NOTE: ADS ON THE FORUM (updated 26/10/21)

munckee

Personally I would rather pay an annual or monthly fee than have ad content. Mainly because I would be concerned there would be pressure not to criticise companies who advertise here and it would be like other sites where I was constantly battling videos etc.  

digitalscream

munckee said:

Personally I would rather pay an annual or monthly fee than have ad content. Mainly because I would be concerned there would be pressure not to criticise companies who advertise here and it would be like other sites where I was constantly battling videos etc.  

OK, that's fair comment. What if there was a choice - ads, or premium ad-free membership? That's something I've seen a lot. And how much do you think would be reasonable?

That's another entry for the poll

Nitefly

digitalscream said:

munckee said:

Personally I would rather pay an annual or monthly fee than have ad content. Mainly because I would be concerned there would be pressure not to criticise companies who advertise here and it would be like other sites where I was constantly battling videos etc.  

OK, that's fair comment. What if there was a choice - ads, or premium ad-free membership? That's something I've seen a lot. And how much do you think would be reasonable?

That's another entry for the poll

Interesting idea...

I generally chuck a tenner in every 3-4 months as and when I remember, so would be happy at say £5 per month.  That's a bit less than we pay for Netflix, and I certainly spend more time on here than on there!

Jonathangus

I seem to recall some discussion a while back about potentially introducing a subscription to give additional member benefits - e.g. direct image uploading (hosted on AWS or similar).  Would be interesting to know what the uptake of that would be.

OTOH, if ads could fund this for everyone, it would make it easier all round - not just for those doing the uploading.

monquixote

digitalscream said:

munckee said:

Personally I would rather pay an annual or monthly fee than have ad content. Mainly because I would be concerned there would be pressure not to criticise companies who advertise here and it would be like other sites where I was constantly battling videos etc.  

OK, that's fair comment. What if there was a choice - ads, or premium ad-free membership? That's something I've seen a lot. And how much do you think would be reasonable?

That's another entry for the poll

That would be my preference. 

Lots of sites do turning off ads for premium members and then when the revenue starts coming in the offering could be further improved with photo hosting etc.

MrSwanson

Don't basschat charge for the classifieds? Not sure if that worked with them or not, would also probably cut down the number of chancers

munckee

I was thinking around £25 per year or £2 monthly whichever is easier to administer but I would pay £5 per month.

fretmeister

MrSwanson said:

Don't basschat charge for the classifieds? Not sure if that worked with them or not, would also probably cut down the number of chancers

Yes - £20 for an annual selling pass, of IIRC £7 for a single item.

Seems to work ok.

monquixote

MrSwanson said:

Don't basschat charge for the classifieds? Not sure if that worked with them or not, would also probably cut down the number of chancers

I think that's a total disaster. 

It doesn't stop the bedroom flippers buying stuff up, but it would strangle the number one source of new members (People who sign up to sell stuff) and reduce the pool of stuff to buy for members.

EricTheWeary

monquixote said:

MrSwanson said:

Don't basschat charge for the classifieds? Not sure if that worked with them or not, would also probably cut down the number of chancers

I think that's a total disaster. 

It doesn't stop the bedroom flippers buying stuff up, but it would strangle the number one source of new members (People who sign up to sell stuff) and reduce the pool of stuff to buy for members.

Couldn't agree more. 

digitalscream

EricTheWeary said:

monquixote said:

MrSwanson said:

Don't basschat charge for the classifieds? Not sure if that worked with them or not, would also probably cut down the number of chancers

I think that's a total disaster. 

It doesn't stop the bedroom flippers buying stuff up, but it would strangle the number one source of new members (People who sign up to sell stuff) and reduce the pool of stuff to buy for members.

Couldn't agree more. 

Plus...managing access to forum categories based on paid membership would be a bit of a nightmare to manage, so it's actually harder to implement a less-ideal solution.

MrSwanson

digitalscream said:

EricTheWeary said:

monquixote said:

MrSwanson said:

Don't basschat charge for the classifieds? Not sure if that worked with them or not, would also probably cut down the number of chancers

I think that's a total disaster. 

It doesn't stop the bedroom flippers buying stuff up, but it would strangle the number one source of new members (People who sign up to sell stuff) and reduce the pool of stuff to buy for members.

Couldn't agree more. 

Plus...managing access to forum categories based on paid membership would be a bit of a nightmare to manage, so it's actually harder to implement a less-ideal solution.

Fair enough haha, I'm happy to subscribe I spend enough time here.

Bridgehouse

The Basschat classifieds payment generates a "badge" for each paid up member.

You can tell how it went down in the "We don't need no stinkin' badges" thread...!

digitalscream

As an update...it's only been five days, but the most interesting conclusion so far is that it hasn't actually affected traffic levels at all, even amongst those without adblockers installed.

TTony

We’re probably all so used to seeing ads everywhere now, that we don’t (consciously) see them, adblocker or no.

