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 (http://forums.randi.org/showthread.php?t=100131)

[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 (http://forums.randi.org/showthread.php?t=100131)

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?

* kmortis 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://forums.randi.org/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. :D

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://forums.randi.org/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 :D

[CFLarsen]

They sell a lot of books at TAM.

Oh, yeah. :D

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? (http://affiliate-program.amazon.com/gp/associates/join)

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? :p

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.

[tkingdoll]

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.

$30k??? If you can get any advertiser to spend $30k on sponsoring this forum, I will personally give you a month's worth of free marketing. You could knock a zero off and it would still be prohibitively expensive and risky compared to the other forms of exposure you could get for the same money.

Hell, I can run a colour ad in a national newspaper for £500 and get 4million readers.

There are two types of advertising:

1) Direct response (click here to buy/do whatever the company offers, usually with an incentive like a discount).

2) Brand awareness.

Sponsorship largely falls into the second category. The major benefits for the sponsor are i) access to a new, receptive audience and ii) association with desirable, positive brand attributes.

Now, the first thing any sponsor is going to want to know is "what does it mean if I associate myself with the James Randi Educational Foundation?".

Make a list. Write down the positive and the negative attributes associated with the JREF. Like, "promotes critical thinking". But then you have to ask "what is the public perception of critical thinking?" before you know if that's good or not. The answer is probably "the public don't really know what it is", to be honest. How about "debunks the paranormal". Well, lots of people like the paranormal. Those debunking it are often seen as killjoys, ivory tower types. That narrows down your choice of sponsor to companies which don't mind being seen to be actively anti-paranormal. The JREF "isn't an atheist organisation" but it's no secret that the majority of members of this forum are atheists and sometimes believers complain that they get a hard time. So you need a company which doesn't mind being associated with atheism.

And so on. It is problematic because of the very nature of the niche we're in.

However, it's not impossible, as I say I can think of a few potential candidates. But not with a price tag of $30k !

[The Atheist]

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.

Glad to see that you've changed your mind about the idea and contibuting to the discussion. There's merit in the idea, too, although books are limited as a means of income - maybe it could be limited to feature threads?

The book review section is practically crying out for this to happen - have direct links to buy rated books and take a cut.

(Only a little irony in the fact that having practically been crying about the increase in work for JREF by finding a few sponsors, your offering comes up with a far more heavily time-intensive way of advertising.)

[The Atheist]

Hell, I can run a colour ad in a national newspaper for £500 and get 4million readers.

But not in a premier paper, is my guess.

From my own experience advertising in the UK, £500 buys nothing worth having.

Make a list. Write down the positive and the negative attributes associated with the JREF. Like, "promotes critical thinking". But then you have to ask "what is the public perception of critical thinking?" before you know if that's good or not. The answer is probably "the public don't really know what it is", to be honest. How about "debunks the paranormal". Well, lots of people like the paranormal. Those debunking it are often seen as killjoys, ivory tower types. That narrows down your choice of sponsor to companies which don't mind being seen to be actively anti-paranormal. The JREF "isn't an atheist organisation" but it's no secret that the majority of members of this forum are atheists and sometimes believers complain that they get a hard time. So you need a company which doesn't mind being associated with atheism.

Yep, I agree, which is why I was looking at the more important things, like the net worth/average income/intelligence level of the posters.

Given the leaning towards science and engineering, I think there is a market which could be exploited. Atheism in the US market might be an issue.

However, it's not impossible, as I say I can think of a few potential candidates. But not with a price tag of $30k !

You're the expert, so I'll take your word for it, but in recruiting, that doesn't buy a lot of advertising. Lots of executive positions have ad budgets well in excess of that, even at a national level.

[CFLarsen]

Glad to see that you've changed your mind about the idea

I haven't changed my mind.

and contibuting to the discussion. There's merit in the idea, too, although books are limited as a means of income - maybe it could be limited to feature threads?

The book review section is practically crying out for this to happen - have direct links to buy rated books and take a cut.

The Book Review subforum has very little traffic compared to other subforums. The books should primarily be placed where they are discussed, or in threads where the books are relevant.

(Only a little irony in the fact that having practically been crying about the increase in work for JREF by finding a few sponsors, your offering comes up with a far more heavily time-intensive way of advertising.)

How so?

[tomwaits]

Mark Prindle (http://www.markprindle.com/) has links to Amazon and if you click on them and buy something, a percentage goes toward Mark. So, JREF could make an announcement telling everything that whenever they want to buy something from Amazon, they could use their link on JREF webpage. That way, you aren't trying to "sell" anything.

[rjh01]

Mark Prindle (http://www.markprindle.com/) has links to Amazon and if you click on them and buy something, a percentage goes toward Mark. So, JREF could make an announcement telling everything that whenever they want to buy something from Amazon, they could use their link on JREF webpage. That way, you aren't trying to "sell" anything.

