Forum menu
[img] 
[/img]
i m pretty sure cinemas dont show films for free..
You're right well almost as they pay to show them.
How can you freeload a free to use forum?
The price of admission, as well you know no doubt, is either a subscription or an agreement to the receiving of advertising. If you're a non-Premier user actively blocking the advertising content, you're denying the site both streams of revenue and hence freeloading.
What really winds me up is when Premier members think they have more rights than freeloaders and can sneer at us. It's a memebership not a share.
Premier users don't have more rights than advertising-supported free members (and for what it's worth, don't get preferential treatment from a moderation standpoint either). But I can readily understand why someone who's paid their way might get a bit snippy with those who are sat there boasting "what ads?", I would be a bit miffed also.
I do idly wonder how our most vocal advertising dodgers will feel when their "free" forum goes pop due to lack of funding. Probably just shrug and move on to the next free content site I suppose, rinse and repeat.
Thought this was vaguely relevant.
A few observations...
1. Singletrack does not currently feature many "sick edits" anyway. Have a quick compare of the ST site to Pinkbike's front page if you doubt this.
2. Mark and his team have built a big audience by offering quality content (and owning a hugely popular forum).
3. Would it be a good idea to risk alienating that audience by delegating a bit of editorial control to whoever is willing to pony up to have their video featured?
4. I severely doubt they'll be instructing the mods to remove links to video content from the forum, I suspect some of you have added two and two and got six there.
BUT, reading the Bikebiz piece, I think Mark's stance is more about overall marketing budgets than videos per se - and perhaps its useful to get marketing managers thinking about the matter.
BUT, reading the Bikebiz piece, I think Mark's stance is more about overall marketing budgets than videos per se - and perhaps its useful to get marketing managers thinking about the matter.
Agreed, the point I was trying to get across earlier was that you have marketing manager for a bike company who wants a bit of advertising. In a simplistic breakdown they can pay for it through
a). Having a sponsored rider (kit and maybe a bit of cash)
b). Bringing in a small media company to do a 'sick edit'
c). Maybe pony up for some travel expenses
At present that video is then posted to Youtube, Vimeo, Facebook etc to host so they aren't paying for bandwidth there.
they then may pay for
d). Facebook/twitter advertising rates to promote the story to people who haven't already liked their page
How about adding in?
e). An advertising fee to websites who can promote it for you and already run your print adverts anyway.
There are some good little videos out there to watch, I liked the Alpkit ones recently and was inspired by them. The Minipips one is great and that kid is awesome and deserved to be showcased.
Is it ultimately an advert? Yes
Do I want them to make more? Yes
Do I buy far too much Alpkit stuff? My bank balance seems to say as much
Should they pay for the dissemination of their advert? Yes
Do they have to? No, they could rely on the forum to hit the potential STW customers or pay a bit and it's an item on ever pageload for all STW users for a while
I just thought it was an interesting discussion, which it was before you and junky got all emotional.
Just remember that words hurt
[img] 
[/img]
I need a hug now
If you are only allowing brands that pay then surely that impacts the little guys most? Take for instance Cotic vs Spesh or SRAM then we know who will have the biggest budgets.
ake for instance Cotic vs Spesh or SRAM then we know who will have the biggest budgets
Or it depends how they value the exposure STW brings, I imagine Cotic would gain more from having a vid featured here than Spesh
Cy has already stated on Twitter that he "totally agrees with Marks argument"
If the small companies - Cotic, Stanton, Alpkit etc (that IMO generally produce the more interesting original vids but maybe get overlooked by the more American/European based sites) are happy to pay a small amount and be featured then I think it will be a good position as they get better exposure and the site maintains some interest
I need a hug now
poor little man. C'mere you.
I've always felt that sports/leisure pursuits publications were little more than advertising vehicles anyway, certainly none seem to have existed without extensive adverts within, so I don't see a problem with a publication demanding a fee for posting videos of the type mentioned here. Bike manufacturers aren't giving stuff away for free. So to expect the publications that give their products expose, to do that is hypocritical and downright rude.
On the flip side; I notice this website offers branded clothing advertising the magazine/website, which they charge for. I find it quite funny that they might want me to pay for advertising their products, in the context of this discussion! Like so many other labelled clothing etc brands. I'm quite happy for you to pay me to wear something advertising your products, but if you think I'm going to pay you, you're daft! 😆
As for paying something to help keep this website going; that's a fair point, but then it's all about choice. There's plenty of 'free' stuff on the internet for me to exploit; you'd have to offer something well above and beyond for me to want to do so.
chakaping - MemberA few observations...
