very very few people get fully free bikes. I can only think of one I've ever had - the same season I had UCI points. Quite a few years past that now sadly! Now, well I say good for them - they are obviously worth something to the brand, so why shouldn't they have to work for it? It's not just about results - it's about exposure.
Now to photoshop all my things. I may even bill Patagonia for all the free exposure I've given them over the years....maybe also have to bill the manufacturers of toast.
Pursuing guys like cut is a total cop out. The money holders are the manufacturers and distributors.
Depends doesn't it. If Cut are the ones contracted to produce a viral advertisement and they need to pay some media outlets to gain exposure then they'll need to build that into the pricing model.
The brand who pay will still do so as they will still need Cut or whitenosugar et al to undertake this work or employ a costly in house team instead.
Money is exchanged hands at a number of levels in this process, why not have some of it going to the website(s) doing the promotion.
Chris Akrigg should be given free advertising and a pat on the back for making inspiring videos that never fail to interest. A credit to mountain biking.
The rest of them should have to pay. Loads. For making shite videos of people roosting corners and the rest. So boring. I wish MTBing would piss off. Or at least I wish people wouldn't film it. A waste of human resources.
philxx1975 - Member
It does what?, when was the last time a product got slagged anywhere,
Not read my Stooge review then....
*leaves thread before he gets lynched*
Having said all that, it does grate a bit when Chipps turns up on a Monday Night Pub Ride and pulls his gold-plated Santa Cruz out of the boot of the Singletrack Bentley...
Wouldn't the gold plating make his Santa Cruz a bit unwieldy in terms of weight? It seems pointless to worry about frame material and how many grams your groupset is when you then turn around and cover the thing in gold!
On a separate note, I find what jimjam said on the first page
jimjam - MemberSorry, I can't read the OP because a large pop up is blocking the screen. Apparently if I pay for a premium membership I am led to believe this advertisement will go away.
incredibly dumb.
Yes, jimjam, a premier membership makes the advertisements go away. There is no 'apparently' to it.
I don't know about you, but I think the benefits of having this forum PLUS full access to the magazine make the meagre amount they ask well worth it.
For making shite videos of people roosting corners and the rest.
This is a fair point. If I see another bloody video of some dude cuttying "loam" in squamish, I'll shit.
Depends doesn't it. If Cut are the ones contracted to produce a viral advertisement and they need to pay some media outlets to gain exposure then they'll need to build that into the pricing model.
Of course, but still, blaming someone on time plus, and not those who benefit most from the advertising is soft.
I don't blame Mark, you want to splash your video on the front page, especially when they are sponsor heavy, then pony up.
If you want to go via the forum and see if you can get a whole load of pseudo-viral traffic, then ok, but if it's just a load of poorly shot trailside gnarrllocks be prepared for trial by mob 🙂
Yes, jimjam, a premier membership makes the advertisements go away. There is no 'apparently' to it.I don't know about you, but I think the benefits of having this forum PLUS full access to the magazine make the meagre amount they ask well worth it.
THIS no one would put with this shit without getting paid for it
I also moderately resent the freeloaders moaning about services that other folk pay for and offering advice to those who need to make a living.
Dont like it **** off your "revenue" wont be missed one bit.
I also like the fact they let the free loaders maon so much about it
I have to say I would be ban hammering you for comedic effect by now 😈
Dont like it **** off your "revenue" wont be missed one bit.
You miss the point. If the "freeloaders" did indeed piss off, this site would be worth a fraction of what it is.
No you miss the point without folk paying for it there would be **** all for you to see
What blame Wrecker?
I struggle to see how saying Cut or whomever factor in some other costs can be throwing blame at them. The brand seeking exposure can pay for it.
And see that little P next to my username, you're welcome. I presume you don't use adblock and don't complain about advertising on the site
Have been noticing that the general trend has been premier members have been pro Marks stance and nays have been non prem.
You got to hand it to the advertorial producers, bloody clever bit of [s]conning[/s] marketing. You produce an advert so good folk seek it out to consume and demand to be exposed to it with host sites feeling pressurised into placing it for them gratis. Whilst bog standard paying adverts are considered the bane of the web users life and most have adblockers setup to try and minimise the horrible stuff. The sneaky bastards.
Some videos though whilst being produced by a company and featuring their logo are maybe about selling stuff but that isn't at the forefront of the vid
Akriggs videos are primarily enjoyable, Mongoose and his other sponsors are not really rammed down your throat through the vid, just some logos at the end, the riding and film making definitely comes first
The syndicate video blogs I don't really associate primarily with trying to sell Santa Cruz bikes, it's more a look behind the scenes of a World Cup race team and their lifestyle, a view we don't get to see otherwise
Both of those, yes to an extent are free advertising but say for example the recent Sealskins vid with Traharn Chidley (incidentally now a freelance writer for Singletrack, presumably in the back of that vid) was produced by a sock company and maybe helped to sell socks, but primarily it was thought provoking and inspirational (also the Sandy Plenty one in the same series before that) and it would be a real shame if ST didn't help promote that sort of vid (and they did promote it, asking us to vote for it to win an award just last week)
These are the things I want to watch, as well as being mildly promotional they are newsworthy in their own right
However Marks comments on his FB post suggested that unless Sealskins/Mongoose/Akrigg/Santa Cruz paid them they would not feature
This 'blanket ban' attitude that came across I think is a shame.
