Weekly Poll: Site Sponsorships

An incredibly important poll for subscribers!

Published on December 3, 2007 By Zoomba In 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.

Comments (Page 6)

Quentin94

on Dec 05, 2007

i became subscriber and bought premiums skins to support the site.
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.

kenwas

on Dec 05, 2007

For my understanding ads and sponsors are not the same

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.

aufisch

on Dec 05, 2007

I have to admit that this has me a bit worried, and I fear that we are going down a slippery slope. Having this site ad-free has always been an important factor for me, and as AlternateSetting has pointed out, having no ads for subscribers has always been a major perk. When ads were introduced after the launch of WC2005 we were promised that subscriber would not get any ads at all.

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.

For me, as long as it stikes that balance between being obtrusive enough that folks click on it and make it worthwhile for the sponsor and unobtrusive enough to stay out of the users way.

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.)

Quentin94

on Dec 05, 2007

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.

Alternate Setting

on Dec 05, 2007

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.

Lantec

on Dec 05, 2007

Non-Subscribers already see ads....so there is already "Ad" money coming to the site.
I assume the number of Subscribers is relatively small compared to Non-Subscribers therefore additional revenue is required.

1. How is advertising to that small target group going to "make-up" the short fall?
2. I agree with Fish.......

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.

kenwas

on Dec 05, 2007

I agree with you as to what it is. I think that you would also agree that the spirit of the description and the general understanding of the community was that subscriptions provided ad free viewing. Yes, the fine print as always leaves the company room to change. No argument from me on that.

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.

All this is hypothetical as we have no idea other than the Adobe example given. But why is it that all must see the ads including subscribers? Is this a demand of the advertisers? I have always found that if you give a person a large office, they will soon need furniture and equipment to fill it and then art work to decorate the walls. Need some plants too. The slippery slope.

I agree with the question of what is the point if the subscriber base is that small in the first place.

ZubaZ

on Dec 05, 2007

If I were a sponsor, I'd want my logo shown to everyone. It's as simple as that. Sponsors want to hit everyone and are willing to pay for it. I say that if it improves the site then go for it.
The slope has always been there. WC has always done their best to walk the same line we walk.

Subscriptions (and incredibly cheap renewals) and the current ad structure aren't working for whatever reason. Something has to change and Zoomba's found a minimally intrusive fix.

I don't think it's a slope that we have to worry about.

Zoomba

on Dec 05, 2007

The thread is getting away from us here a little bit as more and more folks speculate on what words mean, what guarantees could be made, what folks think will happen if we allow this now etc.

To clarify, here's the deal:

The site does not consistently make back the money it costs to operate
Our existing revenue model of simple web ads plus the current subscription model has not kept pace with the growth and requirements of the site
We want to provide more cool stuff to subscribers; suites, site features etc. but to do that, we need the money to invest back into the site.

When looking at the current state of things, we're left with a few options:

Cut back on site updates. WinCustomize works pretty well now, but we want to do more regular updates and revisions to it to keep improving it.
Dramatically change the subscription model and costs. Right now, you pay $20 for the first year, and $10 each subsequent year.
Modify how we handle advertising on the site.

Personally, I see #3 as the best compromise of the options. Why? Because it means we are able to do more on the site, without it costing our users anything extra, and since I have control over what is placed, I can make sure it's not annoying or intrusive.

With site sponsorships, there is a give-and-take between me and any potential advertiser. On the one side, advertisers require that the sponsorship be visible to ALL users period. On the other, I get to define the size, shape and placement of any sponsorship, and can reject anything I don't find acceptable.

vStyler

on Dec 05, 2007

Just dont get sponsored by anything too terribly annoying.. I already see 300 Viagra ads a day on TV...and no ambulance chasing laywers please.

Philly0381

on Dec 05, 2007

Well with the replies getting ever so close to 100, I believe the only questions that remain are, do you have a list of sponsor candidates, and have you picked whom will be first? Not look for names here just an idea where you are in the process.

Zoomba

on Dec 05, 2007

No, there has been no committment yet to do these sorts of placements. I was presented with the possibility early last week and the point of all of this was to discuss it with the community before any decisions were made.

I have not told our ad rep that we *will* be doing these yet

The people responsible for selling ad space on WinCustomize have not been told to sell sponsorships to advertisers yet.

There is no list of potential sponsors lined up yet.

NightTrainthedark

on Dec 05, 2007

Aufisch raises a valid and THE MOST IMPORTANT point in my opinion.

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.

Why do subscribers have to be the ones to always compromise here?

kenwas

on Dec 05, 2007

Why do subscribers have to be the ones to always compromise here?

That is indeed the question and I also wonder how many are already subscribed well into the future in response to other promotions and challenges for support. I assumed there are quite a few who have already paid well into the future. Am I correct?

ZubaZ

on Dec 05, 2007

I assumed there are quite a few who have already paid well into the future. Am I correct?

I'm paid up so far ahead I need to talk to Zoomba about transferring subs to myy kids.

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.
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!