Jump to content

Subscriber benefits. Lots or slightly less ads?


alexander_rosser

Recommended Posts

<p>Hi all<br>

This is really addressed to the moderator or to the photo.net management though other comments and advice would be welcome.<br>

I'm a newly registered member and I think the content of the site is excellent. However I'm one of those fuddy-duddies that have real problems with flashing ads - they give me a migraine. Somewhere it say that subscribers (i.e $25 per year) get "reduced" advertising. What does that mean? Virtually none, or just slightly less? Do all those garish flashing ads go away? Especially that one that starts with "Congratulations" (I couldn't read any further - it hurt my head.)<br>

Alex</p>

Link to comment
Share on other sites

<p>Josh please tell us why we have to put up with the flashing - moving adds? I like many don't mind the adds that don't flash or move. It's the flashing one's that are a pain, we don't want them - I know the addmen do, How do you stand on this. Someone in PN must make the choice to use them.</p>
Link to comment
Share on other sites

<p>Danny, there are any number of reasons why you might be seeing flashing moving ads. The two most likely are:</p>

<p>1. It's a junk ad from an ad network that slipped through our "this is what we will accept" filters. It happens, more than I would like. If you are located in a non-N. America part of the world particularly.</p>

<p>2. Some specific photo.net advertiser requested such an ad. We do our best to say "Hey Canon, flashing ads really don't improve response" but at the end of the day, this is a business and sometimes we just end up having to go that direction. I think most good advertisers (and canon is a good advertiser) know that being creative is better than being annoying. But advertising is all about getting your attention and sometimes ad companies go overboard on that.</p>

<p>Ads are an unfortunate reality in the web world. But it is what it is. The bills have to be paid. You can't have full time programmers and people answering email and backup servers and so on if you don't have the money to pay for it. The early 2000's were fun, when companies didn't have to make any money on the web. But those days are long gone.</p>

Link to comment
Share on other sites

<blockquote>

<p>Photo.net doesn't chose the ads. I think we can say what type of ads we don't want, but the ad servers don't always listen. We can only complain to them "after the fact"</p>

</blockquote>

<p>It is more accurate to say that we don't choose ALL of the ads. Some of them are direct from our system, mostly these are any photographic related ad you see. But almost all of the rest are from the adservers.</p>

Link to comment
Share on other sites

<p>Thanks guys for the feedback. I now know that it is not worth my while to pay $25 per year to be a subscriber, as I will still be swamped with flashing, intrusive, migraine-causing ads.<br>

Regrettably, it also means that my visits here will be infrequent as the content is very good.<br>

I am also a little surprised that photo.net receives over $25 PER MEMBER in ad revenue. Otherwise they would net more revenue by offering a "pay for no ads" option.<br>

Alex</p>

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Create an account or sign in to comment

You need to be a member in order to leave a comment

Create an account

Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!

Register a new account

Sign in

Already have an account? Sign in here.

Sign In Now
×
×
  • Create New...