Jump to content

Premium members should not have to see ads


klossner

Recommended Posts

Perhaps the main objection of those who don't like the ads is that once the camel gets his nose in the tent the rest of his body is sure to follow. The Yahoo! ads are relatively innocuous and easily ignored but once GC.com finds that users don't cancel their premium membership what will stop them from selling larger ad space or those irritating popups.

 

Absolutely nothing, which is their right. As mentioned above, things cost money. I do believe, however, that even this round of ads shows a desire NOT to have ads like that. These ads are unobtrusive anddo not appear to affect system performance.

 

If they start charging for premium memberships, what is to stop them from doing away with the free memberships?

Link to comment

If they start charging for premium memberships, what is to stop them from doing away with the free memberships?

 

If Groundspeak were your local city government, I would understand this reasoning. They tax something, nobody squeals (or maybe they do, but what the heck), they tax it a little more. They do it because they can, until they get voted out (or, if you believe Sim City, until a riot occurs).

 

However, the good people at Groundspeak are a little smarter than the average politician. I would bet, oh, $30 :unsure: that they've already realised that they could charge for a basic membership, and they've decided that not only is it a cool thing to offer basic membership for free; it's also in their long-term interest not to do so (so as to grow the games, the site, and the company). I can't think of a better example of a win-win situation.

Link to comment

If they start charging for premium memberships, what is to stop them from doing away with the free memberships?

 

If Groundspeak were your local city government, I would understand this reasoning. They tax something, nobody squeals (or maybe they do, but what the heck), they tax it a little more. They do it because they can, until they get voted out (or, if you believe Sim City, until a riot occurs).

 

However, the good people at Groundspeak are a little smarter than the average politician. I would bet, oh, $30 :unsure: that they've already realised that they could charge for a basic membership, and they've decided that not only is it a cool thing to offer basic membership for free; it's also in their long-term interest not to do so (so as to grow the games, the site, and the company). I can't think of a better example of a win-win situation.

 

Based on the last two comments, maybe I should have used a smilie.

 

[sarcasm] If they start charging for premium memberships, what is to stop them from doing away with the free memberships? [/sarcasm]

Link to comment

Based on the last two comments, maybe I should have used a smilie.

 

[sarcasm] If they start charging for premium memberships, what is to stop them from doing away with the free memberships? [/sarcasm]

 

Nope... I should have read what you actually wrote, rather than what I apparently wanted to read. Sorry.

Link to comment

I just want to say that I think the desicion to pull the ads from the premium members pages is the correct one. You still get to make your fair advertising money from the free members, and maybe it will encourage the free members to become premium members in the interests of not seeing the ads.

 

And until I got to the post where you announced the decision to pull the ads, I was beginging to formulate a plan for a geo-demonstration event... It was an odd, and weak plan, so thank you for saving me from myself.

Link to comment

When I saw this thread earlier today I had to go look to see what all the fuss was about. I certainly wasn't bothered in any way by the ad. In fact I am pretty much oblivious to ads on the web so I couldn't tell anyone if a particular site or page did or did not have ads. Ah well, they are gone, so the fun is over.

Link to comment

And I realize that not everyone can afford that. So, maybe it's time for a three-tiered membership. Or a simple, open ended "pay what you think it's worth" subscription option.

The honor system of "Pay what you think it's worth" won't work any better than "please trade fairly". Look at any cache that's been out for a while as an example. We (cachers) see this as a hobby, but they (Groundspeak) have to look at it like a business or it will go away.

 

I wasn't suggesting anything as hazy as an "honor system". I was suggesting that there can be regular withdrawals of more than the bare minimum necessary for a premium account. Simply add a checkbox for $5, $8, $10 or whatever. Then that's what your subscription is. QED.

 

I can't be the only person on GS that thinks a premium membership is rather underpriced for the value. And I can't be the only one who'd gladly pony up more, especially if it meant GS could continue to develop and grow without any further advertising.

 

FWIW

Link to comment

Thanks for removing them from the premium pages. Other browser options helps take care of the rest.

 

Ads of any type have to work on someone or they wouldn't keep showing up, just like all those spam ads in your email box, SOMEONE is keeping them coming. Good luck with the trial.

Link to comment

I just want to chime in, that as a premium member I think that ads are fine for regular non-premium members, however I am already paying for a service that I support, so I don't feel as though I should have to put up with these ads.

 

Well I see that premium members are not going to see the ads. Should've kept up with this thread better I guess! Sorry for the confusion.

