People who do not want to pay (majority of people do not want to pay) will find way to get around trial periods. Advertisers really want to target people who spend money. If a site is completely free, they have no way of knowing who those are. But when you have paying and non paying customers, they know where their ads should go.

Well, fontinalis, what is your suggestion then? It's easy to say "no ads please", but in the reality of the situation, WC needs more money to operate. Like you said...

This site won't be great if it doesn't have income to pay the bills..... this site will simply cease to exist.

And for what it's worth, I came to this site well before going to SD. It's this site that made me want to purchase ODNT, along with ObjectDock Plus and CXP Plus. If it weren't for WC, I wouldn't have spent the $75 to get those.

So can I. I know that many might not agree, but I seriously wouldn't mind paying a bit more just to keep the site for subscribers ad-free.

Having ads on a site (even static ones) changes the feel of a site. Frogboy says that he keeps the site alive for the community. I feel it would be best if we preserve the community and keep it ad-free.

Now that doesn't sound like too bad of an idea actually. The only problem I see with that is convincing people to become subscribers. This site already gives you 4 suites/skins, the WC Browser, and the WC Tray. Plus discounts on master suites. It seems like a good deal IMHO, but apparently this isn't enough to draw in the masses. So what would it take for the nonsubs to want to subscribe? That's where the real question lies........

IMHO you're right Nimbin. Apparently non-subscribers don't feel that way, unfortunately.

Well...with the site 'model' of 'sponsorship' it means that for a quite unobtrusive logo displayed to subscribers combined with added prominence [intrusion] for NON-subscribers the Subscriptions will be MORE desirable with added 'goodies' provided for them alone.

I honestly can't see a 'down-side', particularly if you were to argue that what is imagined 'no advertising' means for Subscribers is fundamentally and profoundly different from a sponsor logo placement.

Subscribers are spared the 'horrors' of flashy banners, pop-ups/unders/whatever - they are reserved for those who choose to endure them.

I personally think that a sponsor logo is not at all at odds with the concept of 'no advertising' and along with the prospect of added returns/benefits to the Subscribers through more/frequent 'goodies' that there's no legitimate reason to oppose it...

I just used Opera to browse WC as a visitor to see how intrusive the ads are. I completely missed the google ads because they were so low key. I did not find any other ads on home page. The other day I saw a post by vStyler about a kid making more money on ads by giving away some web site customization stuff than needed to sustain WC

vStylers Post

Looking to the results, do you not think there's a sense in which through failing to commit to the issues, that you compromised any positive message, making it more difficult for people to be clear about what they are being asked to support? That as a consequence, the uncertainty that was created, allowed members to paint their own negative mental picture of advertisements throughout the site, and then vote on that?.



I desperately wanted to get to grips with this issue and this thread, so that we could move on to the positives, but never felt as if that opportunity was given.

Look at the language we were invited to absorb; "It's not a typical ad", "It's merely a logo placement", "a sponsorship placement". The first responses were absolutely indicative that people felt they were being asked to rationalise and join in agreeing to avoid the 'ad-free' issue.

At the same time this mere logo placement was attributed the following descriptons - "a drastic change" , "A change like this, if implemented, could be a pretty big deal".

This sort of schism was present throughout and pointedly unresolved. Wincustomize needed to move past the apprehension, come back to us with a sense of conviction, and give us a positive proposal we can work with.

When some people wanted to look at where it might all end, assurances were offered:-

"To the concerns that this may be a stepping stone to more and more ads for subscribers as time goes on. That's not how this is going to go down. If nothing else will calm that fear, let me say this... I browse the site on the same subscriber settings as every other subscriber. I get to approve/reject prospective sponsors"

As much as I believe that they were heartfelt and sincere, it was then indicated that at this time, the level of internal communication was insufficient to bring this to us as a solid proposition.

"Sponsorships as they've been explained to me..........".

"Hard to say for certain what the future holds. The intention is to never let it get bad, to keep it to one sponsor logo/block".

Have the internal discussions and move on to the point whereby you can assert without being compromised. Come back with an ability to express that conviction as a commitment.