The problem with that approach is that if it does not result in a net increase in sales advertisers will have no reason to pay for the advertising.

Advertisers pay when your behaviour changes so that you buy their product.

[Minadin]

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.

I don't really care if it's $1, $5, $10, $20, or $50 annually. I think that's up the the JREF to decide at which point it's most beneficial.

As far as the ads appearing as posts or in between posts in the threads, I think that may be more intrusive than what TA proposed initially. I wouldn't want it to look tacky. But, I'm not familiar with what the difference in revenue would be between something like that and a discreet banner at the top / bottom / side of the page. It might be worth it.

[tkingdoll]

But not in a premier paper, is my guess.

From my own experience advertising in the UK, £500 buys nothing worth having.



£500 gets me a credit card-sized, colour ad in the section of my choice in any one of the tabloids (Sun, Mirror, etc). For a broadsheet like the Guardian, it'd be around £700 for the same ad. For a specialist magazine, nearer £1000, depending on a few variables and how close to deadline it is.

But I have extensive buying power in the media so I get great deals for my clients. Trying to buy your own media is always the most expensive route. But, recruitment advertising is always the most expensive form of advertising because of the nature of the business and the return. The rates will always be much, much higher than an ad in any other sector, although in printed press it's increasingly competitive because of the internet. But any company sinking an entire $30k budget into sponsorship of one, niche, internet forum would be taking an enormous risk compared to spending $30k on traditional recruitment sites or a banner on a science magazine's website. And if we dropped the sponsorship idea and just sold banner advertising, well, it needs to be at a price comparable to the competition and reflective of our traffic. We're at the bottom rung of this market, sadly.

Not that there isn't merit in your idea; if the members here were comfortable with the idea then I think some money could be made, but I'm not sure it would be enough money to be worth a) the initial outlay and b) potentially annoying people once the project is actually running. I'm also skeptical for...er...other reasons.

[Soapy Sam]

The 2007 new server fundraiser took 2 months to raise $10K, ending about the end of March IIRC?

I get the impression any advertising revenue from the forum would be considered general JREF funds rather than Forum funding.

Is there to be another Forum Fundraiser Appeal for 2008?

My own view is that I don't want adverts , but I could live with it as long as they were not RED.

[Darat]

Well since I don't know what "drastic" changes may be afoot all I can say is we had been thinking about some form of fund-raising via the Forum again early in the New Year. Probably on a similar bases to what we did last year but with some tweaks to incorporate the feedback from the Members and the JREF.

[Jackalgirl]

For what it's worth, I like the idea, TA. I wouldn't mind if it were a smallish ad at the top of the page. For JREF's sake, I'd even consider looking at it from time to time rather than just blowing past the top of the page by scrolling down, like I usually do. : )

I like the idea of SELECTED ads. The problem with Adsense was that JREF couldn't control what came up. But if JREF actually sells ad space to companies, it can choose what it thinks might be appropriate (and appreciated by its member base). Just don't advertise for Thinkgeek, okay? I spend WAY TOO MUCH MONEY at that place as it is. ; )

I wouldn't be opposed to a membership tier level that allows people to turn off the ads (but requires a subscription, like a premium membership), either.

And I like the idea of the marketplace, too. It would be nice, if I were selling something I thought was cool, to give the folks here first shot (and give JREF a cut).

FWIW.

[tkingdoll]

I wouldn't be opposed to a membership tier level that allows people to turn off the ads (but requires a subscription, like a premium membership), either.



Yes, that's the only workable model for members being able to turn off ads: pay for the privilege. And there would have to be some other added value elements to paying to use the forum, but I suspect there would be a few members prepared to go down this route. It's a pretty common model, "want an ad-free forum? Become a Premium Member for only $30 a year" etc.

However, I still think that even that and sponsorship combined will raise less money than a plain old donation drive like last year.

The really important thing for JREF to realise is that they can't do both (ask for donations now then try and slap some advertising or sponsorship up in a few months). That will annoy people faster than you can say "greedy".

[The Atheist]

The really important thing for JREF to realise is that they can't do both (ask for donations now then try and slap some advertising or sponsorship up in a few months). That will annoy people faster than you can say "greedy".

You sure about that? Seems to work fine for places like IIDB.

I don't see why a donation drive - for the forum, from forum members - can't co-exist with ads which generate income for JREF.

As long as it's presented correctly and honestly, it shouldn't be an issue.

[tkingdoll]

You sure about that? Seems to work fine for places like IIDB.

I don't see why a donation drive - for the forum, from forum members - can't co-exist with ads which generate income for JREF.

As long as it's presented correctly and honestly, it shouldn't be an issue.

