I thought this problem was solved with the Masters-suite program. Weren't we told that if the Masters-skins sell really well (which I think they did), they would generate good money to support WC? And wasn't that just a year ago?

The same "incentives" about creating additional goodies for subscribers were presented as an argument back when we had the discussion about setting up a Master-system, but haven't really surfaced yet (apart from an update to RIP, the other free skins were OD-skins).

I am not saying this, because I spend sleepless nights about not having free goodies, but I thought it might be worth mentioning as I do well see a "slippery slope" here.

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

Alternate Setting, after reading your post I clearly see why you chose the personal icon that you did. It fits you perfectly.  

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.

To the contrary, new revenues will always be needed. After this "change" there will be new revenues needed next year and the year after, etc. It is the nature of the beast. 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. Heck many of us are already paid up into the next century as it is. There is a natural uneasiness to diminished perks (no matter how small they seem one by one) when one has prepaid to the degree that many here have done in answer to the calls for support.

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.

That is a basic flaw in the subscription system. The site needs money every year to run you can bet that advance subscription money has not been put in accounts for each year paid for. So next years subscription money has already been spent, where paid in advance.

Which brings us back to where will the money come from.

Very well said Kenwas.

Don't think too much. Your not on the inside and assumptions only make an ass.....

For all you know Stardock could be investing that money and therefore reducing future subscription fees.

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."

True point taken

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.....

That was a couple of good replies guys. I'm also paid up for a few years in advance on both of my subscriptions, so I do understand all the points your are presenting.

To pick up with what Kenwas wrote, what would be some suggestions to Zoomba that could be used in transfering some of the cost of the site to non-subscribers, visitors or if we must, freeloaders?

Now I know that this is getting away from intent of the Original Post, but it may highlight options for Zoomba. If he's not look for options then I'm sure he will let us know.   

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......

Good God! Get some sleep!



Unfortunately, we do not have access to any facts, figures, demographics, and history that is proprietary to WC to make any informed recommendations. Never good when the inmates try to run the asylum.

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?

I don't know Philly. In a sense, that may not be such a bad idea...if the non-subscribers didn't ignore it completely.

It's always good to know what a buisness is missing that would draw new customers.

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.

I for one can appreicate that and understand.



Well then, with that information, can I vote twice for the sponsorship option?  

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

Ah, semantics...;)

Past tense equally applies here to the date of composing the thread topic [now 3 days old] as it may seem to you to apply to a decision already having been made.

If Stardock were to adopt Sponsoring they had to undertake to make it visible to all.

If reasonable argument and an alternative solution can be had here then Sponsoring may not be necessary/suitable, hence the public discussion.

Good old English Comprehension....like statistics it can be [mis] interpreted to suit any outcome...;)

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.

Certainly not on a one to one basis and definitely not on a direct cost basis in which they would also be the bulk of any cost increases. If not true, then why have subscribers in the first place? Would you prefer that we were all non-subscribers?



Too much of a twist for me. Your doing this for the subscribers? Without being rude, who asked for more goodies and enhancements in the first place? They do not seem to be a key motivation for anyone to join at least from the comments here. It is understood that your motivation is to bring WC closer to break even if not achieve same, thereby increasing the profitability of Stardock. Increased productivity through the partial allocation of Stardock Design resources to make "goodies" and site improvements fits nicely into that and is as it should be. It seems a bit of a stretch to suggest that this is being done to better serve the subscribers as a primary motivation.





Agreed!

I understand that Zoomba can not fully respond for reasons of confidentiality. So, enough from me as well.

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.

I'm not a big fan of flashy/flashing ads, but the idea of a sponsor logo doesn't seem too bad. If it is necessary to make sure the site can continue to exist, I have no problem with it.

One thing bothers me though. I understand that Wincustomize.com wants to reward subscribers by making special suites available to them. However I don't see any need to hire professional stardock skinners to design those suites. I won't speak for myself as I only uploaded one sysmetrix theme to this site so far, but there are several skinners here who are on a par with the professionals or even better. I assume most of them are happy to do the same just for fun, some recognition, or maybe a bonus of some sort (access all content for free or something like that).

Hell, I'll volunteer right now before the queue starts to form.

Just my 2 cents. Please excuse my bad english. It's not exactly my main language.

Xavier Saenen

EDIT :

Just to make sure I'm not mistaken : I'm not a subscriber, simply because I don't work hard enough to be able to afford a credit card, and am not aware of any website where you can pay any sort of membership via bank transfer nowadays. I can't buy most Stardock products for the same reason, so I can't skin them either.
And I'm one of those few people who refuse to use illegal software (apart from software being released by one certain very large and influential company, but that's a whole different story). I like the concept of wincustomize.com and try to contribute, abeit by submitting my work rather than funding the site.