Weekly Poll: Site Sponsorships
An incredibly important poll for subscribers!
Monday, December 3, 2007 by Zoomba | Discussion: WinCustomize News
This week's poll is a little different from what we usually talk about. This week it's all about how we support and fund the site. Currently we support WinCustomize primarily through subscriptions and web ads. However we have repeatedly turned away the much more profitable ads because they're just so darned annoying. We know that at the end of the day, it doesn't matter how well an ad pays if it drives users away. That's why you'll never see pop-ups, hover ads etc on WinCustomize, even though they pay extremely well.
That said, we are still looking to find additional revenue sources, especially as the cost of the site continues to climb. One of the ways is through a "Site Sponsorship" program.
A "Site Sponsorship" is basically where a company decides to sponsor WinCustomize for a month or more at a time. They would get something akin to the image to your left as a static image placement on the site. In the case of the example here, it would be a box added to the WinCustomize sidebar. It's not a typical ad. It doesn't bounce, flash, play sounds or in any way impact your browsing. It's merely a logo placement, perhaps with a brief text message that would be a part of the site.
There's a catch though (there's always a catch). If we were to secure these sponsorships, they would have to be displayed to ALL users, even subscribers.
That's where today's poll comes in. For all of you who are subscribers, or who are thinking of subscribing. Would a sponsorship placement like what I've described be acceptable to you?
Of course, you'd get something in return for such a placement. Sponsorships like this one, run over the course of the year, would directly fund projects like new Subscriber Suites. We could actually afford to hire skinners from Stardock Design to draw up and build several Subscriber Suites in the course of the year.
So, if you were to get additional subscriber suites, would that make the sponsorship placement more acceptable?
Go ahead and vote. We'll tally it up next Monday. And please use the comments here to discuss the proposal, and what would make the addition acceptable to you if it were to happen.
 |
|
Page 4 of 7 | |
|
|---|
Reply #63 Tuesday, December 4, 2007 11:45 AM
The fact is that we really don't have a choice if Zoomba goes this route. We will take whatever he decides the site needs or we will leave the site.
You have to figure that he wants to find the balance to keep the site running and updated with some extra stuff to keep us user happy.
Can he make a promise to maintain one ad (or whatever limit he sets)? Sure, but he could break it too; it's "his" site.
Don't get me wrong, I trust that he has the best interest of the community in mind and doesn't want ads . . but we aren't owed a guarantee of anything.
Reply #64 Tuesday, December 4, 2007 11:53 AM
Call it what you want, it's an ad.
Missed that one, thanks for pointing it out.
As long as Zoomba keeps his word, and I am sure he will, I have no problems with it.
I've seen this done before and it turned out badly, hince my concern.
Reply #65 Tuesday, December 4, 2007 11:55 AM
Wow Zu! I'm jealous.........I've been coaching for 8 seasons and never got my own web page........think I'll have to complain next March
Reply #66 Tuesday, December 4, 2007 12:16 PM
Check out the scrapbook I got this year.
Now back to topic: NEVER Trust a guy that hides behind a nom de plume!
Reply #67 Tuesday, December 4, 2007 12:53 PM
This really should have nothing to do with Zoomba keeping his word. Some one gave him the authority and someone can take it away. He could leave tomorrow for another job. The only thing that is certain is that everything will change. It seems there is a financial need for "non call to action ads" (called logos here). The earnings from the master's program, the subscription drives, etc. apparently aren't enough, so what else is there to do? Raise the rates? or as Zubaz noted, find someone else to foot the bill through advertising (oopps, sponsorships!)
Reply #68 Tuesday, December 4, 2007 4:15 PM
!. If WC starts accepting sponsors, is it 1 sponser a month or are we going to hve a handfull of sponsers each month?
2. If the sponsers start paying for WC, does that mean there wouldn't be a need for subscribers?
3. Will this turn into something else down the road?
These are some of the questions I've been asked and couldn't answer but I see no one has asked them.
Reply #69 Tuesday, December 4, 2007 5:00 PM
Reply #70 Tuesday, December 4, 2007 5:28 PM
Reply #71 Tuesday, December 4, 2007 5:29 PM
1. Sponsorships as they've been explained to me work one at a time.
2. There will always be a place for subscribers.
3. 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.
How ads are done on the site in general is going to undergo some changes when we do the next site update next year. They're not done particularly well now and I think they hurt the user experience in places. My overarching goal is to do three things:
- Increase revenue
- Improve the user experience
- Offer more features and goodies to subscribers
I specifically mentioned more subscriber suites as something this sponsorship ad would make possible. There are other things I want to do, more goodies I want to add to the site. And again, the balance here is user experience. It has to make the site better for us to do it.
Reply #72 Tuesday, December 4, 2007 5:42 PM
do I sometimes surf to the websites of those logos or google the name? yep.
does this give them revenue? well only if I feel confident enough to purchase their product. but it's always my choice. my browser usually doesn't get hijacked,I don't end up with stuff I don't want on my computer(with exception of cookies I choose to accept) and I can still see the driver anytime he/she's racing or in the public.
this is what you're referring to when you mention sponsors right?
