Suggestion

[The Atheist]

I touched on this a while back, but I'd like to expand a little.

This forum is a valuable asset of JREF, but it's being wasted by mucking around with donations and attempts at psychic ads.

JREF could auction off sponsorship of individual forums - one each for GS & P, R & P, etc. Such sponsorship would consist of a link & logo on the individual forum index page only.

The main forum index could have a small note that sponsors are firms recommended & trusted by JREF, or words to that effect. Or even a Randi stamp of approval on the link.

Because JREF would ensure that sponsors met guidelines of ethics, financial stability, etc, I think the fact that the firms are sponsoring JREF would create immediate trust by visitors/customers and accordingly, the sponsorship could be quite valuable.

There are a couple of marketing consultants here, maybe one or other would like to estimate a price, but I would expect this to bring in an awful lot more than donations - which need not cease anyway. I'm constantly advertising internationally and I could certainly see the benefit in having services advertised here. My annual advertising budget is around $45k mark and I could see myself spending 5% of that on a sponsorship which gave me access to a high number of reasonably intelligent people. A US recruiter would almost certainly pay a lot more than I would.

There are 16 saleable areas, some are quite small, but the big 6 are likely to be sought after.

Even better, because this is a marketing/advertising package, all the work could be done by a consultant, with only approval needing to take up time at JREF.

 

[Phil]

Why?

The JREF is a non-profit, and ads on forums are annoying.

 

[Darth Rotor]

Why?

The JREF is a non-profit, and ads on forums are annoying.

One reason for why is that with a higher revenue stream, larger or more educational scholarships might be awarded.

DR

 

[Phil]

One reason for why is that with a higher revenue stream, larger or more educational scholarships might be awarded.

DR

Well, that's certainly a benefit that I wouldn't be averse to, but I'd still like to be able to turn off the ads.

 

[CFLarsen]

I touched on this a while back, but I'd like to expand a little.

This forum is a valuable asset of JREF, but it's being wasted by mucking around with donations and attempts at psychic ads.

That is not correct. JREF didn't attempt to put psychic ads on the forum. JREF tried to prevent psychic ads on the forum.

JREF could auction off sponsorship of individual forums - one each for GS & P, R & P, etc. Such sponsorship would consist of a link & logo on the individual forum index page only.

The main forum index could have a small note that sponsors are firms recommended & trusted by JREF, or words to that effect. Or even a Randi stamp of approval on the link.

Do you think a sponsor would like it if his products/services were criticized on the forum?

Because JREF would ensure that sponsors met guidelines of ethics, financial stability, etc, I think the fact that the firms are sponsoring JREF would create immediate trust by visitors/customers and accordingly, the sponsorship could be quite valuable.

I can see huge problems for JREF's credibility, if companies were to control part of the money flow into JREF.

"Why doesn't Randi speak out against product X? It has received a lot of criticism in the press."

"Well, he just hasn't gotten around to it yet."

"Yeah, right. That company pays JREF good money. We know what's happening...."

There are a couple of marketing consultants here, maybe one or other would like to estimate a price, but I would expect this to bring in an awful lot more than donations - which need not cease anyway. I'm constantly advertising internationally and I could certainly see the benefit in having services advertised here. My annual advertising budget is around $45k mark and I could see myself spending 5% of that on a sponsorship which gave me access to a high number of reasonably intelligent people. A US recruiter would almost certainly pay a lot more than I would.

Do you think you would like it if your products/services were criticized again on the forum?

Would at least some people not be somewhat reluctant to criticize you, as a sponsor, for fear that you might take your money and leave, thereby putting the existence of the forum at risk?

There are 16 saleable areas, some are quite small, but the big 6 are likely to be sought after.

Even better, because this is a marketing/advertising package, all the work could be done by a consultant, with only approval needing to take up time at JREF.

There would also be considerable work to be done by the admin team.

 

[The Atheist]

Why?

The JREF is a non-profit, and ads on forums are annoying.

Well, there's a bloody great big JREF one at the top of every page. Does that annoy you?

I did suggest a small one on the index page - there's no need for it to be obtrusive.

