A poster recently begged for a subscriber-only site in hopes of a better place to read and post. In his post, he mentioned the correlation between readership and advertising. Being in the journalism field (though not in marketing) it should have occurred to me that numbers are likely the main reason Photo.net doesn't want to go pay-only. Subscription-only means fewer "members" which means fewer dollars from paid advertising. I would bet this is why Photo.net has been dragging its feet about making photo uploads a subscriber-only benefit. I understand the need for advertising dollars. I understand the need for member support. Just today, I forked out $68 for a three-year subscription because I think it's the right thing to do. But sometimes what's right isn't exactly smart. Who the heck in their right mind would pay for something they can get for free??? There's been a lot of talk about subscriber benefits but I've not seen any changes that make it worthwhile for me, or others, to dig into our pockets and hand over our money. So my question is this: When will subscribers start seeing some sort of benefit over and above the basic services that non-paying members have and what will that/those benefit(s) be? I think it's a lot of Photo.net to ask people to be loyal, supportive and generous with their hard-earned cash when Photo.net doesn't offer anything in return. Surely there's some way to strike a balance?