Reply #73 Tuesday, December 4, 2007 6:26 PM
Yep...
Reply #74 Wednesday, December 5, 2007 5:40 AM
Good feedback AS.
Hehe, I'm just grateful we had notice. If we hadn't been told what it was, then within 2 days we'd have rated it, submitted 2 walls based on the theme and tried to sell the artist a subscription of their very own.
Seriously though, aligned with the visual impact, the question I had to answer for myself was, does this level of promotion keep faith with the idea of 'ad free' subscriptions? I've double checked and while this phrase has been used around the site, when you look at the actual wording on the Wincustomize Subscriptiion Information page, it says here (Edit additional: and has done since at least March 2006) Click Me:-
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.
It's a little unfortunate that the distinction didn't filter through to all the posts that it would have been appropriate for. That said, when faced with the actual wording, I see no reason why a reasonable person would suggest that the proposed level of sponsorship, even if you prefer to describe it as an ad, should be felt to be in violation of those terms.
I think that's important because it speaks in part to integrity, which to my mind is an important subtext of this thread.
Reply #75 Wednesday, December 5, 2007 6:43 AM
Reply #76 Wednesday, December 5, 2007 7:48 AM
I bought master skins to support artistes and also the site.
I really don't care about ads as far as that don't interfere with the site enjoyment.
I didn't bought a subscription cause of ads.
For my understanding ads and sponsors are not the same
So everythings that support the site is good for me.
Reply #77 Wednesday, December 5, 2007 7:57 AM
Why so? I can assure you that when ever a company pays for a sponsorship it is expensed as an advertising expense.
It is what it is. Let's not get into a discussion along the lines of "It depends what your definition of is, is".
If the ads are no big deal to anyone, then the ad free implications should just be removed from the subscription description. The "that may hinder you surfing experience" referred to earlier is just a legalize loophole. Who decides what hinders MY surfing experience? Silly stuff.
Reply #78 Wednesday, December 5, 2007 8:16 AM
Am I correct in assuming that the evergrowing traffic on WC is now mainly caused by (non-subscribing) people who download dreams? (and therefore is expected to rise even more with the onset of DeskScapes 2?).
I can't help but get the feeling that an ever shrinking amount of subscribers has to cross-finance an ever growing numbers of freeloaders.
How obtrusive is "obtrusive enough for folks to click on it"? On how many pages will the ad be placed?
Even though it is called sponsorship, placing an image from a commercial firm on a website so that people click on it and are brought to the site of the firm is advertisement. Will there be a similar poll in a year to ask wether we agree with a second ad (maybe even from the same "sponsor")?
I know that the intentions behind this are well meant and I believe Zoomba that he intents to keep it at a single add, but my experience tells me that good intentions are often not enough to keep a snowball from turning into a full blown avalanche. (well, the last bit was a bit overly dramatic, but I hope you get my idea.)
Reply #79 Wednesday, December 5, 2007 8:19 AM
Why so? I can assure you that when ever a company pays for a sponsorship it is expensed as an advertising expense.
It is what it is. Let's not get into a discussion along the lines of "It depends what your definition of is, is".
agreed, Let me try again to explain what i meant by my understanding i meant my personal opinion so not a definition just a thought... i see a difference between the contents of ads (random by google by example) and a sponsor put an ads on WC regarding a contract sign up by the sponsor and WC. Again just my opinion.
Reply #80 Wednesday, December 5, 2007 10:48 AM
Who decides what hinders MY surfing experience? Silly stuff.
Yet the loophole, or I suppose a kinder term, would be qualification, does exist and has for some time. While I understand the sentiment, it allows Stardock room to say there isn't an absolute commitment, never to make any 3rd party promotions visible to subscribers. It has a bearing on how the proposal is approached...... and when put into the context of terms, the first thing I need to ask, is are the terms of this qualification being adhered to?
That brings us to the difficulty Kenwas raises of making subjective judgements about what hinders .... isn't that part of the function of this thread? To help come to a consensus on whether or not folks consider this to be a promotion that hinders or otherwise affects a subscribers surfing experience?
Even with the widest latitude, I honestly don't see that this could be seen as hindering viewing. It's not a pop up that you have to close. It's not covering a third of a page or otherwise breaking site content, How is this going to get in the way of browsing? As far as I know, it's not being hosted on 3rd party servers, there is no need to be concerned about micro-managing additional scripts, for those that like to keep a clean house.
Please login to comment and/or vote for this skin.
Welcome Guest! Please take the time to register with us.
There are many great features available to you once you register, including:
- Richer content, access to many features that are disabled for guests like commenting on the forums and downloading skins.
- Access to a great community, with a massive database of many, many areas of interest.
- Access to contests & subscription offers like exclusive emails.
- It's simple, and FREE!
|
|
Page 4 of 7 | |
|
|---|
Reply #61 Tuesday, December 4, 2007 11:40 AM