1. Singletrack does not currently feature many "sick edits" anyway. Have a quick compare of the ST site to Pinkbike's front page if you doubt this.
4. I severely doubt they'll be instructing the mods to remove links to video content from the forum, I suspect some of you have added two and two and got six there.
1. No they dont, and most ones that are interesting to the average user here pop up on the forum before they appear as an article on the front page.
4. Id be surprised if they didn't, as above most videos are on the forum long before they hit the front page, infact the front page is usually quite slow to pick up on things that appear on other forums hours if not days before.
The website seems to be ran as a sub section of the mag, a 'lite' version maybe. Certainly the content of articles about industry tend to be brief compared to other sites which delve deeply into technical details or expand on other areas. I suppose that's more a result of the intended target audience, people who dont prowl around vacuuming up news and bikey facts, but instead just want the broadsheet style headlines and overview at their convenience.
4. I severely doubt they'll be instructing the mods to remove links to video content from the forum, I suspect some of you have added two and two and got six there.
We'll see.
The big difference between the forum and, say, the home page is that the vast majority of the engagement and discussion from Joe Public is on the forum. If Akrigg produces a new video, it's often on the forum before the home page and it's the forum that I - and I guess most of us - go to to discuss it (and to build up those views). I could be wrong and it'd be interesting to see the stats either way, but the forum is currently very much a "free pass" for the content Singletrack otherwise wants paying for. Unless of course two and two does indeed equal four 😉
EDIT same sentiment^. Beaten to it 🙁
Bike manufacturers aren't giving stuff away for free.
Except they do to the mags for free publicity and to butter up the jurnos. Maybe if STW were more honest about what they had been given free, then it wouldn't be so bad.
wrecker - MemberPursuing guys like cut is a total cop out. The money holders are the manufacturers and distributors.
WTF? The only person talking about pursuing them is YOU!
I was merely pointing out that they are one of the few parties actually getting PAID in this new model of online advertising. Everyone else is expected to help advertise the product for free...
WTF? The only person talking about pursuing them is YOU!
WTF? That's what this entire thread is about!
STW want to monetise showing other peoples content. Fair enough, but exactly who pays is worthy of discussion and it's my opinion that going after the guys on time plus for remuneration is unfair when the makers and movers have such deep pockets.
STW want to monetise showing other peoples [s]content[/s] adverts.
FTFY. A pretty revolutionary concept eh? When you put it like that.
I wonder if ITV know that they might be able to do this as well? As it stands they just have someone phone up and ask if they could stick their little film on in the middle of Coronation Street. They feel sort of obliged too, as they quite like sofas and supermarkets and cars and stuff.
I'll let Cougar explain exactly what we've told all the moderators in relation to branded content videos appearing on the forum.
FTFY. A pretty revolutionary concept eh? When you put it like that.
Whatever. I did say it was fair enough, but obviously you chose not to quote that bit.
and it's my opinion that going after the guys on time plus for remuneration is unfair when the makers and movers have such deep pockets.
As far as I can see, you're the only person who has suggested going after Cut Media. Anyone sensible would expect the original manufacturer, whose product it is, to end up footing the bill......
I don't see a problem with STW asking for money if they decide that a video is overly branded.
Why should they advertise for free?
They are a business after all.
Seems really quiet a simple concept being made difficult for reasons I don't understand..
As far as I can see, you're the only person who has suggested going after Cut Media.
I wasn't the first person to mention them.
An interesting point would be if Mark could demonstrate that mag/site advertising had gone down from those companies who pay for these vids to demonstrate his point that budgets are being squeezed to make "viral" stuff.
tbh lets see how it pans out.
Personally I would like to see a lovely, well shot probably massively expensive mtb video that is more than likely an advert over the videos that stw produces (no offence like)
if stw doesn't show them, ill look elsewhere.
if stw doesn't show them, ill look elsewhere.
Which is a point that's been made further up; it's not like STW publishes many sick edits compared with e.g. Pinkbike anyway. What appears to have got Mark's back up (rightly) is being contacted by people who've made what are essentially adverts (paid for from marketing budgets by sponsorship or direct funding) then expect him to run them for nothing.
over the videos that stw produces
They are utter pants aren't they, definitely at the low end of the production value scale.
videos that stw produces
Some of the expensive/high production value films I find really quite a turn off TBH..
Give me something a little bit grainy and accessible any day over roosting brown pow & tail whips!
