ASA gave Singletrack a telling off today

A member of the public complained to the Advertising Standard Authority about our membership offering and in particular the benefit of the ad free website. Here’s the letter we got today…

I’ve gone ahead and made changes to the membership page today to clear this up. I think it’s fair enough that we were asked to do this. The last thing we want is to have a member confused enough about what ‘ad free’ actually means to such an extent that they go to the trouble of reporting us to the ASA.

I hope this clears everything up and sorry for anyone who feels they were mislead into a membership by our vagueness around what ‘ad free’ means.

They could have just mentioned it to you first…

I don’t get some people.

The last thing we want is to have a member confused enough about what ‘ad free’ actually means to such an extent that they go to the trouble of reporting us to the ASA.

Do you not think it’s more indicative of the strength of feeling at how poor and unusable the forum has become (yet there is still such a sense of community, loyalty, call it what you will) that folk keep coming back? I don’t think the root cause is semantics of the membership offer wording!

They could have just mentioned it to you first…

I don’t get some people.

^^^That.

But we easily forget many people aren’t part of this community and the magazine/website is just a product to them.

I don’t think the root cause is semantics of the membership offer wording!

ASA did.

They could have just mentioned it to you first…

whereupon it would’ve been robustly ignored – the subject has definitely been raised on the forum before! (it wasn’t me btw 😂)

Well, they probably did mention it. I’ve seen loads of comments in numerous threads annoyed about ads.

And you can’t really be mad at someone for exercising a right to complain to a regulatory authority.

I also find it funny there’s an ‘ad’ in the middle of the post about using the term ‘ad free’.

Whoever took the time to do that is a **** of absolutely epic proportions. I always wondered what happened to people like that after Points Of View stopped being broadcast

I think the point is about what constitutes ad free, not that the ads are annoying. I agree with that. They are really annoying. I hate them as I’ve said many times. We can all agree on that I think. I’ve also replied to some of the posts about ads on here and I’m always happy to do that. Some get missed or not responded too because they don’t get seen by any of us. However, our emails are public and we always respond to direct communication. Mine is mark@singletrackworld.com if anyone wants to raise any issues with ads or anything else.

I always wondered what happened to people like that after Points Of View stopped being broadcast

Are you Mr Tully of Sidcup?

They could have just mentioned it to you first…

They probably have an expectation that games are being played with regulation as is the the way with lots of modern businesses. Game, ignore or capture the regulatory system is the way a lot of business operates today (not saying that this happens at GoFar).  See the shenanigans at the Premier League with FSR, water companies and sewage discharge and a whole host of other things we are subject to by supposedly ‘ethically run’ and regulatory compliant businesses.

David Allen Green has covered this in some depth recently.

Whoever took the time to do that is a **** of absolutely epic proportions.

Why?

It’s exactly what the ASA is there for.

Something was mis-described so it was reported to an authority that has the power to get it fixed.

No-one at ST Towers has been fined or gone to jail and they now know how such things should be worded to make it clear.

whereupon it would’ve been robustly ignored

[Unfortunately] This!

Actually not this.

Anyway, I’ve also made it clear on the membership page that classified ads are not included in the ad free benefit – ad yes, I have been contacted directly to suggest that this was an issue as they are ads and as a member they could still see them.

I think it’s clear that there is an expectation from some that the forum is a legitimate method of making contact with us directly. It really isn’t. We do not, never have, and never will read every post on the forum. It’s just not practical. However, I do get why in the modern social media space some people would think and expect that if they raise an issue on the forum that we would/should respond. It’s a conundrum for sure. But as has always been the case, every member of staff is directly contactable. Our details are on the contact us page and our DM’s are open. I get a lot of direct messages via the private messaging function on here and I will always respond, as will other members of the team.

The issue of ads though is that display ads are easily turned off by us using filtering that detects if you are a full member and simply doesn’t direct your request through the ad system. Other means of marketing that doesn’t go through the ad system like us promoting our own content, merch, subs, messages pointing out the mag or member only articles are available etc. don’t go through our ad system so they are not part of that benefit. Classified ad are a separate system and I can’t for the life of me fathom why anyone would expect those to be turned off if you are a member.

But as always, while I fully agree that display ads are annoying, the answer is to pay us to get rid of them. They are not annoying to deliberately twist your arm into paying us to get rid of them.

Anyway, I hope there’s no more confusion now we’ve made these changes.

does this mean you’ll be turning off the annoying pop up auto start video ads that come up on mobile too?

Actually, speaking of which I’m just on the phone to ASA now. You say “unlimited digital access”, but when I try to post too fast in the forum it tells me to slow down! And just now I just tried to post this reply to this thread and it booted me out and made me log in again!

Outrageous, trading standards have been informed.

(very much 😉 )

While you’re here Mark – you might want to remove the Buy with Apple Pay button from the sign up page. As you don’t actually allow sign up using Apple Pay (according to one of your staff).

They could have named and shamed on social media instead! Seems to be the way these days.

Do you not think it’s more indicative of the strength of feeling at how poor and unusable the forum has become

Is there a ‘strength of feeling’ or are there just a group of folks who’ll never miss the opportunity to complain?

does this mean you’ll be turning off the annoying pop up auto start video ads that come up on mobile too?

No. But you can. The control for that is in your account settings.

I think sometimes people forget that there’s more to the jobs of the people of STW than just sitting around and reading the forum when the aren’t riding bikes. There’s a magazine to run as well and sometimes posts go unread by the people of STW towers, as shocking as it may seem.

