Adverts on NSC (and paying not to have them)

[Stevie Boy]

Dont see the ads as use an ad blocker

 

[Bozza]

Dont see the ads as use an ad blocker

You won't be seeing NSC at all soon.

 

[hans kraay fan club]

Dont see the ads as use an ad blocker

Great work.

Deprive NSC of income, by blocking the ads, whilst at the same time, taking advantage by touting for business in your signature.

Classy.

 

[Bozza]

Great work.

Deprive NSC of income, by blocking the ads, whilst at the same time, taking advantage by touting for business in your signature.

Classy.

Thanks - I don't have signatures on.

 

[edna krabappel]

Great work.

Deprive NSC of income, by blocking the ads, whilst at the same time, taking advantage by touting for business in your signature.

Classy.

(ouch)

 

[TonyW]

Been accessing NSC through Tapatalk for quite a while now, and I don't ever see an advert.
Is that right?

 

[edna krabappel]

Been accessing NSC through Tapatalk for quite a while now, and I don't ever see an advert.
Is that right?

Yes. Works differently. Fear not.

 

[Bozza]

Been accessing NSC through Tapatalk for quite a while now, and I don't ever see an advert.
Is that right?

Yep - that's fine.

 

[TonyW]

I thank you both.

 

[TonyW]

I'd happily pay a reasonable subscription by the way.

 

[lasvegan]

Would the ad-free experience, along with the few other assorted bells and whistles, make NSC ready for the Premier League?

 

[symyjym]

When I bought the last upgrade, I bought a version that didn't need annual renewals. That cost £216. A time will come, however, to move onto the next major release which will cost a similar amount. But the cost of the licence is peanuts compared to the hosting.

Have you thought about getting direct sponsorship of NSC, like giving the club some space to advertise special offers and shirt signing days etc, or Brighton & Hove Jobs. There may be businesses out there who could pay a fee to part sponsor. At least then you can just limit advertising to the header area rather than dropping ads in the threads.

Ad Blockers only block google ads but if a specific ad system was set up on the site it wouldn't be blocked.

Just a thought.

 

[Cian]

I use another large forum where (along with no ads) username changes and avatars from outside a fairly paltry set are allowed only for subscribers (works out at about £45 a year but monthly is offered); it seems to get a fair bit of income from that alone. Have also seen larger (pixel and file size) avatars for subscribers on another site.

Ads don't hugely bother me here, yet; but if they ever evolved to ones with sounds or expanding ones I'd be either subscribing or out the door.

 

[Steve Foster]

The ads don't bother me in the slightest.

 

[Box of Frogs]

Rubbish. Everyone would pay if you could only access the site if you've paid and if you/they didn't then you'd be told that ''Sorry you don't have permission to access this site'' then it'll be a matter of time before everyone was reaching for their credit/debit cards

I'm sorry, I didn't realise you were nominated to speak for me.

My view is this - if the ads became too intrusive, then I would stop using NSC (or any other forum for that matter). As it stands, the ads are not in the least intrusive so my use of NSC will continue. As much as I enjoy dipping in to NSC on an occasional/regular basis, I could do without it. This poll seems to indicate that most people favour the ad supported version anyway.

So I'm sorry, but it would not be 'a matter of time' before I would reach for my decbit/credit card to access NSC.

I would add that I do click through the Amazon link whenever I can, to help support NSC.

 

[Bozza]

Have you thought about getting direct sponsorship of NSC, like giving the club some space to advertise special offers and shirt signing days etc, or Brighton & Hove Jobs. There may be businesses out there who could pay a fee to part sponsor. At least then you can just limit advertising to the header area rather than dropping ads in the threads.

Ad Blockers only block google ads but if a specific ad system was set up on the site it wouldn't be blocked.

Just a thought.

I haven't because there's no problem with funding NSC. It's not broke, so there's nothing to fix etc.

This thread was just to ascertain if there was sufficient demand to remove the ads whilst still supporting the site (something that ad blockers do not do) to warrant me spending the time to put that option in place.

 

[Bozza]

I use another large forum where (along with no ads) username changes and avatars from outside a fairly paltry set are allowed only for subscribers (works out at about £45 a year but monthly is offered); it seems to get a fair bit of income from that alone. Have also seen larger (pixel and file size) avatars for subscribers on another site.

Ads don't hugely bother me here, yet; but if they ever evolved to ones with sounds or expanding ones I'd be either subscribing or out the door.

Yes - I've seen sites where 'subscribers' get various things like...
- signatures (or bigger signatures),
- avatars (or bigger avatars),
- custom titles (where yours says 'Registered User'),
- a bigger PM capacity (only 20 messages by default)

However on NSC I've given everyone almost everything anyway, and I'm not going to remove functionality from those who don't pay in order to give it to those who do pay.

 

[Meade's Ball]

I quite like an advert or two in my life. Maybe if i had the money, or really the technical skills and determination, i'd pay the £20 of option C to have my own advertising that could pepper people's pages on rare occasions with shots from perhaps the Meade's Ball calendar - simply flashing images of March, my randiest month and the one in which i am post-new-year fittest and therefore exposed to you in a series of nano-seconds in all my little winkley glory, possibly with my foot atop the head of Britian's largest badger and my trident in spinning mode at the root of its nape to finally snap its neck. January would be icy and me lurking in a homeless centre using the bodies of those most recently fallen for warmth whilst pawing through their pockets to nab their identities and misplaced change for new life and broth.
As i say though, i haven't quite the willpower to spend 2 years learning various codes to create said images and more.

 

[El Sid]

I quite like an advert or two in my life. Maybe if i had the money, or really the technical skills and determination, i'd pay the £20 of option C to have my own advertising that could pepper people's pages on rare occasions with shots from perhaps the Meade's Ball calendar - simply flashing images of March, my randiest month and the one in which i am post-new-year fittest and therefore exposed to you in a series of nano-seconds in all my little winkley glory, possibly with my foot atop the head of Britian's largest badger and my trident in spinning mode at the root of its nape to finally snap its neck. January would be icy and me lurking in a homeless centre using the bodies of those most recently fallen for warmth whilst pawing through their pockets to nab their identities and misplaced change for new life and broth.
As i say though, i haven't quite the willpower to spend 2 years learning various codes to create said images and more.

I think you should write a book - "Meade's Ball Muses".

A veritable tome of random thoughts worthy of a google ad.

 

[symyjym]

I haven't because there's no problem with funding NSC. It's not broke, so there's nothing to fix etc.

This thread was just to ascertain if there was sufficient demand to remove the ads whilst still supporting the site (something that ad blockers do not do) to warrant me spending the time to put that option in place.

I didn't say it was broke or needed fixing, you were talking about charging everyone £10 - £20 per year, and with 5,000 active members it would turnover £50k - £100k a year, so this seems more about income than taking Google Ads off. I am sure that the Google Ads earnings is fairly minimal anyway and I would be surprised if it brought in more than a couple of hundred pounds a year.

If the suggestion was £10 per user and 70% of it would go to REMF it would make it different.