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 8)

106

Lantec

on Dec 06, 2007

or have no more enhancements, upgrades or additional subsciber goodies.

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.

107

rickalot

on Dec 06, 2007

Heck many of us are already paid up into the next century as it is

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.

108

NightTrainthedark

on Dec 06, 2007

Very well said Kenwas.

109

NightTrainthedark

on Dec 06, 2007

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

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.

110

kenwas

on Dec 06, 2007

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

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."

111

rickalot

on Dec 06, 2007

True point taken

112

killajosh

on Dec 06, 2007

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.....

113

Philly0381

on Dec 06, 2007

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.

114

killajosh

on Dec 06, 2007

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......

115

kenwas

on Dec 06, 2007

ust 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!

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?

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.

116

Philly0381

on Dec 06, 2007

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?

117

killajosh

on Dec 06, 2007

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.

118

Zoomba

on Dec 06, 2007

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.

119

Philly0381

on Dec 06, 2007

Unfortunately I've reached a limit on what I can tell you to back up my statements.

I for one can appreicate that and understand.

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.

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

120

CarGuy1

on Dec 06, 2007

The placement of the subscriber logo is the compromise we had to make in this case.

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

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!