Even the poll itself was a monument to fear. Not once in this poll do you give space for the possibility that if well managed and presented, that discrete ad placements in the context of sponsorship could be actively supported. The first option is a catch all for site supporters, not a validation of the proposal. The next two are the equivalent of pleas for mercy, not positive reinforcements.

Anything that supports the site is good in my book
I'm OK with the idea, but not thrilled
I don't care
I pay to have the site ad-free. No!
Add site sponsorships, and I may leave

One of the strangest aspects of the whole deal, is that after treading so lightly and carefully in an attempt not to have to face the 'ad-free'' issue head on, there's actually the term ad-free in the poll. More of that schism thing again.....

We get you're compromised by the timing, how could we not? Own it Offer it up to us honestly and we'll deal with it honestly. We want to support the site, we want to support the people that manage the site... give us the chance to do so.

I'm personally all for Sponsors... I think people think that someone sponsors us and the website is going to be covered in their logo. These sponsorships will be completely different then and ad. Look how advertisements are placed for non subscribers in the forums, right in the middle of everything and then on the FAR right of it you can see where the sponsorship would be. Its not going to be in your way of browsing at all.

It is from a sense of frustration. I don't have any particular preference to outcome. That's not the point of any of my posts, What I'm saying is that there is nothing that has taken place since this poll began, to suggest to me that there is any confidence in a shared lexicon and that it was something that was both foreseeable and avoidable.

I think to then follow up by giving the subsequent poll results too much weight, while not clearly demonstrating that we are operating from a shared understanding, is not necessarily useful. There is a level of dialogue that could have taken place reasonably quickly, particularly so, had we been presented with some additional, pre-prepared context that would I think have been helpful to the process..

I am absolutely open to being offered anything that will help me understand different viewpoints and underpin community adhesion........ I started from the following position:-

There is a definition (there are many similar variations and it is widely referenced), which has been described as an influential definition provided by Philip Kotler and his colleagues:-

“Advertising is any paid form of non-personal presentation and promotion of ideas, goods or services to mass media such as newspapers, magazines, television or radio by an identified sponsor”.

The thing about a logo, is that where as an element it is part of a brand, and where a brand is described as something that is intended in part to provoke the customer into associating values and considering ideas - then even without looking at associated synonyms such as promotions, publicity etc.. the presence of a recognisable logo on the sidebar, starts to look like advertising.

I think the above, may go to the gut feeling of lots of people.......... I reference later the 'experience of advertising' versus the intention.

An expression of the alternative viewpoint is found at UCLA bruintech where they outline their site policy, and we can see this issue focussed on more closely:-

In his book Marketing for Non-Profit Organizations, author and professor of international marketing Philip Kotler defines advertising as “Any paid form of non-personal presentation and promotion of ideas, goods or services by an identified sponsor.” In the context of Web sites, advertising can be recognized by the use of banner ads, corporate and product logos (depending on context), value statements (“leading supplier”, “best deal”, “no. 1,” etc.), links to commercial sites, and statements urging actions resulting in commercial transactions (“buy now,” “don’t miss this opportunity to order,” etc.).

The presence of a corporate or product logo on a University Web site, or the ability to conduct University business via electronic transactions external to the University, do not in themselves constitute advertising or commercial content. Corporate/donor acknowledgement is permissible within guidelines, provided it does not imply endorsement, support, or advancement of any product or service.

The .pdf can be found here: Direct Link to small .PDF

How that differs for a profit making corporation, or for Wincustomize, I don't know how to speak to. UCLA bruintech is certainly clear that they feel able to include a commercial logo without it necessarily constituting an advertisement. How the link aspect of the 'button' works for Wincustomize, may need further discussion? . The point is, I don't think it's such a difficult proposition to have approached and sought to resolve - had sufficient value been attributed to the discussion..

Moving on to that issue of customer experience, one of the features of advertising, is that the customer experience may well differ from marketing perception, This was illustrated by another advertising industry giant and goes like this:-

The consumer perspective turns out to be very different. For example, a study by the Leo Burnett agency of 1000 consumers called at random and asked what they would call a wide variety of marketing communication forms discovered that consumers answered "advertising" to over 100 different forms of marketing communication.

So once again, my feeling is that this wasn't sufficiently understood before presenting the poll, otherwise I would have expected more preparation may have been evident to offset being sidetracked..