Edited by Lazer
Link to comment

 

I can't be the only person on GS that thinks a premium membership is rather underpriced for the value. And I can't be the only one who'd gladly pony up more, especially if it meant GS could continue to develop and grow without any further advertising.

 

FWIW

Feel free to purchase Travel Bug tags. Leave them unactivated and use them as swag if you don't want to have your own travel bugs. My guess is that Groundspeak makes a pretty good profit on these tags.

Link to comment

Thanks for removing that ad.

 

Not one to frequent the forums unless something is odd, I noticed it earlier today as I was checking out TB inventory (the ad was where I was expecting the list). My first thought was to wonder why I would want to plan a vacation to San Francisco when I commute there with the teeming masses every weekday. Anyway, as soon as I readjusted my spatial expectation for TB listings to a bit lower on the page, I could go back to mentally filtering that location from view.

 

Add me to the list that would prefer to pay more in my annual membership for no ads, or at least put all the ads over there on the left so it is easier to employ the mental filter :) ...

Link to comment

Just a suggestion, but how about just provide an option for premium members to be able to turn off the adds if they want to?

 

I agree with the argument that paying members shouldn't have to see the adds. At the same time I agree that in order for this site which we all enjoy to stay in business they've got to make some money. The adds are a great alternative to the ony other option, which would be raising the membership price and restricting more access.

 

I don't know the stats, but I'm guessing that a large percentage of the users on GC are premium members, so I imagine that in order for the adds to sell they would have to be provided to premium members as well as free users. Having an option to turn off the adds I think would be a good compromise for both parties. Leave the adds turned on by default so that the member has to go edit their profile and turn them off.

 

Dave

Link to comment

Feedback for the future:

 

The Google ads have rarely bothered me. Many of the context-specific ads have related to GPS or geocaching products. I will sometimes click on these ads and have bookmarked a few sites for future possible purchases.

 

In contrast, the Yahoo ads on the right hand side of the cache pages reminded me of the junk on the rest of the internet. "Mortgage refinancing in [YOUR CITY HERE]" is a cheap trick, not a truly localized ad. If the ad content was limited to outdoors, technology and travel products and services, and if it were truly localized instead of simply inserting "your city here," these ads would be cool.

 

The Yahoo ads showed up on a day when I was in the middle of a project to check the inventory of some geocaches for missing travel bugs and geocoins. So, I definitely noticed that the ads were in the middle of the geocaching content. I would have preferred to have the ad positioned at the bottom of the right column, below the bookmark lists.

Link to comment
And I realize that not everyone can afford that. So, maybe it's time for a three-tiered membership. Or a simple, open ended "pay what you think it's worth" subscription option.
You probably don't realize this because it was waayyy before your time, but before PMs were offered, the site had a PayPal donate link and pretty much was "pay what you think it was worth" for it's users. I'm thinking that this didn't work out so well, so memberships were offered.

 

To the topic, I saw the ads the other day and wasn't bothered by them. They were not obtrusive nor were they hypnotic. I was able to keep myself from clicking on them.

Link to comment
Just a suggestion, but how about just provide an option for premium members to be able to turn off the adds if they want to?

Why have the PTB not polled their membership to ask their opinions and preferences on this? Seems yet again they do what they want and end up on their back foot trying to defend themselves.

:)

Link to comment

Darn it and I didn't even get to see any of the ads... :)

Here is one on one of my cache pages that is a Premium Member only cache.

 

8dc32bcc-7624-40bf-bdf3-144422eacc63.jpg

 

Aren't you glad they are gone now . . . ? :D

 

If the ads stay that unobtrusive, go for it. However I can't imagine there would be much click through since they more or less blend into the site, which would reduce the purpose for them..

Link to comment
Just a suggestion, but how about just provide an option for premium members to be able to turn off the adds if they want to?

Why have the PTB not polled their membership to ask their opinions and preferences on this? Seems yet again they do what they want and end up on their back foot trying to defend themselves.

:)

GC.com is a business, not a democracy.
Link to comment

8dc32bcc-7624-40bf-bdf3-144422eacc63.jpg

Wow...that was it...those were the adds people were so upset about???

 

I guess they could have been on the pages...shows how much I actually pay attention to the things on the cache page that are not the cache description/inventory/location or attributes... :)

 

I guess...honestly, I was fine with it...if then need to do that in the future to keeps costs down...I don't have a problem with that either...oh well, to each their own!!!