I think sometimes people forget that there’s more to the jobs of the people of STW than just sitting around and reading the forum

i think there’s plenty of people who forget they’re more to their own jobs than just sitting around and reading the forum 🙂

100% fair cop IMO.

Not as if there haven’t been 100s of threads about the ads for paid up members on suposedly ad free membership.

@mark

No. But you can. The control for that is in your account settings.

can you elaborate please as I had a quick look and couldn’t see any settings options

much appreciated

Under “My Account” and “Preferences”

I think it’s in preferences, disabled videos.

It’s one thing pointing it out on a thread, quite another to go off and get the ASA involved. But there are some decidedly odd folk out there.

Still, you only have to change a few words on the site to be compliant. Just call it the ‘ad-light membership’. Whereas the individual concerned will potentially need years of expensive therapy to correct their unusual behaviours.

Not as if there haven’t been 100s of threads about the ads for paid up members on suposedly ad free membership.

Has there really been 100’s?

I mean, c’mon.. I’m here listening, responding, changing and have said the ASA thing was fair enough. There was no intent to deceive, the point is valid and as a result I’m changed the labels and wording to make it clear what is an isn’t part if the ad free bit. It literally took me a few minutes and I’m annoyed at myself for not making it clearer in the first place. I’m happy to engage with anyone about Singletrack but let’s not start making up stuff like this.

Not as if there haven’t been 100s of threads about the ads for paid up members on suposedly ad free membership.

I don’t see any ads on my ‘ad free’ membership. Other than links in the members discounts area and the classifieds. But if I go to the classifieds then I’ll see classifieds listing, I don’t count that as seeing “ads”.

Just like if I pay for “ad free” YouTube Premium but then try to watch this video

Then I’m going to see an advert. But by any reasonable measure that doesn’t mean YouTube have lied to me.

Edit: if you’re paying to remove ads e.g. a big banner saying “Drink Sprint!” , and they’re still showing then fair enough. But it sounded like the basis of the complaint was “I paid to remove ads but I can still choose to go to the classifieds or member benefits pages”.

Thinking about it, could it be a disgruntled spouse who’s bought a membership to keep their other half from buying more second hand bikes/bits?

I don’t see any ads on my ‘ad free’ membership.

so you’re not seeing a big banner ad for Saracen right at the top of the main forum page? 🤔

That’s our forum sponsor.

That’s a jpg placed directly on the page and is not served through our ad system. There’s no tracking on it. It’s a static image and no data is being transmitted through the ad networks to any 3rd parties. I get that it’s an ad and this is the crux of the whole ASA issue. It’s right that we make it clear that parts of the site are sponsored by brands and that these sponsorships are not included in the ad free part of the membership.

No. But you can. The control for that is in your account settings.

Cool. Done that and now just get a black box popup 🙄

The video still appears if you click away from the site (clicking a link in a post for example) and then use your back button despite that setting.

@Mark

No. But you can. The control for that is in your account settings.

Can you point me to the button that makes that button work please? 😉

It’s switched off but every time I follow a link that takes me off the site the video reappears on my return.

That control sets a cookie on your device. If you have restricted how cookies are dealt with on your device then this will break the control.

Sorry if that doesn’t sound awfully helpful. But cookies are usually where the problem lies. I’ll be back when I’ve asked tech for the name of the actual cookie being set and then anyone interested or with an issue can search in the settings of their browser to see if it’s being picked up and dealt with correctly.

Seems crazy you sold me an ad for Hebtroco on an ad free website 🤷🏻‍♂️

Fair enough on the Saracen banner. I’ll be honest I scroll past it so quickly I hadn’t really registered it on the homepage, and I did a proper check within this topic page to see if there were any ads I’d missed. Maybe that’s a bit fairer then.

That control sets a cookie on your device. If you have restricted how cookies are dealt with on your device then this will break the control.

No specific cookie controls set, just standard settings on iOS. It’s actually got worse recently in that simply clicking away from the browser (as I did just now to check any cookie settings) makes the video appear upon switching back to the app.

I don’t think this will satisfy anyone who is upset as a member by the video player but those aren’t ads for you. Those are videos we have made. For us those are content. I get that not everyone is interested or perceives any difference if it’s in the way, but that’s why we treat the videos differently to our ads. When a member sees one of those videos there is no ad revenue component unless it is a video includes a sponsor.

I do see things from your perspective too and I’m not diminishing any claims to it being annoying but I thought it might be helpful to get the viewpoint from the other side. It’s also why we built the control to allow full members to deactivate it.

Mark, appreciate you taking the time to respond and what you do here, but it’s Friday evening. Open a cold beer / glass of wine / have a cuppa and us whingers will still be here on Monday 😀

Have a great weekend!

Light green rosette, appropriate browsers, not me. It’s good to see you on the forum, Mark. We’ve had “debates” in the past and it was good for good will.

I noticed an interest being taken in the browsers we’re using recently. In the US that’s where the ad wars are being fought through the courts. Some Internet business ad models seem to rely on people being Internet dunces. As people wise up the return on some types of advertsing will fall and companies will have to find new ways to optimise their advertising spend. There’s more than ever being spent on advertising but it’s increasingly going to where the company controls the whole experience rather than a part of it. The likes of Meta are doing fine but the ad revenues of companies such as STW, The New York times or the Guradian less so:

https://pressgazette.co.uk/marketing/google-cookies-chrome-publishers/

Ads are a bit like tax, too much tax kills tax revenue, too much advertising kills advertising revenue. And the inability to advertise can kill a business.

Hope you find ways of getting STW through this.