Ah, I see what you're getting at. I was talking about ads to generate revenue to support the running costs of the forum, not to generate additional funds for the JREF. Tricky distinction to make though, and something that highlights how divorced from JREF-proper the forum is. For example, I don't donate to the JREF directly (I do indirectly as I pay to attend TAM) and have no wish to do so. As far as IIDB goes, do they have a premium membership option? I don't see how you can ask people to donate, then ask them to pay again to avoid seeing adverts. Well, you could ask, but you'd be told where to shove it, as the people most likely to donate to a drive are very likely to be the same people who will pay for premium membership. But they won't do both. You could run ads that everyone has to see, and then say "oh, we need more money, please donate" without ruffling many feathers. But you'd need a good chunk of time between launching your ads and asking for donations. The problem we have here is that at present there are no ads.

If the JREF wants to run ads for funds for the JREF, they'd be better placed on the main site, surely?

Yes, it would be a problem to ask people for, say $10k in donations and then slap adverts all over the forum they just paid for and ask them to pay for not seeing them. You could say "donors won't see the ads" but that's just the same as a premium membership. Is that the model IIDB use? I don't see anything on their site which says you can opt out of seeing the ads.

[The Atheist]

Ah, I see what you're getting at. I was talking about ads to generate revenue to support the running costs of the forum, not to generate additional funds for the JREF. Tricky distinction to make though, and something that highlights how divorced from JREF-proper the forum is. For example, I don't donate to the JREF directly (I do indirectly as I pay to attend TAM) and have no wish to do so.

The forum is clearly just a chatterbox, but works largely within the aims of the JREF. Apart from the odd matter, it seems to me that Jeff posts as a forum member than an employee, so apart from Remie and challenges, it isn't really part of the day-to-day business of the foundation. The forum is reasonably self-managing & staffed by volunteers and it creates a cost of $10k-ish on the resources of JREF.

Realistically, it's all money in & out of the same till, which is why the distinction is tricky, but the two seem distinct enough to cope.

As far as IIDB goes, do they have a premium membership option? I don't see how you can ask people to donate, then ask them to pay again to avoid seeing adverts. Well, you could ask, but you'd be told where to shove it, as the people most likely to donate to a drive are very likely to be the same people who will pay for premium membership. But they won't do both. You could run ads that everyone has to see, and then say "oh, we need more money, please donate" without ruffling many feathers. But you'd need a good chunk of time between launching your ads and asking for donations. The problem we have here is that at present there are no ads.

I'm trying to track down other boards which combine donations and ads, but IIDB seem to be doing exactly what I'm suggesting. The ads are for secular or atheist organisations and may not generate a lot of income, but they are pretty unobtrusive - they're listed at the top of the page as "PAID ADVERTISEMENTS", just as the JREF ad appears here. I don't notice them much, but I have clicked on them, which is a real rarity for me and I clicked on them for the same reason people will here - trust.

No premium memberships at IIDB and I think that would be a bad idea for exactly the reasons you do.

This approach got me looking around and I find that a christian forum operates on much the same lines - Ship of Fools alternates requests for donations with unobtrusive paid ads. It's similarly successful to this forum.

If the JREF wants to run ads for funds for the JREF, they'd be better placed on the main site, surely?

They do!

I don't know what the cross-pollination between the forum & JREF is, or what the visitor numbers are at JREF as opposed to the forum.

[Soapy Sam]

Seems to me there are pros & cons to separating the funding .
. The forum has costs, which are easily tallied- server rental, etc.
. The forum has financial benefits which may be less easily tallied.
. I (and others) support JREF, morally and financially- but my primary contact is via the forum, so I'm motivated to support it.
But I have spending limits like everyone else. Would I rather give $100 to JREF or the JREF Forum? Tricky.
This holds for all forum members. If the forum closed today, how many of us would maintain contact with, or donations to, JREF?
I'd mean to, but would likely fall by the wayside.
. It seems agreed at JREF that any sort of membership charge, however low, is not on.
This means, I suspect, that the bulk of forum costs are paid by a fairly small subset of users- maybe only 100-200 people. (If this is wrong, I'd be interested to know). Is $10 per head per year really so hard to find? (or $10 per household, for simplicity).
There are something like 2000 active members I believe. That's $20,000- enough to fund the hardware at least. The voluntary work done by Terry, the mods, Taggers etc is incalculable cost-wise, but that's another debate.

[The Atheist]

I think the people who donate already probably give enough. I'd envisage it working out that forum donors would probably do nothing different, while the ads create income - mainly from non-members, but doubtless some of the services would be useful for members too.

I don't think too much needs to be made out of keeping costs separate, it's more of a philosophical than financial approach.

[Antiquehunter]

Just to throw out an idea...

