While the thread is active, I would like to take advantage to check a couple of things out.

Is there consensus that these commercially funded sponsorship slots can be reasonably described as adverts?

If so, are they being implemented through the mechanism of the existing qualification that I had previously noted could be drawn from the statement below. Further, if the phrasing below is being used as a mechanism for introducing growth, can we expect it to be used more consistently throughout the site in preparation for any similar proposals?

No Banner Ads. By becoming a Wincustomize subscriber, you help support our website in many ways. We recognize this by removing banners and other ads from the website that may hinder your surfing experience. We want all of our loyal patrons to have the most enjoyable surfing experience possible.

.......... alternatively, was the above just an incidental phrase that was never intended to be taken advantage of? In which case does this proposal represent a decision to simply deviate from the terms stated at the beginning of this present subscription drive?

If it is the latter, what mechanism exists to change the terms of subscriptions? Is there a clause that enables Wincustomize to make such changes at any time it sees fit, that would supersede any other conditions?


For the record, the aspect that I think bothers me more than anything else is this-

Members were actively encouraged to promote subscriptions to other people off-site, including friends and family. We were linked back to the charity page which amongst the FAQ section, stated "What do I get for my subscription?You get ad-free browsing," . It wasn't qualified in any way. These were the terms we were invited to use as sales points.

While I don't feel that there's anything in the realisation of the proposed change that if implemented, need necessarily cause additional surfing issues for subscribers. I do feel that the principle of putting members in the position of promoting a benefit that hasn't even made it to the end of this drive without being up for review, isn't acceptable, and however unlikely it is to happen again, should be challenged as a matter of course.

Tks

Okay, so which way is the tree bending here. I thought the OP presented the facts clear enough that I voted yes. Bottom line for me was I pay more for a subscription or get a sponsor to kick in money so provide new revenue to cover new enhancements, upgrades and or goodies for subscribers.

I don't want to interpret what others are saying, but is it that those of you who are saying no want to pay more for a subscription or have no more enhancements, upgrades or additional subsciber goodies. Of course you maybe of the mindset that you believe no new revenue is needed.

I'm really a bottom line kind of person.

The talk of extras may be a little confusing........

"Object Desktop" Subscribers get extras like the Turbo Skin and early betas for upcoming product releases.

"Wincustomize" Subscribers get
Wincustomize Browser [Beta] (last update Jun 2006)
WC Select Skin
R.I.P. Suite (Oct 2007)
Kryptonite Suite (Nov 2006)
Augustus Suite (Nov 2003)

I'm not sure if I missed anything but the "extras" are not why I subscribe.

Very well said Kenwas.

That is the question indeed, but I repeat:

"The issue for me is that there seems to be a basic flaw in the subscription model and as a result the core subscribers must give more or diminish the perks to compensate for the increase in freeloaders(for lack of a better term). The real issue to be solved is why does not this increased traffic bring the needed increase in subscribers with it? What is missing that will get a percentage of them to sign up and stay? If this is not resolved, it will continue to be necessary to go back to the core for more on a regular basis."

Where do you propose the funds needed to maintain and/or upgrade the website come from, then?

I can't imagine WC relying solely on subscribers (no matter how many incentives there are to subscribe) to support and maintain this site. There will always be more 'freeloaders' than subscribers. That's the nature of humanity...."why pay for it when I can get it free???".

Most 'freeloaders' don't care about the perks or they would have subscribed already. Or they can't afford to subscribe, or just don't want to, period. Is raising the cost of subscriptions going to cover the increasing cost of carrying the non-paying customers? No. Why? Because the better you make the website, the more freeloaders you are going to get.

No one ever said it was a great choice, nor an easy one. But when it comes down to it, which evil will you choose? I always try and choose the lesser of them.....

You can always place more ads on the non-subscribers. But this, too, has drawbacks. Too many ads and people will go to other sites. And heaven forbid you ever clear you cache and have to log back in!!!!  

Lower the amount of megabytes that freeloaders are allowed. Cut it in half. You can still DL alot of skins, etc. with 250mb. You know, get people hooked then cut off their supply....(WC...the drug-dealer of OS customizations   ).