It's precisely because it's non-profit that it might be valuable.

 

[The Atheist]

Do you think a sponsor would like it if his products/services were criticized on the forum?

If the sponsors are companies which conform to a good standard of ethics, I think they'd welcome it because they'd happily defend themselves should that ever arise.

I can see huge problems for JREF's credibility, if companies were to control part of the money flow into JREF.

"Why doesn't Randi speak out against product X? It has received a lot of criticism in the press."

"Well, he just hasn't gotten around to it yet."

"Yeah, right. That company pays JREF good money. We know what's happening...."

See above.

Do you think you would like it if your products/services were criticized again on the forum?

See above. (Not as though that hasn't already happened anyway.)

Would at least some people not be somewhat reluctant to criticize you, as a sponsor, for fear that you might take your money and leave, thereby putting the existence of the forum at risk?

No. See above.

There would also be considerable work to be done by the admin team.

Rubbish - you're showing a lack of commercial acumen.

 

[rjh01]

How much would we be able to charge per page? 1 cent? If every page had one ad then about $28,000 would be raised per month. We would all contribute on average about 30 cents each.

Reference November 2007 - Google analytics report

 

[The Atheist]

How much would we be able to charge per page? 1 cent? If every page had one ad then about $28,000 would be raised per month. We would all contribute on average about 30 cents each.

Reference November 2007 - Google analytics report

No, you're getting it all sideways mate.

What you're showing is pretty much the way Google Adsense worked, on a click-through basis - I'm suggesting just one sponsor ad per forum index so as not to clutter the place up.

 

[CFLarsen]

If the sponsors are companies which conform to a good standard of ethics, I think they'd welcome it because they'd happily defend themselves should that ever arise.

Then, you would have a skeptics forum where the sponsors not only defend their products, but also pay to keep the forum running.

You don't see any problems with that?

See above.

You really don't see how there could be doubts about JREF's willingness to criticize whatever products it wanted?

See above. (Not as though that hasn't already happened anyway.)

Why not? You are highly critical of JREF as it is, and are working hard to discredit JREF as well.

No. See above.

Why not? If people want the forums to go on, but know that if the sponsors leave, there won't be a forum, why would they jeopardize the future of the forum by criticizing the sponsors?

Rubbish - you're showing a lack of commercial acumen.

I'm realizing what you should have: It isn't just a question of hiring a consultant to set it up. The admin team also has to do work on this.

 

[rjh01]

No, you're getting it all sideways mate.

What you're showing is pretty much the way Google Adsense worked, on a click-through basis - I'm suggesting just one sponsor ad per forum index so as not to clutter the place up.

Then you would be reducing the amount of money available by this method. Hardly worth doing.

 

[Wolfman]

Then, you would have a skeptics forum where the sponsors not only defend their products, but also pay to keep the forum running.

You don't see any problems with that?

You really don't see how there could be doubts about JREF's willingness to criticize whatever products it wanted?

Why not? You are highly critical of JREF as it is, and are working hard to discredit JREF as well.

Why not? If people want the forums to go on, but know that if the sponsors leave, there won't be a forum, why would they jeopardize the future of the forum by criticizing the sponsors?

I'm realizing what you should have: It isn't just a question of hiring a consultant to set it up. The admin team also has to do work on this.

Geez, CF. You truly are incapable of admitting when you're wrong, aren't you?

There are tons of products and companies out there that the JREF does not criticize, nor does it see any need to criticize them. Their products are legitimate, the value is fair.

The JREF would have complete freedom to invite only those companies that it felt offered a product that offered reasonable quality and value. If a company's product is judged by the JREF to be questionable, then the JREF does not allow that company to advertise it here.

Its dreadfully simple. But, of course, you're going to come up with all sorts of reasons why it wouldn't work, entirely ignoring the fact they have little or nothing to do with what's actually being discussed here.

 

[Darat]

It's certainly not a bad idea and from conservations with Jeff I know they've considered many ways of making money from the popularity of the Forum and they have at least considered this idea. No idea what the results of the consideration was.