PAID Membership in the JREF gets you membership to the Forum (and access to the member areas). And change the pricing structure of JREF memberships to be more in line with similar organizations (such as American Atheist).

Right now, for my $100 membership, I get periodic mailings that seem to come willy-nilly, a personally signed letter from Randi (nice) and a membership card. Whee. In fact, if I don't make a point of renewing, I often don't get a reminder letter / Email /phonecall. (I usually toss $100 at Linda at TAM for my renewal).

Just throwing it out there...

-AH.

[The Atheist]

Right now, for my $100 membership, I get periodic mailings that seem to come willy-nilly, a personally signed letter from Randi (nice) and a membership card. Whee. In fact, if I don't make a point of renewing, I often don't get a reminder letter / Email /phonecall. (I usually toss $100 at Linda at TAM for my renewal).

Just throwing it out there...

-AH.

Hate to say it, but that's extremely poor service.

Given today's technology, that sort of thing just shouldn't happen.

[Antiquehunter]

I am making the assumption that membership revenues don't generate that much - and that the admin office time is better spent dealing with JREF book sales & day to day operations. I don't have enough of an intimate knowledge of the revenue streams and day to day operations to understand why there is an apparent lack of followup on renewals (or any apparent membership drive).

The key to my argument is that membership in the JREF is expensive, and you don't really get anything tangible for such membership (apart from the Randi letter & a small gift on initial signup). Oh - I almost forgot I get a minor discount off TAM attendance, which does offset the cost of membership, assuming you are a TAM attendee. And while most memberships are for the SAKE of membership - those memberships / affiliations are generally much cheaper.

My recommendation would be to either add some value to membership (such as access to the members only sections of the online forum) and/or change the pricing structure. My suggestion:

Membership is $25 a year. Initial memberships get a hand signed welcome letter. Members receive:

- Quarterly 'Swift' mailed to them (which need'nt be any more than the 'best of' the last quarter's Swifts and a personalized introduction / executive summary if you will)
- Include a donation card & a renewal card for membership in each mailing
- A nifty JREF membership card
- Access to the JREF forum 'members only' section
- Scrap the TAM discount (but maybe have a JREF 'members only' cocktail hour at TAM)
- Discount a 5 year membership to $100 for 5 years total (saves money on not having to do as much renewal work, and also assists with up front capitalization)
- Offer a 'life membership' option at $1000 for a once-off membership fee that keeps going in perpetuity. Such a member gets a nice lapel pin or similar to identify them at TAM / skeptical functions.

I am NOT trying to be negative about the JREF - I am a member, and will continue to be. I am frustrated, however, that the organization could and should be run much better. It is Randi's organization, and he can run it anyway he sees fit - but sometimes the best one man show needs to change its day to day leadership style to get to the next step.

[rjh01]

My recommendation would be to either add some value to membership (such as access to the members only sections of the online forum) and/or change the pricing structure. My suggestion:

Membership is $25 a year. Initial memberships get a hand signed welcome letter. Members receive:
<snip>
- Access to the JREF forum 'members only' section
<snip>


This members only section. Is that the current members only section? Or is it some new section? If the former than it may have an impact on the number of members we have.

We could have another section for these paid members. This could include
- Adult only content.
- Say what we really think about the paranormal without the woos reading.
- Fewer trolls.

[Antiquehunter]

I was thinking of the current 'members only' section - and I realize that there are many forum members who are not JREF members. I am making (the perhaps erroneous assumption) that the barrier to becoming a JREF member is the $100 a year fee, and that if the price point was changed those forum members who wanted access to the more rules-liberal sections of the forum, would be willing to buck up the $25 - perhaps in lieu of their financial donations to the forum.

That said - if there were several thousand new JREF memberships at $25 per annum, with the vast majority being attributable to a JREF membership push from the forum, perhaps we could make a strong argument against having to go hat in hand for forum donations in 2008...

Just thinking aloud...

-AH

[SezMe]

- Offer a 'life membership' option at $1000 for a once-off membership fee that keeps going in perpetuity.
You gotta be careful with this. I have a friend who is the head of a non-profit not unlike the JREF who tells their woeful story.

They offered such a "life membership" option and got an enthusiastic response. They were in financial fat city for a couple of years, then the cash flow went to hell. Annual renewals dropped because all the real supporters had already "paid in full". Yet those same members demanded (with full justification) that all the bennies of a "life membership" be delivered but there was no cash flow to fund those bennies. Oops.

[Antiquehunter]

Certainly a valid point SezMe - but can be managed by calling them 'limited' life memberships, and only offering the purchase of same while there is a reasonable ratio of regular memberships to life memberships.

The American Philatelic society for example offers life memberships, but pulled them from offer for a period of time - presumably for a similar reason.