Just a couple of ideas. Maybe not very good ones, but I've had about 15 hours of sleep since Saturday so please forgive me......

Having took a few moments to think about what I asked in reply 113 I realize how dumb a questions it was.

By their nature, non-subscribers are not going to spend anything to get something. There is nothing that could be done that would generate revenue from them. The only real questions is how does WC and or Stardock turn more of it's visitors and non-subscribers into subscribers. Unfortunately the only folks that can answer that are those folks themselves.

I'm not going to suggest to WC that they do a non-subscriber poll to see what it would take, would any of you?

Unfortunately I've reached a limit on what I can tell you to back up my statements.  There's a lot of crunching going on regarding ad sales, subscription numbers, skin and affiliate sales, staffing and operational costs etc that is driving this discussion.  Those numbers though can't be posted publicly.

Without going into numbers, non-subscribers are carrying the bulk of the load now.  And this sponsorship deal largely applies to them anyway, it's just the nature of the deal that *if* we did one, the "Sponsored By" bit would have to be generally visible.  A sponsorship involves a lot of banner ads and such that subscribers still won't see.  Even with the sponsorship deal, it's income we're generating by-and-large off of the non-paying users.

It's the income from non-subscribers that are going to enable us to give more to subscribers.  The placement of the subscriber logo is the compromise we had to make in this case.

You speak in the past tense. It appears to me the decision has been made.

For me it goes to the end of 'V'. After all is said and done, beyond terrible acts of revenge, he still knew that the future lay with the community that had so badly failed in the past. It always comes back to someone trying again....and having faith in others to try again.


To be clear, I have no problem with discrete advertising that brings revenue to the site, while maintaining the spirit of the phrase "not hinder etc. etc.", with all the subjective checks & balances that entails. Nor do I mind a total revisit of the subscription package if that's thought preferable. As has been noted, subscribers are in the main, that demographic that have already illustrated a willingness to make web-based purchases. As a group we do have added value to advertisers and I understand that, It is an asset and it should be explored.

My one objection was stated clearly. I'm happy to speak further to it publicly or privately if asked, but don't feel any need to do so.

I don't think semantics around logo, brand, advertise, sponsor etc. will survive the synonym game. They will be found too often to be interchangeable and in my mind lack sufficient 'clear blue water' to make the distinction useful.

In the face of that, once you take this step and place a commercial logo/brand on the sidebar, are you comfortable with promoting the site as 'ad-free' for subscribers?

I think we can survive looking at that squarely, re-defining where necessary and then moving on, with less damage than will be caused by trying to sidestep the issue.

One of the recurring concerns, is the theme of the slippery slope, it speaks to issues of trust and can become corrosive. The responses have been assurances based on conviction & belief. I absolutely believe in the veracity of that intent, throughout both Wincustomize & Stardock.. I also believe the best way of propping up that intent, is to be clear about what/if any mechanisms/commitments are being proposed in order to support those assertions.

For example, it is possible to commit to restraining the commercial slots to certain areas, to restrict the sponsors image to a certain size etc.. such areas of agreement should be do-able. Such a framework could easily recognise that a particularly lucrative, long term sponsorship deal, may want to press at the edges of agreed boundaries, and have built in ,the facility for Zoomba to return to subscribers and request special attention for such a deal.

Given the choice, I prefer to fight to be part of a thread that was recognised as proposing a positive development, through facing head on the challenges of change; rather than dancing around an issue that risks being remembered as the beginning of a slippery slope, in which through the disingenuous use of semantics, the edges became blurred.

While I still think it sounds like an acceptable means to help the site, has anyone given any thought to a contingency plan? Or a long term plan?

What if the extra revenue from the sponsorships doesn't balance up the account as noted in the first point (operating costs).

What if the costs are met for only a short period of time (there's that slippery slope thing)?

And if not a short period of time, covering the shortfall will most likely be limited due the reasons aufisch and kenwas spoke of earlier; increasing non-subscriber base with subscribers and advertisers being a slower growing revenue base than non-subscribers.

Clearly, something needs to be done, but I think it is a mistake to look at this plan of sponsors as a magic bullet that will solve all the revenue woes for all time.