Just as a more technical point - the next version of vBulletin makes adding adverts into pages even easier. Rich already keeps the Forum homepage template up-to-date (with the latest SWIFT) so it wouldn't even require the volunteer team to do anything.

 

[kmortis]

It's certainly not a bad idea and from conservations with Jeff I know they've considered many ways of making money from the popularity of the Forum and they have at least considered this idea. No idea what the results of the consideration was.

Just as a more technical point - the next version of vBulletin makes adding adverts into pages even easier. Rich already keeps the Forum homepage template up-to-date (with the latest SWIFT) so it wouldn't even require the volunteer team to do anything.

waitwaitwaitwait...are you, Darat, actually admitting that TA had a, dare I say it, a GOOD idea?

/me faints dead away

 

[CFLarsen]

Geez, CF. You truly are incapable of admitting when you're wrong, aren't you?

There are tons of products and companies out there that the JREF does not criticize, nor does it see any need to criticize them. Their products are legitimate, the value is fair.

The JREF would have complete freedom to invite only those companies that it felt offered a product that offered reasonable quality and value. If a company's product is judged by the JREF to be questionable, then the JREF does not allow that company to advertise it here.

Its dreadfully simple. But, of course, you're going to come up with all sorts of reasons why it wouldn't work, entirely ignoring the fact they have little or nothing to do with what's actually being discussed here.

Geez, Wolfman. It isn't a question of being wrong. It's a question of weighing advantages and disadvantages.

I'm not just talking about companies that sell woo. I'm talking about any company. And any company can land itself in a pickle, be it deserved or not. JREF is an organization that relies on a very high standard of credibility. It takes a lot of consideration to go into company sponsorship.

There are tons of other ways to raise money. We could have an annual JREF Forum Drive. Set up a box at TAMs where people could drop money for the forum. Get rid of all those annoying coins, instead of hauling them back. Whenever people clear their attics or basements, they can sell stuff here.

Maybe a "Barter/Marketplace/Auction" sub-forum, where you could only put up your cookies or used books for sale, or post wishes for specific stuff, but with no discussion allowed. A percentage of the sale price would go to JREF, just like at auctions.

 

[CFLarsen]

I did suggest a small one on the index page - there's no need for it to be obtrusive.

An unobtrusive ad?

How does that work?

 

[chillzero]

Maybe a "Barter/Marketplace/Auction" sub-forum, where you could only put up your cookies or used books for sale, or post wishes for specific stuff, but with no discussion allowed. A percentage of the sale price would go to JREF, just like at auctions.

Oh, I like this idea. I know that kittynh is looking at ebay for future auctions, so maybe this is already under consideration.

http://www.internationalskeptics.com/forums/showthread.php?postid=3241200#post3241200

 

[Locknar]

Maybe a "Barter/Marketplace/Auction" sub-forum, where you could only put up your cookies or used books for sale, or post wishes for specific stuff, but with no discussion allowed. A percentage of the sale price would go to JREF, just like at auctions.

I second what CFLarsen said; I think this would be a great idea.

 

[Darth Rotor]

Why not? You are highly critical of JREF as it is, and are working hard to discredit JREF as well.

Claus, please check the meanings of words before you use them.

TA is critical of some things on the JREF forums, and asks some questions about the organization, but to claim that he trying to discredit the JREF is a considerable stretch.

Why don't you apply the pedantic standards you demand of others to your own utterances, sir?

It would further the conversation.

As to your barter/auction idea, I like it.

I have a bridge available.

DR

 

[HarryKeogh]

How about at the beginning of each year have a new forum drive and everyone who donates gets the "Forum Donor" badge with the year incorporated into it. So instead of just saying "Forum Donor" it would say "Forum Donor 2008" and they could display one from each year they gave.

Or have different levels of donor like (gold, silver, whatever) and have that noted in the forum donor badge.

(btw, I'm sure something like this has been suggested before when the first forum drive came out)

Nothing gets people to give like giving them the ability to tell the world "Look how generous I am!"

 

[The Atheist]

Doesn't seem to be any reason why all of the ideas couldn't be used together - I don't see any detracting from the other.

