Adverts on NSC (and paying not to have them)

[Bozza]

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]

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)

 

[8ace]

Would you be allowed to swear again

 

[Bozza]

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.

 

[GingerBeerMan]

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]

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.]

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?

 

[Horton's halftime iceberg]

Where is the option for ads with a payment!

Might keep the Ruffians out

 

[Hotchilidog]

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.

 

[Simster]

Would you be allowed to swear again

Welcome back fella.

 

[Shropshire Seagull]

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?

Ads, what ads?

My brain must now be highly trained to selectively ignore things that my eyes clearly see.

 

[Lord Bracknell]

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]

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]

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]

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]

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?

 

[The Merry Prankster]

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.

This

 

[casbom]

If you REALLY wanted to you increase the number of adverts so that it does become annoying, then more people would pay up!

 

[Biscuit]

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!

 

[StonehamPark]

I use AdBlock.
Haven't seen an ad in months.