Link to comment

Why have the PTB not polled their membership to ask their opinions and preferences on this?

I think they have... in this thread :rolleyes:

 

By the way, hardly anyone has mentioned the substantial sized ad on the left, which appears for everyone, and takes up 20 times more bandwidth for dial-up users than the little Yahoo! text advert. This makes me think that the issue here could be as much about a (natural) reticence towards change, than any specific issue with the ads.

Link to comment

I wouldn't have minded the ad if it had been for REI, or Sierra Trading Post, or North Face, or Rechargeable Batteries R-Us. It was the subject of the ad -- Mortgage Refinancing -- that was most bothersome. What does that have to do with Geocaching?

 

Put a relevant ad there and I won't complain. :rolleyes: Who knows, I might even click on it. :)

Link to comment

I have to say, until I read this thread, I've never noticed any advertising on cache pages, or the forum for that matter. They're not the items I come here to look at, so I guess I just naturally block them out. I'm a mom of three little ones, and I've learned to block out their noise as well. :rolleyes: I guess maybe that has helped me in this matter as well. Honestly, as long as it's not an annoying popup, some horrifically blinking monstrosity, or the kind that transfer you to separate page before carrying on, they just don't bother me.

 

As far as relevance goes, it makes more sense for both the advertiser and the consumer to try to match the subject matter at the site. I do not see how companies like Jeep or Basspro have anything to do with geocaching, personally. At the later you can buy GPSrs, but everything else only has to do with activities that geocachers might engage in alongside caching. They're not really about caching itself though.

 

But, I'm also not offended to see mortgage ads, etc. I'm a homeschooler and learned a long time ago that the choices we made about our childrens' education would mean that we have one less paycheck to spend on things. I have no problem seeing how someone else might be interested in purchasing an item that I simply cannot afford. Therefore, I do not expect the site to cater only to me.

 

However, I can also understand that ads might upset others. So, my suggestion would be to add another level of membership. Call it gold, purple, whatever......and charge $5 instead of $3. This would exclude all advertisements and maybe add something else pertaining to geocaching as well. For those who don't mind the ads, they can still have their membership benefits, while those who are willing to pay more can be satisfied as well. It seems like a win-win situation.

Edited by elmuyloco5
Link to comment

Why have the PTB not polled their membership to ask their opinions and preferences on this?

I think they have... in this thread :rolleyes:

 

By the way, hardly anyone has mentioned the substantial sized ad on the left, which appears for everyone, and takes up 20 times more bandwidth for dial-up users than the little Yahoo! text advert. This makes me think that the issue here could be as much about a (natural) reticence towards change, than any specific issue with the ads.

 

I've never minded the ads on the left because:

 

1. They're 100% geocaching relevant, and placed there by GC.com on behalf of businesses who have a vested interest in the hobby and GC.com's continued growth.

2. They are often "house ads" for things like premium memberships and swag sold by GC.com.

3. The ad exists in what is basically wasted space below the navigation menu. Since that area is on every page, yet is not part of the main content where I'm trying to do my work, it's not intrusive at all.

4. The ads are generally rather nice looking. (Being a designer, I can't help but notice stuff like that, not that it has any real bearing.)

 

As always, FWIW.

Link to comment

I don't see how you can say "If more people would become premium members, maybe you wouldn't need them", unless you have some insight not given everyone. I was under the impression that Groundspeak doesn't really anything about its finances, no number of PMs, no amount of gc.com branded stuff sold, no firm number on what is paid to keep the website running or the salaries of paid employees.

 

I would imagine that this information is not available to us because we have no need for itm nor is it any of our business.

Need is not what I said. DESIRE or perhaps like might be better. I desire more info to make the best decisions, of course what I desire is not available. If its any of our business or not doesn't really matter since Groundspeak choices to not give out the info. That is of course up to them.

 

That to me makes it very hard to decide if new adds are indeed good sources of needed income that help

keep the site going and/or improve it, or just extra revenue that could be done away with.

 

How offensive! Based on this statement, can we all assume that any money you make from your employer, interest or any investments beyond your basic bills and needs is returned and can be "done away with"?

Is it offensive to say that without knowing the costs of the site it is impossiable to know what is profit and what is not? Groundspeak (or grounded inc. or whatever the offical name is) is a for profit business, as I said I have no problem with that. What is amusing to me is that it is implied that the additional revenue from additional ads will be used for only the website, while only Groundspeak knows if this actually happens. That is of course how most businesses are, the average customer gets no info on the internal finances of the business. If they want more more money for the sake of having more, so be it, but that's not how I read the written reasoning for why the new things are added.