Harry's donors would continue to donate, the "header" sponsors won't be put off by the auctions and the auctions themselves, as a separate and individual deal wouldn't affect either of the others.

Not including a show in that, sorry Phil.

 

[Soapy Sam]

How about at the beginning of each year have a new forum drive and everyone who donates gets the "Forum Donor" badge with the year incorporated into it. So instead of just saying "Forum Donor" it would say "Forum Donor 2008" and they could display one from each year they gave.

Or have different levels of donor like (gold, silver, whatever) and have that noted in the forum donor badge.

(btw, I'm sure something like this has been suggested before when the first forum drive came out)

Nothing gets people to give like giving them the ability to tell the world "Look how generous I am!"

I expect something very like this to appear in the next few weeks. The sum raised last year , I understood, was to cover forum costs for a year, implying the process would start again in January 2008. I find the flaunting of "Donor" badges to be in poor taste, but that's purely a personal opinion.

 

[Phil]

I expect something very like this to appear in the next few weeks. The sum raised last year , I understood, was to cover forum costs for a year, implying the process would start again in January 2008. I find the flaunting of "Donor" badges to be in poor taste, but that's purely a personal opinion.

Did you donate and refuse the badge?

 

[chillzero]

Entertainment discussion split:
http://www.internationalskeptics.com/forums/showthread.php?t=101626

 

[Jeff Wagg]

I'll say it.. he had a good idea. It's not a NEW idea, but it's a pretty good one.

And we'll likely be able to make so that only unregistered viewers see the ads, so Phil won't be bugged.

 

[drkitten]

And we'll likely be able to make so that only unregistered viewers see the ads, so Phil won't be bugged.

Oh, that's brilliant.!

 

[Phil]

I'll say it.. he had a good idea. It's not a NEW idea, but it's a pretty good one.

And we'll likely be able to make so that only unregistered viewers see the ads, so Phil won't be bugged.

I was pretty sure that I had seen many forums that operate this way, but I've done a lot of damage over the years to my head goo, so I wasn't sure I was remembering correctly.

But I looked around, and sure enough, there are forums like that.

I have no problem with ads for unregistered guests.

 

[tkingdoll]

It depends how much money is needed. Last year $10k was needed, and sponsorship via pay-per-click ads will not raise anything like that much. Plus, there are some setup costs involved in getting the sponsors in the first place.

The first thing a sponsor will ask is, what is the likely return on investment? On the internet, quantity can be as powerful as quality, but compared to other forums we don't have a very large active membership. So the sell would be based on the quality of the consumers that this forum would be putting forward. That means demonstrable disposable income (e.g. not loads of students, unless the sponsor has student-oriented products), favourable attitude towards the sponsoring brand, etc. My experience of discussing marketing or advertising here and in other skeptic groups is that there is a lot of resistance to it generally, with the consumer culture being somewhat frowned upon by some. I often say that skepticism would be more popular if skeptics weren't so resistent to marketing. But, it may be that a vocal minority has skewed my opinion. They sell a lot of books at TAM.

The problem with making it so logged in viewers don't see the ads is that right there you've lost your strongest brand advocates. See, a sponsorship is like a recommendation. The sponsor is saying "hey, people who are loyal to JREF, they like us so you will like us too!". The value is in the loyal users, because the casual users may in fact hate the site. Sponsorship is a different thing to generic rolling banner ads. You're making a different statement.

It seems likely that your best chance of getting a sponsor is from like-minded organisations, but of course we all know they don't have any money. If you want the big bucks from, say, the science book publishers, the geek product websites, etc, you'd have to demonstrate high traffic, return on investment, and no negative brand attributes, or find a company which is happy to associate with the JREF brand.

Typical click through rates are around 1%. A well-chosen, relevant sponsor would get more than that, but not much more.

If you were offering a straightforward ad space, the absolute maximum you could try to charge to deliver an audience of mixed demographics with an interest in science would be, in my opinion, $50 per thousand page impressions. But realistically you could be looking at more like $5.

