What would you pay per-month for an Ad-Free ATS?

originally posted by: reddragon2015
a reply to: SkepticOverlord

Where's the $0.00?

We all pay this amount right now.

a reply to: SkepticOverlord

I'd pay 5 dollars, though ads aren't an issue at the moment. What I would hate is seeing pay for content.

EDIT: Oh..dedicated forum for subscribers...certainly goes against the motto "Deny Ignorance". Having a less open discussion is not good.

What about people who don't see any ads right now for free? Do they all get the shaft for having provided content over years?

originally posted by: EvillerBob


Mods would now have a financial incentive to drive off those people you (incorrectly, let's be honest, I bet none of them were actually bigots/racists/whatever) label as "bad", because the site wants to keep your subscription. The membership gradually gets whittled down to those folks that support the prevailing opinion. Denying ignorance becomes a thing of the past and is replaced with "group think"; any dissent risks upsetting the cashcow subscribers, so dissenting members get the banhammer in the blink of an eye.

originally posted by: Tulpa
a reply to: SkepticOverlord

Dangerous road to go down, I feel.

In theory, I'd be quite happy to pay £5 a month, but I don't see too many ads as it is.

What worries me is this becoming widespread. Can you imagine how restricted the internet would become if everyone started to charge. If it was £5 a month for every site, how many a month would you use? 5, 10, 15???

I know you're talking about a subscription service which would be "cleaner" for paying users but I'm really against the idea of being priced out of using the net in general.
Not a reflection on how I'd value ATS above others, just a fear of creeping fees growing.
Cheers

Both really great points.
I think it's a really slippery slope personally.

I would pay significantly more than the maximum amount listed in the survey (truthfully) if in return I had access to a site that actually cared about its membership and didn't just see them as profitable milking cows. I would pay quite a bit for a site that didn't sensor topics and delete threads with no explanation, and then be dismissive and hostile to anyone who asks questions about it. I would pay for a site that cared more about content and less about making things flashy and hip to a bunch of kids. I would pay for a site that didn't spend the money (that's supposedly in short supply) on "famous contributors" who actually contribute squat, while the actual members who provide endless content have to deal with browser-crashing adds and admin attitude.

But I will not pay a single cent to ATS because they do all the things listed above. I will not provide anymore free content for ATS to profit off of while showing such contempt for the producers of that content. ATS is a middle-man, absorbing free content from users, and then selling those same users and others page-views on the open market. That isn't a gift, you aren't doing us a favor by providing ATS, you are making money off us.

But no biggie, right? I'm just a whiny member, what do I know. Just keep chugging along I'm sure everything will be fine!

a reply to: SkepticOverlord

Like a dedicated forum just for subscribers.

Oh man I don't like that at all.

Instead could you give subscribers more/animated emoticons or something?

"Not a brass farthing."

You should be paying the membership. They create your content.

Oh, I get it. Oh, ow, no avatar.

a reply to: James1982

That is very harsh but also sadly true.

ATS owners are already making money out of the free content we the members provide now they want to charge us for this, feels like being milked at both ends

So I want to preface this by saying that I'm not at all trying to be snarky, and am genuinely curious/asking politely.

How are there so many other forums out there that don't have these funding problems? ATS is a lot more polished, and I don't have any real grasp of running a site, so it's always sort of confused me. Can someone explain it thoroughly and as if I'm about 12 years old please?

originally posted by: Domo1
a reply to: SkepticOverlord

Like a dedicated forum just for subscribers.

Oh man I don't like that at all.

Instead could you give subscribers more/animated emoticons or something?

I agree.. a really bad idea.. 1337 and non 1337... meh!

a reply to: Domo1
youre not the only one. although i do think ats is one of the better looking sites on the internet, i dont get why a popular site cant look after itself.

originally posted by: OtherSideOfTheCoin
How would this work with banning members.

Let's face it am sure we all know of a few members who have been banned some might even say unfairly so.

Now let's say I subscribe at $10 and after a year I do something that leads to a ban, that's me out over a hundred dollars only to be banned because I say lost my head in a heated debate.

That alone represents a big problem

No more than any other site. Other sites have rules too, and people get banned there. Including the other site i belong to. Break the rules, I get banned, even though I pay a monthly fee for access.

originally posted by: Sremmos80

Oh and y'all that are openly talking about ad blocking and how to get around the new restriction when it comes to that are taking an interesting route. If I was getting away with something I was suppose to be doing when I agreed to do not do it, I wouldn't dream of publicly addressing that, and to the site owner no less.

Actually we're probably being quite reserved in discussing what we do and the capabilities it adds to the site *as we see it*.

If the owners want to have a serious discussion about the situation, it would be silly to gloss over it. For every one person mentioning it there will be a hundred keeping quiet on the matter.

If you prefer, we could publically discuss the ludicrous situation with the word window. Oh, sorry, I forgot, the board that is currently asking us to pay to use it still can't let us type the word window. Perhaps diverting a fraction of the time spent on forcing adverts down our throats into fixing an actual ongoing problem with the coding... nah, adverts take priority.

Edited to add:

In case you're wondering, the word that keeps being replaced is window. Also known as... window.

originally posted by: Domo1
So I want to preface this by saying that I'm not at all trying to be snarky, and am genuinely curious/asking politely.

How are there so many other forums out there that don't have these funding problems? ATS is a lot more polished, and I don't have any real grasp of running a site, so it's always sort of confused me. Can someone explain it thoroughly and as if I'm about 12 years old please?

Can you name one you know for sure has no problems with funding? I'd be curious. Surely SO has looked into several business models and sites similar to this. He isn't exactly a noob.

a reply to: Klassified

I think the point is that if other sites under financial pressure can run without subs then why can't ATS

Why are people throwing out $5-10 month number, when ATS probably only makes like 50 cents a month (if that) from a member who don't use blocking addon's. Ad free version should just cover the revenue lost from no ads being shown. It shouldn't be to make sure site owner gets to eat steak 7days a week.

a reply to: SkepticOverlord

Why don't you tell all members exactly how much $$$ the site is making and how much is spent on servers and other things ? That way members can make an informed decision. Many sites have a gauge that shows how much more is needed to pay for hosting and other things. Transparency would be much better than trying to provoke a blind emotional response.

You know this is a conspiracy site and we're paranoid : how do we know that you're not just looking for a swimming pool in your backyard ?

a reply to: SkepticOverlord

I would NOT pay a subscription I would pay a reasonable one-time donation.

for what it's worth...up to 5 $/month seems reasonable. I would pay.

a reply to: gosseyn

You know this is a conspiracy site and we're paranoid.

Giggle. Enjoyed the hell out of that.