If I can finish by saying that I obviously read Zoomba's posts and he came across as very committed to the site, to it's members and to the process of funding and development. I don't want there to be any doubt about my appreciation for his being willing to tackle the issue at all I'd like to see it come back, to see the advertising issue put to bed, to see a more confident approach to defining boundaries and re-assuring members about the visual impact, and finally see a more positive approach to the poll options.

I'd feel more honest about the result and any subsequent funding decisions.

Feedback is welcomed.

Without trying to sound too cocky ... you ARE a servant of customers, and the customer IS always right.
Simplified economics 101 : If a manufacturer offers a product that the customer doesn't consider priceworthy, he/she won't buy it and the manufacturer will end up bankrupt in no-time. You don't pay the bills, the customer does. As a CEO you should be able to understand that the manufacturer's money comes out of the customer's pockets. If the customer is not willing to buy, the manufacturer will not receive any money.




True, without WindowBlinds we wouldn't be designing WindowBlind skins. However the content, originally created for the software, quickly turned it around and started driving the software. Type "Customise windows" in Google, and the first result is wincustomize.com . Stardock isn't even on the first page. Or the second page either, or any other page I looked at before giving up and getting back to typing this post.

What wincustomize does is a lot more than just offer some extra skins. This site is home of a big customizing community, uniting dozens of skinners who create hunderds of suites and skins. People looking for a way to customize their PC will end up here first, see the skins, read what application they are made for, and only then will they start to look for said application and buy it from Stardock. Not the other way around.

Without wincustomize this skinning community would not exist. There would be a lot of individual skinners, but they would be hard to find.
Without this community, people would end up directly at Stardock's site, look at the skins on offer there and think "well, nothing really suits me, so I'm not going to pay this much for something that turns my stock desktop into something else I don't really want".



Stardock, despite being a multi-million dollar business, most likely wouldn't survive long without the skinning community. If the community would design skins for another manufacturer's products, the customer would purchase said products rather than Stardock's. This community surrounds wincustomize.com , and mentioning a move to another site and claiming that Stardock doesn't need wincustomize is a direct insult to all those skinners who lovingly spend their free time making the skins that are directly contributing to the success of Stardock's products.

Mentioning winamp is kinda funny though, as virtually no-one is downloading their own skins as well. Nearly every single Winamp user I know has a skin that didn't come from the winamp site.

No-one knows how much money Stardock gets out of customers who buy their products because of wincustomize. However I wouldn't be surprised if it exceeds the cost of maintaining wincustomize itself by far.

-----

I know I can't speak for the rest of the community, and wouldn't want to do so, but I am currently working on a cursorXP and an objectdock theme, with plans to start work on a windowblinds theme as soon as I buy the product itself. But if stardock drops Wincustomize I will not follow to whatever site Stardock goes to and am very prepared to alter those plans and modify everything I've done so far to go with ... well ... TuneUp 2008 for example. I know tuneup doesn't have a replacement for ObjectDock, but I doubt it would take more than 5 minutes to find something similar. Probably cheaper as well, only with less skins because of the lack of a community. But the latter doesn't really bother me, as I can do everything myself and/or point out the alternative to some master skinners and get the ball rolling. I'm not saying I will, I'm merely pointing out a likely scenario.

Xavier Saenen

Frogboy,

Thanks for your comments. I appreciate what you guys are offering here at WC and although I am not an artist and can't really contribute to skins and stuff I want to thank you for making WC possible. I would like to ask you if you guys could set up a "Gift a WC Subscription" (like magazines do) with some caveats like WB6 ??? included.

I don't know about the technicalities but if you could set it up where we could buy someone a subscription, they would get the email, then they could login themselves and set their site up, and start enjoying the site too.

Some of the technicalities may be that when a person signs up it is their personally picked user name, account, etc. So when they hit the site, SW would be needed to recognize that they were a "Gift Subscriber" recipient for an pre-paid (gifted) account, and they would fill out their personal info. and VIOLA! New gifted members.

Please think about it. I think all the hard work work necessary to facilitate a subscription gift giving system would go a long way, and I'll be the first to gift one out.

Merry Christmas,
f