 

Don't get me wrong, I want to see the website continue. I even have no problem with Groundspeak (or other companies too) making money from geocaching. But can gc.com get this done without so many ads? How about with a little less drama? This 'is this greed or not' seems to come up every time there is a change in features be it maps, ads, etc. To me its kinda like buying something and then getting a second letter later saying 'we didn't make as much as we though off this, care to pay more?'

 

I get these all the time. Satellite wants me to up my package or DVR, insurance wants me to buy extras, cellphone wants me to upgrade, big box stores want me to buy the etended warranty, etc. I either purchase or say no. Easy enough.

I get them too, usually for extending magazines subscriptions, but none of them so far have said the extra $ is for improvements and extra feel goodiness(??). Only that I get more goods/services.

 

I see no way for the average user to see if the business is really that hard up, or if its some sort of guilt based fleecing.

Again, none of our business. We have no need to know. There are plenty of ways to either ignore the ads or not even have them pop up. One of the best ways is to not use the service if it adopts policies that are so offensive.

 

It is truly hard to fathom that Jeremy and company are going to be able to buy big houses, planes, cars, ets. off of what they make from GC. If they do, more power to them, however since I do not hold stock or interest, they are under no obligation to give me details.

 

If these ads start to bog down the system, then we have something to say. Right now, that does not seem to be the case.

LOL :lol:

You seem to think I am terribly offended by Groundspeak wanting to make more money, I am not. What I find fault with is the request for money, with the promise that money will do something, without any proof it is needed or even checks&balances it will actually help. That is how businesses are, no matter if I like that way or not.

Link to comment

I don't see how you can say "If more people would become premium members, maybe you wouldn't need them", unless you have some insight not given everyone. I was under the impression that Groundspeak doesn't really anything about its finances, no number of PMs, no amount of gc.com branded stuff sold, no firm number on what is paid to keep the website running or the salaries of paid employees.

 

I would imagine that this information is not available to us because we have no need for itm nor is it any of our business.

Need is not what I said. DESIRE or perhaps like might be better. I desire more info to make the best decisions, of course what I desire is not available. If its any of our business or not doesn't really matter since Groundspeak choices to not give out the info. That is of course up to them.

 

That to me makes it very hard to decide if new adds are indeed good sources of needed income that help

keep the site going and/or improve it, or just extra revenue that could be done away with.

 

How offensive! Based on this statement, can we all assume that any money you make from your employer, interest or any investments beyond your basic bills and needs is returned and can be "done away with"?

Is it offensive to say that without knowing the costs of the site it is impossiable to know what is profit and what is not? Groundspeak (or grounded inc. or whatever the offical name is) is a for profit business, as I said I have no problem with that. What is amusing to me is that it is implied that the additional revenue from additional ads will be used for only the website, while only Groundspeak knows if this actually happens. That is of course how most businesses are, the average customer gets no info on the internal finances of the business. If they want more more money for the sake of having more, so be it, but that's not how I read the written reasoning for why the new things are added.

 

Don't get me wrong, I want to see the website continue. I even have no problem with Groundspeak (or other companies too) making money from geocaching. But can gc.com get this done without so many ads? How about with a little less drama? This 'is this greed or not' seems to come up every time there is a change in features be it maps, ads, etc. To me its kinda like buying something and then getting a second letter later saying 'we didn't make as much as we though off this, care to pay more?'

 

I get these all the time. Satellite wants me to up my package or DVR, insurance wants me to buy extras, cellphone wants me to upgrade, big box stores want me to buy the etended warranty, etc. I either purchase or say no. Easy enough.

I get them too, usually for extending magazines subscriptions, but none of them so far have said the extra $ is for improvements and extra feel goodiness(??). Only that I get more goods/services.

 

I see no way for the average user to see if the business is really that hard up, or if its some sort of guilt based fleecing.

Again, none of our business. We have no need to know. There are plenty of ways to either ignore the ads or not even have them pop up. One of the best ways is to not use the service if it adopts policies that are so offensive.

 

It is truly hard to fathom that Jeremy and company are going to be able to buy big houses, planes, cars, ets. off of what they make from GC. If they do, more power to them, however since I do not hold stock or interest, they are under no obligation to give me details.

