Got something to say or just want fewer pesky ads? Join us... 😊

Adverts on NSC (and paying not to have them)

Would you pay for an ad-free version of NSC?

  • Yes, I'd pay a tenner a year.

    Votes: 8 4.4%
  • Yes, I'd pay up to £15 a year.

    Votes: 2 1.1%
  • Yes, I'd pay up to £20 a year.

    Votes: 9 5.0%
  • No - I'd stick with the ad-supported version regardless.

    Votes: 161 89.4%

  • Total voters
    180


Bozza

You can change this
Helpful Moderator
Jul 4, 2003
55,717
Back in Sussex
Once this season is over, whenever that is, I'm going to be making a few changes to NSC.

One thing I've considered for a while is whether anyone would be interested in paying to have an ad-free NSC experience. Ads fund NSC - it's as simple as that - but I know some people don't like them. So would you be prepared to pay - say £10-£20 a year (As Americans say: I need to do the math) to have no ads when you view NSC?

I might bundle in a few other assorted bells and whistles to help make it more attractive to those interested.

For the sake of being completely clear though: there would still be a financially-free ad-supported version of NSC available to all.
 




surrey jim

Not in Surrey
Aug 2, 2005
18,093
Bevendean
The adverts dont bother me and occasionally I have clicked through as a product/service has come up that I am interested in.

That said if there were additional benifits I wouldnt rule out paying a tenner or so a year. Lets face it I get more information from here than say the Argus, and that would work to £117 per year for a subscription (assume 45P per day, 5 days per week over 52 weeks)
 




Bozza

You can change this
Helpful Moderator
Jul 4, 2003
55,717
Back in Sussex
The adverts dont bother me and occasionally I have clicked through as a product/service has come up that I am interested in.

That said if there were additional benifits I wouldnt rule out paying a tenner or so a year. Lets face it I get more information from here than say the Argus, and that would work to £117 per year for a subscription (assume 45P per day, 5 days per week over 52 weeks)

The Argus site is so horrible to use, that having a content-side of NSC with the latest news etc is something I'm also considering.

Would you be allowed to swear again ???

Not unless there was so much coming in for 'subscriptions' that it negated the need to have adverts. I suspect that's never going to be the case. You can use whatever language you like in 'The Other Stuff'. I probably need to look at a way of making the language filter not applicable to that forum.
 


Dec 29, 2011
8,024
The ads are very unintrusive. I wouldn't pay for NSC, unless the ads weren't making enough revenue and it was the only way to keep it afloat.
 




skipper734

Registered ruffian
Aug 9, 2008
9,189
Curdridge
Would that mean two different versions. The paid version returning to something like the 2010 version, plus add ons. The free version with less posting privileges etc?
 


W.C.

New member
Oct 31, 2011
4,927
I know the ads are there but I really don't notice them. I'd probably pay to be continue using the site but surely the membership would drop?
 






Hotchilidog

Well-known member
Jan 24, 2009
8,691
If the ads were intrusive, i.e. in between posts etc then I'd pay a tenner. In their current from I have no problem with the ads, I always use the amazon link on here and quite enjoy seeing the odd Royal Opera House ad pop up at the top of the page.
 








If people pay to get an ad-free version of NSC would this mean that they would expect the one-click link to Amazon to disappear?

If it did disappear, would this mean that NSC lost more revenue than it would gain in subscriptions?
 


Bozza

You can change this
Helpful Moderator
Jul 4, 2003
55,717
Back in Sussex
Would that mean two different versions. The paid version returning to something like the 2010 version, plus add ons. The free version with less posting privileges etc?

I know the ads are there but I really don't notice them. I'd probably pay to be continue using the site but surely the membership would drop?

I think creating a two tiered system would be a bad move, personally.

No - there would never be a two-tiered system in terms of what you could see, where you could post or how often you could post.

Anything extra for those paying would simply be gimmicks, but nothing significant. You'd be no worse off for not having them.
 


Tom Hark Preston Park

Will Post For Cash
Jul 6, 2003
70,143
NSC ads are no more or less obtrusive than those on Facebook, Youtube etc. etc. IMHO, like. We get bombarded with them from all directions that I think we all just instinctively filter them out as background noise now.
 




Kumquat

New member
Mar 2, 2009
4,459
I think I'd be happy to pay but it would depend on what the gimmicks you mention were. The ads don't annoy me particularly but the fact that Google have some say over what we can post does. I think it should be in your control as runner of the site over what terms are offensive or not so if an ad-free version changed that I would be willing.
 


Rogero

Well-known member
Aug 4, 2010
5,713
Shoreham
How does the advert money work. I normally do not notice most adverts but mature wives catches my eye. Supposedly we do not get anything for that. How much income do the adverts generate? Is it best for the site if we click on the odd advert?
 




casbom

Well-known member
Jul 24, 2007
2,581
If you REALLY wanted to you increase the number of adverts so that it does become annoying, then more people would pay up! :lolol:
 




Biscuit

Native Creative
Jul 8, 2003
22,216
Brighton
NSC ads are no more or less obtrusive than those on Facebook, Youtube etc. etc. IMHO, like. We get bombarded with them from all directions that I think we all just instinctively filter them out as background noise now.

I don't even register the sticky threads!
 




Albion and Premier League latest from Sky Sports


Top
Link Here