|
LadyEllen -> RE: Pay for CM? (1/25/2008 2:11:11 PM)
|
$10-00?
I've always maintained this is the best site around for forum discussions, but the other side is something of a problem.
I'd be quite happy to pay $100-00 a year for the forum discussions - a pound a week roughly - because the value of what one can learn, the laughs one can have with mainly reasonable adult people and the standard of debate is generally very much higher than anywhere else I've found (but maybe I dont get around much!?) - on a huge variety of subjects.
The other side's problem arises from its no fee basis I believe. I wonder how many trolls and assorted other PITAs (pains in the arse) would bother with the site if they had to fork out for it? On the other hand, the way it is financed at the moment (I presume to some extent at least) is by way of banner advertising - and the no fee basis means that there are a lot of members (500,000 ish last time I looked) - which means its a very viable place for such advertising and advertisers will pay considerably for such exposure (again, I presume).
So yes, I'd pay $10-00 because the value is far higher - but the way CM appears to be financed at the moment, this would be a counter productive measure if payment were required, since the audience for the revenue earning advertising would be rapidly in my view, diminished because a large proportion of that 500,000 member list would not pay.
As for optional payment - this gets difficult I think for two main reasons. Would those who paid receive different treatment to the rest, and would how much they paid vary their treatment still further - those who paid more getting more favourable treatment for instance - not in terms of access to features but in terms of things like moderation? It would only require the impression, the merest perception of favouritism for larger donors to destroy the integrity of the place and risk damaging the customer base.
The other reason why optional payment - indeed any payment, gives rise to problems is in that (under UK law at least, and maybe by inheritance in US law too), payment invokes all sorts of legislative requirements on the site owners; not least of which are the likes of "duty of care" and "adequate service, fit for purpose". Given that the site is so well provided and maintained "as is" these are perhaps minor concerns because it adheres to such requirements anyway - but again, in the presence of payment the whole structure of how it is provided and maintained would have to be changed, with perhaps inadvertent side effects which brought the site into risk.
E
|
|
|
|