 

If these ads start to bog down the system, then we have something to say. Right now, that does not seem to be the case.

LOL :lol:

You seem to think I am terribly offended by Groundspeak wanting to make more money, I am not. What I find fault with is the request for money, with the promise that money will do something, without any proof it is needed or even checks&balances it will actually help. That is how businesses are, no matter if I like that way or not.

 

The value proposition here is V2, whatever that may be. If you like the current product and you want to see it continue to improve you can vote with your actions. If you like the current product and you would be happy if it never changed you can vote with your actions.

 

I certainly have no issue with a for profit entity stating in a public forum that they are trying to find ways to raise money and thereby not raise the fees they charge users, or start charging users for basic services.

Link to comment

As an old boss used to say: "Don't get your undies in a bunch." This is a test. This is only a test.

 

As a rule, I strongly dislike adverts. I subscribe to Satellite radio, to avoid commercials. I don't watch more than an hour or so of television a month, so I don't get them there. I use an ad blocker to avoid most adverts on the web. I get entirely too many driving from cache to cache.

However, I understand the reasoning for advertising. Anyone here want to wager how long a site like this would stay afloat without it? Sure, they could charge more for a premium membership, or make a higher level membership. But not everyone that's a premium member could afford more than that (or don't think it's worth it), so they may not continue paying it.

 

As a Premium Member, I really object to having ads pushed on me after already paying for the service. I consider it like double jeopardy. Do one (encourage PMs), do the other (push ads), but doing both seems downright greedy.

 

And please, in rationalizing the change, please don't try and sell it to me as if you're doing me a favor. ... What's good for me is removing the ads.

 

My two copper,

MrW.

They could easily remove all the adverts. Just remember that. Unfortunately, they would go with the rest of the site.

Link to comment

I look at it this way: this is by far the best site to use for geocaching, you might say the only site worth using, which basically means they have a monopoly on the sport. They could, therefore, do whatever they wanted with regards to ads, because admit it, not many die hard cachers are just gonna quit as a statement. However, they choose to make this a VERY affordable website to use as a premium member, AND they even choose to make the few advertisements that are there unobtrusive. They could be pop up ads all over the place or take up large sections of the page, but they don't. I never did see one of the "test" ads, but it sounds like they at least listen to their members about the ads (I would wager they were removed because of the content complaints more than the, "I hate them period," complaints.) I, personally, would very much hate to see this website go away because there is nothing out there to take it's place. All of those caches would suddenly become a lot of hidden trash in the world.

 

If the ads bother you so much, maybe you should start up a competing website that offers it's users an ad free experience. I am sure it would go over well with everyone until you had to shut it down due to lack of funding.

Link to comment
Since Groundspeak goes to such great lengths to make sure that caches themselves have no commercial value, advertising on the cache pages seems a little ... I don't know ... just wrong somehow.

 

Yep.

It seems rather logical to me. Advertiser A pays Groundspeak money for an ad on the site. Advertiser B hides a cache and extols the virtues of his store in the description. Sounds kind of unfair to A. And if A was a competitor of B they could get really upset. So long as Groundspeak is selling advertising space it makes the most sense to not allow commercialism on a cache page. Advertisers can have some arrangements with Groundspeak under which commercial caches are permitted - witness the Project APE caches or Jeep TBs.

Link to comment
Please, no ads again for premium members. It's why I pay for XM radio.
My morning commute reminded me of this thread. You see, I also am an XM subscriber. On my way in to work this morning, I was listening to one of my favorite channels and noted that it really didn't have that fewer commercials than regular radio. Most of the commercials were for other radio shows on other channels that I am simply not interested in. Other commercials were for non-XM services and products that I have no need for. Perhaps I'll go find some XM forums and whine about it.

 

Of course, the difference between those commercials and ads in GC.com is that I am unable to enjoy my XM programming while the commercial is on, whereas I can easily ignore the yahoo ad on a cache page. I guess that the XM analogy wasn't very good, after all, except that it identifies to different companies on two separate mediums that both must rely on memberships and advertising revenue to pay the bills.

Link to comment

Of course, the difference between those commercials and ads in GC.com is that I am unable to enjoy my XM programming while the commercial is on, whereas I can easily ignore the yahoo ad on a cache page.

You really ought not be reading cache pages while you're driving to work. :unsure:

It's a sickness. I should get compensation.

Link to comment
Guest
This topic is now closed to further replies.
×
×
  • Create New...