But this is talking about targeted sponsorship, a partnership, so instead of the banner model, you'd probably want to charge a fee for a year's sponsorship with a guaranteed number of page impressions or monthly visitors. This means that JREF would have to start promoting the forum itself (there may be small costs attached to that) to ensure growth and to mitigate any natural churn. The sponsor would also ideally drive traffic to the site, and there are PR opportunities, especially if it's a large brand.

I have an idea of a price in my head that I think the model would be worth, and I can think of several potential sponsors. I can also think of several objections they will have but those could be worked around.

The most important thing to do would be to trial it with one sponsor in order to create a decent case study for future sales. That sponsor would have to be chosen very carefully as you will need the maximum response.

It would also be essential to send an short email survey to all users asking for feedback on the proposed sponsorship. Whether JREF likes it or not, any internet forum is 'owned' by its users, and if you piss them off, you have no platform anyway. Look at Digg for an example. You'd have to make sure that the majority of users do not ethically or otherwise object strongly to a trial sponsorship.

Meh, that's enough advice from me for now. Invoice is in the post

 

[CFLarsen]

They sell a lot of books at TAM.

Oh, yeah.

The problem with making it so logged in viewers don't see the ads is that right there you've lost your strongest brand advocates. See, a sponsorship is like a recommendation. The sponsor is saying "hey, people who are loyal to JREF, they like us so you will like us too!". The value is in the loyal users, because the casual users may in fact hate the site. Sponsorship is a different thing to generic rolling banner ads. You're making a different statement.

Yep. Sponsors would be interested in the members, not the casual viewers. If you get seen by the members, you get seen by people you know are interested in science, skepticism and critical thinking.

It seems likely that your best chance of getting a sponsor is from like-minded organisations, but of course we all know they don't have any money. If you want the big bucks from, say, the science book publishers, the geek product websites, etc, you'd have to demonstrate high traffic, return on investment, and no negative brand attributes, or find a company which is happy to associate with the JREF brand.

What about having - especially in the science section - a circulation of science books with links directly to Amazon - their affiliate marketing system?

That's easy, and you got an interested audience right there.

 

[The Atheist]

And we'll likely be able to make so that only unregistered viewers see the ads, so Phil won't be bugged.

As tkingdoll noted - that's probably not the best plan, because the membership would be top of the list of potential customers. The numbers aren't high, but the loyalty factor is huge.

Say a car dealership is one of the sponsors - a member is a lot more likely to buy from a sponsor, simply because it's a sponsor.

 

[HarryKeogh]

Say a car dealership is one of the sponsors - a member is a lot more likely to buy from a sponsor, simply because it's a sponsor.

Hmmm, maybe that's too localized.

Maybe Teek would like to advertise her firm's services here? She could consult with anyone across the globe via e-mail. OK, we have our first sale. Teek please forward 10K (in pounds or whatever crazy currency you use) to JREF immediately to start the process. I will then design your ad using Microsoft Paint.

 

[The Atheist]

Hmmm, maybe that's too localized.

Maybe Teek would like to advertise her firm's services here? She could consult with anyone across the globe via e-mail. OK, we have our first sale. Teek please forward 10K (in pounds or whatever crazy currency you use) to JREF immediately to start the process. I will then design your ad using Microsoft Paint.

The car dealer was more to point to the buyer behaviour than suggesting one as a sponsor.

I will note, however, that with 90k visitors a month, and with [presumably] higher than average intelligence per visitor, and a heavy concentration of scientists and engineers, the site would have huge appeal to an international executive recruiter. Say they spent $30k, one good candidate and it's paid for; two, they've doubled their money.

 

[tkingdoll]

Hmmm, maybe that's too localized.

Maybe Teek would like to advertise her firm's services here? She could consult with anyone across the globe via e-mail. OK, we have our first sale. Teek please forward 10K (in pounds or whatever crazy currency you use) to JREF immediately to start the process. I will then design your ad using Microsoft Paint.

10K pounds? What's that, about four hundred billion dollars?

I ain't advertising here, I might get The Atheist calling me and breathing heavily down the phone about diversification opportunities in the former colonies.

