Max, I didn't miss his point. I said ad revenues go down considerably if you eliminate paying members from the ad revenue stream. The fact that the majority of eyes belong to non-members doesn't change that. And people who actually pay for content are the most valuable prospects to advertisers.
Bear, as always, I agree with pretty much everything you said. Except for this one thing: one of the posters equated running ads on this site to what Bernie Madoff did to his customers -- in other words, deriving a revenue stream from advertising equals screwing the very people who put their trust in you. That's so patently offensive, unfair and hysterical, I hardly have appropriate words to describe it. If Matt doesn't throw this guy's keister off the site, then I think he's showing far more restraint than I would apply.
- Dennis (in Seattle)
Whats up with the Advertisements?
dennisg wrote:
Yes, Dennis you are correct, that was completely uncalled for but it was so off the wall I didn't even understand how it pertained to the issue. So I ignored it. Matt is firm believer in free speech so he will probably just ignore it, even as inappropriate as it was.
- Rick (in Portland) lol!
Max, I didn't miss his point. I said ad revenues go down considerably if you eliminate paying members from the ad revenue stream. The fact that the majority of eyes belong to non-members doesn't change that. And people who actually pay for content are the most valuable prospects to advertisers.
Bear, as always, I agree with pretty much everything you said. Except for this one thing: one of the posters equated running ads on this site to what Bernie Madoff did to his customers -- in other words, deriving a revenue stream from advertising equals screwing the very people who put their trust in you. That's so patently offensive, unfair and hysterical, I hardly have appropriate words to describe it. If Matt doesn't throw this guy's keister off the site, then I think he's showing far more restraint than I would apply.
- Dennis (in Seattle)
Yes, Dennis you are correct, that was completely uncalled for but it was so off the wall I didn't even understand how it pertained to the issue. So I ignored it. Matt is firm believer in free speech so he will probably just ignore it, even as inappropriate as it was.
- Rick (in Portland) lol!
dennisg wrote:
Hey Dennis, did you know that Bernie Madoff was once one very much like Neil? He was one of the shrewdest inverters out there. He was not only very successful for himself, but for his clients as well.
WHAT DO YOU SUPPOSE IT WAS THAT TURNED HIM TO CRIME? Do you think it was his interest in being/staying the best at what he did, or his interest in getting other people's money? Hmmmmm???
And next time you buy a CD because you are interested in 1 or 2 tracks, why don't you do a little research and see where your money goes? You don't think the guitarist gets his fair share do you? Or maybe you do think the people who are interested in the promoting, advertising, as well as exploiting the artists and customers are UNDER paid?
Well either way, I am most flattered in your interest in my keister. If you were a young attractive woman, that might get you some karma. But since you're not, I suggest that you keep your hands off, BEFORE you're the one who's "flattered"!
Max, I didn't miss his point. I said ad revenues go down considerably if you eliminate paying members from the ad revenue stream. The fact that the majority of eyes belong to non-members doesn't change that. And people who actually pay for content are the most valuable prospects to advertisers.
Bear, as always, I agree with pretty much everything you said. Except for this one thing: one of the posters equated running ads on this site to what Bernie Madoff did to his customers -- in other words, deriving a revenue stream from advertising equals screwing the very people who put their trust in you. That's so patently offensive, unfair and hysterical, I hardly have appropriate words to describe it. If Matt doesn't throw this guy's keister off the site, then I think he's showing far more restraint than I would apply.
- Dennis (in Seattle)
Hey Dennis, did you know that Bernie Madoff was once one very much like Neil? He was one of the shrewdest inverters out there. He was not only very successful for himself, but for his clients as well.
WHAT DO YOU SUPPOSE IT WAS THAT TURNED HIM TO CRIME? Do you think it was his interest in being/staying the best at what he did, or his interest in getting other people's money? Hmmmmm???
And next time you buy a CD because you are interested in 1 or 2 tracks, why don't you do a little research and see where your money goes? You don't think the guitarist gets his fair share do you? Or maybe you do think the people who are interested in the promoting, advertising, as well as exploiting the artists and customers are UNDER paid?
Well either way, I am most flattered in your interest in my keister. If you were a young attractive woman, that might get you some karma. But since you're not, I suggest that you keep your hands off, BEFORE you're the one who's "flattered"!
Ok..
Enough
This is no longer a joke..The forum has once again become a playground for people who equate free speech with hate speech..
Criticism of the stuff we do when positively framed is fine..Underhanded comments like those posted are a no go zone and unacceptable as they always have been..the moment you get personal is the moment I have no tolerance for "free speech"
Effective immediately a member has been banned..Until I discuss with him appropriate behaviour and an explanation .and if anyone else wants to continue this line I have no hesitation paying or non paying member.....some of you are on notice..
Those of you sitting on the sidelines who are egging on a schholyard fight I will also happily ban if this continues..
That includes the sometimes subtle or not so subtle inferences that have started to creep in again by some members who should know better by now..
This is a music site, for music lovers..lets keep it on topic pls
Please in the interests of the purpose of this site..post stuff related to music and lessons etc ..or dont post..
I will keep the thread open for now, but if it continues it will disappear along with anything else that takes away the true spirit of what we have here..
Thx for listening
Enough
This is no longer a joke..The forum has once again become a playground for people who equate free speech with hate speech..
Criticism of the stuff we do when positively framed is fine..Underhanded comments like those posted are a no go zone and unacceptable as they always have been..the moment you get personal is the moment I have no tolerance for "free speech"
Effective immediately a member has been banned..Until I discuss with him appropriate behaviour and an explanation .and if anyone else wants to continue this line I have no hesitation paying or non paying member.....some of you are on notice..
Those of you sitting on the sidelines who are egging on a schholyard fight I will also happily ban if this continues..
That includes the sometimes subtle or not so subtle inferences that have started to creep in again by some members who should know better by now..
This is a music site, for music lovers..lets keep it on topic pls
Please in the interests of the purpose of this site..post stuff related to music and lessons etc ..or dont post..
I will keep the thread open for now, but if it continues it will disappear along with anything else that takes away the true spirit of what we have here..
Thx for listening
I wondered when this would happen. It is a logical move for TG. How they implement it is really the only thing to discuss.
For me, I have an old notebook computer that can not get better than 1024x768 resolution and when I came on the site today, I was greeted by a full third page ad. That's too much on my machine. It should have adjusted itself down to a reasonable size for my screen. Say 10% maybe. As it is, its flipping huge and detracts from the site a great deal.
Placing ads on the site makes sense. If they never did it I'd be happy but its simply not realistic. I can live with ads. as long as they do not take over my screen.
For me, I have an old notebook computer that can not get better than 1024x768 resolution and when I came on the site today, I was greeted by a full third page ad. That's too much on my machine. It should have adjusted itself down to a reasonable size for my screen. Say 10% maybe. As it is, its flipping huge and detracts from the site a great deal.
Placing ads on the site makes sense. If they never did it I'd be happy but its simply not realistic. I can live with ads. as long as they do not take over my screen.
Quite frankly I think that with TGs track record we should all just calm down let the TG staff weave their magic and see how it plays out. It's pretty intrusive (unless you have Andy's notebook) so let's give it a chance. I'm actually look forward to seeing what they put up. Try it you might like it.
Ric
Ric