I'll let Cougar explain exactly what we've told all the moderators in relation to branded content videos appearing on the forum.
He's said to ban anyone who complains. (-:
Basically what Mark's just said is nothing's changed, it's business as usual. Posts that fall within the existing T&Cs are still fine.
Maybe if STW were more honest about what they had been given free, then it wouldn't be so bad
Yeah, they could even put it on a weekly webpage. Maybe call it Free-Stuff Friday, or something.
Posts that fall within the existing T&Cs are still fine.
which are?
would I be allowed to post a wicked sick edit with lots of branding on just because I think it's cool and I want to share it with others?
+1 with Mark, it's the whole freetard mentality.
What appears to have got Mark's back up (rightly) is being contacted by people who've made what are essentially adverts (paid for from marketing budgets by sponsorship or direct funding) then expect him to run them for nothing.
STW has spent time, effort & money gaining an audience which someone else wants to make money from whilst paying nothing for it.
Servers (aka the cloud) don't build, maintain & run themselves despite the efforts marketeers go to give that image.
would I be allowed to post a wicked sick edit with lots of branding on just because I think it's cool and I want to share it with others?
I would assume yes, assuming that the brand isn't Jekkyl PLC
Jinx.
(-:
Great minds Cougar!
Premier users don't have more rights than advertising-supported free members (and for what it's worth, don't get preferential treatment from a moderation standpoint either). But I can readily understand why someone who's paid their way might get a bit snippy with those who are sat there boasting "what ads?", I would be a bit miffed also.
I said that they think, not that I believe and thusly comment that freeloaders are somehow a class below.
Boasting "what ads?" constantly on this type of thread is a bit silly and possibly a dig back at the smugness of the "P" owners.
I do idly wonder how our most vocal advertising dodgers will feel when their "free" content goes pop due to lack of funding. Probably just shrug and move on to the next free content site, rinse and repeat.
Personally, not that I'm a vocal ad dodger, I'd log it in with the rest of the case studies and see if any students could improve on the business model, and then get on with the rest of my life. The void would more than likely be filled with something else.
Business is sometimes very cruel.
Business is sometimes very cruel.
Yup. Sometimes you have to fight and push back to stay in.
Yup. Sometimes you have to fight and push back to stay in.
Indeed, and there'd be another case study. 😀
I said that they think, not that I believe and thusly comment that freeloaders are somehow a class below.
Boasting "what ads?" constantly on this type of thread is a bit silly and possibly a dig back at the smugness of the "P" owners.
Pfft! You'll be livid before long. Its a very exclusive club dontchaknow? Just wait until you see us out on the trails with our custom made tops, proudly displaying our big bold blue P insignia on the front. Its our admission to the trails that peasants or skinflints like you will no longer be allowed to ride.
Or you might be allowed to ride a small section of them. But only after you've read the back of some Sunday supplements advertising trousers with elasticated waistbands, and weekend cruise in the Fjords, watched a short video of the new Sofa range now available at DFS, browsed the Argos catalogue, and ordered a book or a DVD from Amazon 😛
+1 with Mark, it's the whole freetard mentality.
Well that's just rude.
and thusly comment that freeloaders are somehow a class below.
Not really I think we are paying for things they also use
They are not a lower class but they may have less class
The reality is if the site made no money it would not be here. It makes money from the mag and form the P, primarily, so without us there is no hive mind.
Itsa business not a charity
£15 for this place is a bargain IMHO
Boasting "what ads?" constantly on this type of thread is a bit silly and possibly a dig back at the smugness of the "P" owners.
Nah I have one of them anyway ad are annoying and I assume that is the motivation there rather than "depriving STW of even more money"
Nothing remotely personal, sweary or aggressive in my posts so far Junky. That's because I'm not upset.
I replied to your comment none of that is evidence of "distress" any more than you replying is
I expected better than passive aggressive twaddle, from you
Nothing passive agressive in my posts Junky, you are wide of the mark.
In fact it was a well behaved thread until you barged in and told everyone to **** off.
Anyone else concerned about the state of STW bank balance?
First the lifetime subscription, now this. I'm worried it sounds like the piggy bank might be a bit light 😕
Well I'd be surprised if the divulge that info, but Grit must have cost a bit and if the forum is anything to go by its probably not the success they'd like.
Also the competition over the years has upped their game, both in print and Internet.
STW still has plenty going for it if the right decisions are made.
P20 that's abit rude. Maybe they don't want to be a free online resource for a commercial company piggybacking.