 

[gtc]

An unobtrusive ad?

How does that work?

Well, your avatar and the link in your signature are a form of advertising (not all advertising is commercial) and they aren't particularly obtrusive.

Naturally, less obtrusive advets may be less effective.

 

[kmortis]

Well, your avatar and the link in your signature are a form of advertising (not all advertising is commercial) and they aren't particularly obtrusive.

Naturally, less obtrusive advets may be less effective.

Why do I suddenly feel like taking a walk down a deserted road?

 

[Minadin]

I wouldn't be completely opposed to some small banner-type advertisements on the forum as long as:

1. I know the revenue is going to a good cause (I think the JREF qualifies).

2. Randi / Jeff / Darat / etc. have some sort of control over the content of the ads, the products they represent, and the companies behind them. (Really, this could be used as a good marketing ploy to draw in potential advertisers because it becomes a semi-endorsement implicitly)

3. There's some sort of option for people to be able to avoid them. (It doesn't matter to me if you're talking about requiring registration to get a CP check box to turn off ads, or if you require members to donate some amount as small as $1 US to get the "Forum Donor" graphic and the ability to skip ads automatically if they choose to do so.)

 

[rjh01]

I wouldn't be completely opposed to some small banner-type advertisements on the forum as long as:

1. I know the revenue is going to a good cause (I think the JREF qualifies).

2. Randi / Jeff / Darat / etc. have some sort of control over the content of the ads, the products they represent, and the companies behind them. (Really, this could be used as a good marketing ploy to draw in potential advertisers because it becomes a semi-endorsement implicitly)

3. There's some sort of option for people to be able to avoid them. (It doesn't matter to me if you're talking about requiring registration to get a CAP check box to turn off ads, or if you require members to donate some amount as small as $1 US to get the "Forum Donor" graphic and the ability to skip ads automatically if they choose to do so.)

I agree with the above. For 3. I think a donation at least $20 pa would be required.

As for the placement I think they should be as posts. Put them on the hot threads, so lots of people see them. If they are on the side they will be in the way. If they are on the bottom or top they can be ignored. This would be bad for the sponsors.

 

[CFLarsen]

Well, your avatar and the link in your signature are a form of advertising (not all advertising is commercial) and they aren't particularly obtrusive.

They may not be particularly obtrusive to you or regular posters, because you see so many (cough) of them, all the time. How often do you notice the JREF logo at the top? I mean, really stop and think "Gee, there's something that looks interesting, I gotta click on that"? You don't - you have developed banner blindness.

That's going to happen too, with one sponsor for each subforum. Unless something not just catches the eye, but also gets you curious, sponsor links are not going to have a particularly big effect.

What would work is targeted ads: Whenever there's a discussion on evolution, or psychics, or astrology, link to e.g. books on Amazon that deal with the claims. But the ads have to change, depending on the topic: It doesn't work to put Culver & Ianna's "Astrology - True or False?" in a thread about psychics. On the other hand, it would work very well to put Ian Rowland's cold reading book in a thread about psychics.

But don't put Rowland's book in every thread about psychics. Find a selection and rotate those. Run campaigns for new books. Revive old ones.

Naturally, less obtrusive advets may be less effective.

Of course - that's how ads work: By being obtrusive. They need to be seen in order for people to take notice and make them respond to them.

 

[Jaggy Bunnet]

What would work is targeted ads: Whenever there's a discussion on evolution, or psychics, or astrology, link to e.g. books on Amazon that deal with the claims. But the ads have to change, depending on the topic: It doesn't work to put Culver & Ianna's "Astrology - True or False?" in a thread about psychics. On the other hand, it would work very well to put Ian Rowland's cold reading book in a thread about psychics.

But don't put Rowland's book in every thread about psychics. Find a selection and rotate those. Run campaigns for new books. Revive old ones.

I have to say this sounds like a very good idea.

 

[HarryKeogh]

Didn't Jeff Wagg mention (during the Google ad uproar) that the Amazon ads were considered but the money that would be generated was pretty paltry?

If I'm mistaken, I apologize Jeff.