77ric

TTony said:

We’re probably all so used to seeing ads everywhere now, that we don’t (consciously) see them, adblocker or no.

Perhaps, but I would also point out that the ads (or more specifically the size and positioning) that I’ve seen after logging out, are the least intrusive ads I’ve seen anywhere. 

fastonebaz

I can't believe Google analytics has only just been added.    was there a different traffic monitoring system in place before?

I like this forum because it doesn't have ads, doesn't charge a subscription,  has an uncluttered UI, is decently mobile responsive, is well moderated, doesn't have complex functionality.

If there were to be ads for all logged in users, I'd prefer them to be omnipresent vs being forced to watch an add for 5s after posting a new thread or a new comment (e.g. like how many free games operate after you've played your go) as that would reduce users' engagement and perhaps retention. 

E.g.  if I've got 10mins spare to browse the site and that 10mins was then broken down into 8 mins of browsing and 2 mins of enforced ad watching,  it would reduce my positive engagement (mathematically by 20% but psychologically by much higher) and likely reduce my retention too.

If ads are always there but not in the way, eg easy to scroll passed, and no enforced gateway viewing of ads between user actions,  I think it wouldn't bother me.

For example, Crash.net is littered with ads and they make a fortune but the ads don't get in the way of the user's core purpose for visiting the site so it's easy to visit,  read interesting articles and leave in 10mins having had the full 10mins positive engagement.

digitalscream

fastonebaz said:

I can't believe Google analytics has only just been added.    was there a different traffic monitoring system in place before?

Honestly, it was never really a priority - generally, we never really cared too much about increasing traffic, which meant that we equally didn't need the functionality that Analytics offers. The main measure - page views - is integrated into Vanilla, so it was easy enough to keep an eye on. Interestingly, adblockers often seem to block Analytics scripts, which is one reason that the traffic according to Vanilla is three times that in Analytics.

fastonebaz said:

I like this forum because it doesn't have ads, doesn't charge a subscription,  has an uncluttered UI, is decently mobile responsive, is well moderated, doesn't have complex functionality.

So, basically all of the options we're looking at then?

fastonebaz said:

If there were to be ads for all logged in users, I'd prefer them to be omnipresent vs being forced to watch an add for 5s after posting a new thread or a new comment (e.g. like how many free games operate after you've played your go) as that would reduce users' engagement and perhaps retention. 

E.g.  if I've got 10mins spare to browse the site and that 10mins was then broken down into 8 mins of browsing and 2 mins of enforced ad watching,  it would reduce my positive engagement (mathematically by 20% but psychologically by much higher) and likely reduce my retention too.

If ads are always there but not in the way, eg easy to scroll passed, and no enforced gateway viewing of ads between user actions,  I think it wouldn't bother me.

For example, Crash.net is littered with ads and they make a fortune but the ads don't get in the way of the user's core purpose for visiting the site so it's easy to visit,  read interesting articles and leave in 10mins having had the full 10mins positive engagement.

I completely agree. The primary purpose of the site is to provide the community with a forum, not to make money; that's not going to change, so pushing ads, forcing people to watch them or chasing traffic aren't on the table at all. The aim of the game with the ads is simply to a) make sure the forum is sustainable without me begging for donations, and b) hopefully to be able to pay for a bit of development, since the site's been stuck on the same platform for a long time.

In years past, this wouldn't have been so much of a problem because of @TTony's fundraising efforts. However, he's a hell of a lot better at that stuff than I am (business matters are most definitely not my thing), so...this is my substitute option.

EricTheWeary

I wonder if by paying to subscribe you change the user- mod relationship? If I was paying to be on here and I had an ad pulled or was put in the cooler for being a dick ( and we're all surprised that hasn't happened yet) would I then argue that I've paid I can do what I like or okay give me my money back then?
Maybe these things are sufficiently rare it wouldn't be a worry but when there's cash involved and all it takes is to be a keyboard warrior I can imagine some of these arguments taking up a lot of mod time.

Certainly if ads for the non logged pay the bills I can't see a problem with that at all; I appreciate that this is not intended to be an online Marxist utopian state. Even basic banner ads when logged in I can learn to ignore quickly enough. 

fastonebaz

EricTheWeary said:

I wonder if by paying to subscribe you change the user- mod relationship? If I was paying to be on here and I had an ad pulled or was put in the cooler for being a dick ( and we're all surprised that hasn't happened yet) would I then argue that I've paid I can do what I like or okay give me my money back then?
Maybe these things are sufficiently rare it wouldn't be a worry but when there's cash involved and all it takes is to be a keyboard warrior I can imagine some of these arguments taking up a lot of mod time.

Certainly if ads for the non logged pay the bills I can't see a problem with that at all; I appreciate that this is not intended to be an online Marxist utopian state. Even basic banner ads when logged in I can learn to ignore quickly enough. 

Good point.

Is that like squid game?  Paying VIPs can do what they like without consequence or admonishment?