Purely promotional vids then yes I agree with and applaud Marks stance, but I hope there will be some editorial discretion shown and if something is presented that offers the sites viewers/readers something extra above the free advertising it will be given a chance, it will become a very bland website if all there is is reports from trade shows, product reviews (for the premier members only of course) and stories about perceived sexism in the sport
This ^^^^^^^
Iain1775 marketing is very clever, linking your logo to a moving piece, powerful emotional story, great skill that's appreciated by the target audience Sticks in the mind.
Ever seen a Coca Cola logo flash up in the middle of a great film etc? That's more product positioning but those few seconds stick.
A vid paid for by a company isn't backed purely out of the goodness of their hearts, it's to get that powerful emotion, visual or message linked to their brand name.
So yes why should their commercial vid not be charged for?
Well, this is eye-opening.
suggested that unless Sealskins/Mongoose/Akrigg/Santa Cruz paid them they would not feature
They are adverts though, you do get that, right? They're nice adverts, for sure, and they're shot well, and they don't shout "SELL, SELL, SELL at you, but they're still adverts, and places like STW are still expected to host them for free to get at us. (STW is the world's biggest forum for mountainbikers after all)
This is an interesting discussion - one of the key issues is that the very people readers are interested in are supported by brands because of their media image and to a lesser degree race results. You get into the situation of cutting off content flow to make a potential short term financial gain, while at the same time losing "attention", which longer term, diminishes the value of the publisher.
The same argument could be applied to articles online or in the mag with factory tours, "people being the brand" like Keith aBontrager etc. Pretty much everything connected to a brand puts potential customers into the sales funnel - so where do you draw the line?
The old adage of "content is king" very much applies here.
The world continues to turn and move on. These videos are pretty much what written 'advertorials' were, but being a slickly produced video, much more attractive to the target audience. It moves, it's in HD, probably has fly-by shots, ultra slo-mo, filmed somewhere really beautiful, all things to draw you in. At the end of the day it's selling a brand and has been funded by that brand. The video has been produced to draw attention to the brand, and that's advertising. Lets face it, that's the reason there are sponsored riders - to get your brand out there and sell more bikes/widgets/things.
This is an example of advertising moving on, spotting a new outlet that's, well, it's bloody cheap if you don't have to pay someone to promote it. Hell, monetise it on Youtube and your target audience even generates some more cash for you possibly even paid for by your direct rivals and that's pretty bloody amazing really.
ST have been pretty revolutionary in bringing print and digital media together, but they also constantly evolve. They clearly love what they are doing and want it to survive. To survive they need to pay the bills, earn a living and have something left over for investing in their future.
I do wonder if the whole video thing is directly impacting advertising sales. Think about it. You can pay for a nice glossy full page ad in the printed mag, or get the very same organisation to stick a video on their website and quite conceivably get more hits on that video in one day than the entire circulation of the printed mag. Why would you do the print advert if you can do that?
I don't blame the marketing people for this, they are just doing their job and that's fine, but equally I don't blame Mark for saying 'hang on a minute, there's something not quite right here'. It's all part of the evolving nature of the business of advertising. I suspect Mark is a bit ahead of the curve on this and can see this being more widespread. At the end of the day, organisations like ST need advertisers and advertisers need organisations like ST. I'm sure there's a balance that will be reached. It's the future. Probably!
The same argument could be applied to articles online or in the mag with factory tours, "people being the brand" like Keith aBontrager etc. Pretty much everything connected to a brand puts potential customers into the sales funnel - so where do you draw the line?
Isn't the difference editorial control, though?
You miss the point. If the "freeloaders" did indeed piss off, this site would be worth a fraction of what it is.
Which is probably true, but without income (either from ads, subscribers or mag sales) there wouldn't [b]be[/b] a site.
FWIW I think Mark is entirely right here - why should STW pay (in bandwidth and overheads) to run someone else's viral marketing?
And see that little P next to my username, you're welcome.
I don't recall thanking you for anything.
I presume you don't use adblock and don't complain about advertising on the site
You presume do you?
Have been noticing that the general trend has been premier members have been pro Marks stance and nays have been non prem.
Yay and nay? what have you been smoking?
I am neither yay or nay.
STW can do whatever they want, makes zero difference to me. I can watch videos and read decent reviews on kit, product launches for free on any number of sites and I'll be advertised to exactly as I am here.
I just thought it was an interesting discussion, which it was before you and junky got all emotional. It's Marks decision, and one it seems he's made.
I don't recall thanking you for anything.
Not only did the freeloader not thank us you think you are a "customer" ZOKES TO THE FORUM 😀
which it was before you and junky got all emotional
Ah the old switcheroo move, bit obvious but you know you gave it a shot 😕
Forgive me for disagree with you obviously I must be very very upset 🙄
Blockade at STW towers this morning? parkings free but a at a premium due to market day.. i m with stw here they provide a platform if the folks are prepared to pay riders producers etc to make the thing the least they can do is pay for its exposure.. i m pretty sure cinemas dont show films for free..
Ah the old switcheroo move, bit obvious but you know you gave it a shot
Nothing remotely personal, sweary or aggressive in my posts so far Junky. That's because I'm not upset.
How can you freeload a free to use forum?
No you miss the point without folk paying for it there would be **** all for you to see
I thought this sort of site generated revenue from page hits and selling advertising based on this and isn't the premier thing in the history of STW. Who's to say how much revenue we do or don't generate by clicking through adverts and buying kit?
What really winds me up is when Premier members think they have more rights than [i]freeloaders[/i] and can sneer at us. It's a memebership not a share. 😈