New terms - commercial content on RMweb

[Phil Parker]

1 minute ago, Harlequin said:

I don't have solutions to the thorny problems - but I hope you guys know what you're doing and most importantly keep the open community of enthusiasts.

 

Thanks - we are both determined that RMweb stays free for users, and is a proper community. TBF, the rest of the business sees it very much as the future, but it also needs to stop being a hole Warners shovels money into, and so things have to change as painlessly as possible.

[AY Mod]

5 minutes ago, Harlequin said:

You keep responding to posts that I've tried to Hide

 

Because they merited a response.

 

5 minutes ago, Harlequin said:

I hope you guys know what you're doing and most importantly keep the open community of enthusiasts.

 

I always try to do the fair thing; sometimes that's not always palatable for everyone but, despite proclamations of doom from some people, we're still here and as busy as ever.

[zr2498]

7 minutes ago, AY Mod said:

 

Because they merited a response.

 

 

I always try to do the fair thing; sometimes that's not always palatable for everyone but, despite proclamations of doom from some people, we're still here and as busy as ever.

And thanks very much for what you guys do. RMWeb is the only social media activity that I will engage with. I expect that the situation will carry on as existing? Perhaps the 'new terms' has opened a can that had no worms in it.

[Jeremy Cumberland]

Of course manufacturers and other commercial bodies should pay for exposure, but part of me likes to think that some manufacturers should be rewarded rather than charged for the entertainment that they bring and the very high standards of modelling they show us. I always read Modelu posts, for example, even though I have no need of model figures right now.

[AY Mod]

9 minutes ago, zr2498 said:

Perhaps the 'new terms' has opened a can that had no worms in it.

 

Don't worry; someone will keep digging for 'em. 😁

[Stubby47]

Having read the T&C, and all the previous post, I guess if I post a photo of a model made for a client would that now be considered as advertising for my services, and thus  Stubby47.com would be subject to an annual fee?

[AY Mod]

6 minutes ago, Stubby47 said:

I guess if I post a photo of a model made for a client would that now be considered as advertising for my services, and thus  Stubby47.com would be subject to an annual fee?

 

You'll have to have a chat with our advertising people - the best contact is  sarah.jarman@warnersgroup.co.uk

[John Isherwood]

As Cambridge Custom Transfers, I am able to produce transfers for my own use, and that of my friends.

 

Rather than limit the use of those transfers to a tiny fraction of the modelling fraternity, I offer them on a zero profit basis via a basic website to the wider hobby - principally via a posting on RMweb.

 

I do not use any form of paid advertising, and my prices just cover costs and postage / packing; my time is given FOC, and at the expense of my own modelling time.

 

If, as I understand correctly, your advertising people want to charge me for making the membership aware of my new transfer sheets, this simply will not happen.

 

My new output is usually tied to a newly- available product - be it kit or RTR - thereby widening the appeal of that product.

 

Many of the posts on RMweb which provide help and knowledge are authored by modellers / small suppliers, and the modelling content of the group - as opposed to the fan-boy frothing - comes primarily from those sources.

 

If your advertising division are intent upon alienating that sector it will be to the detriment of RMweb and, critically, to its viability as a source of advertising revenue.

 

I have said this before, and it remains true, that when BRM acquired the rights to RMweb from you it was not through any altruistic motive - it was because they saw it as a medium for exposure and revenue generation.

 

Clearly, the revenue aspect has not lived up to expectations, hence the regular machinations of the 'ad boys' to squeeze more cash out of RMweb.

 

If these same 'ad boys' were doing their job, they should be able to raise sufficient revenue from BRM and the other titles, without repeated raids on the easy target of RMweb.

 

I will outline the consequences, in the case of CCT, if I am unable to mention my new products on RMweb without payment.

 

I will simply revert to my former practice of issuing a press release to all model railway publications and groups, BUT WITH THE SPECIFIC EXCEPTION OF BRM.

 

Thus, BRM / RMweb will become the sole publication/ group that is NOT aware of developments in my, and I strongly suspect several other, small suppliers' ranges.

 

Please could you clarify the situation whereby major suppliers submit models for review? Will they have to pay advertising fees?

 

In conclusion, this new development bears all the hallmarks of the 'advertising boys', who have no concept of the interconnected content within RMweb, seeing only yet another potential 'golden egg' with no understanding whatsoever for the ultimate consequences.

 

Please confirm whether Cambridge Custom Transfers will be able to post news of new developments without payment of 'advertising fees', so that I can plan my future press releases accordingly.

 

C. J. Isherwood,

Cambridge Custom Transfers.

 

Edited August 2 by cctransuk

[AY Mod]

7 minutes ago, cctransuk said:

Please confirm whether Cambridge Cutom Transfers will be able to post news of new developments without payment of 'advertising fees', so that I can plan my future press releases accordingly.

 

In a word, no.

 

There's no reason that you should be regarded as an exception but plenty of reasons why cannot be regarded as an exception.

[John Isherwood]

7 minutes ago, AY Mod said:

 

In a word, no.

 

There's no reason that you should be regarded as an exception but plenty of reasons why cannot be regarded as an exception.

 

Clearly understood - my apologies to the membership, but you will in future have to look elsewhere for news of what I have to offer.

 

As a matter of interest, I have just spent in excess of £600 of my own money to import a refurbished, twenty-five year old Alps printer, so that Cambridge Custom Transfers can continue for a few more years.

 

I have no prospect of recovering this investment, but it is clear that such altruism is beyond the comprehension of today's publishing houses.

 

Sad days - but, hey ho!

 

John Isherwood.

Edited August 2 by cctransuk

[AY Mod]

1 minute ago, cctransuk said:

it is clear that such altruism is beyond the comprehension of today's publishing houses.

 

I'd climb down off that very shaky moral high ground of a wobbly three-legged stepladder for your own safety if I were you; you don't know what you're talking about and your stance is really quite insulting. And incorrect.

[Trofimow]

The only surprise here is that this has not happened sooner.

 

Despite the concerns that have been expressed about the future of the community, I'm sure it will be fine.

 

Warners ensured the continuation of RMWeb when it was no longer sustainable as a one man operation, not, I am sure for any altruistic reasons, but as a long term viable business.

 

It is not unreasonable for them to expect it to at least “wash it's face” and preferably to make a profit, and to seek ways of making that work.

 

As has been stated many times, running a site like RMWeb does not come cheap, and I expect that Andy, Phil and the team behind them would rather like to be paid for their efforts, if not exactly supported in the lifestyle to which they would like to become accustomed.

 

I mean, have you seen the price of cake these days...

[AY Mod]

22 minutes ago, cctransuk said:

the regular machinations of the 'ad boys' to squeeze more cash out of RMweb.

 

If these same 'ad boys' were doing their job,

 

How to say you're sexist without telling people you are - there's even been clues in this topic.

[Oldddudders]

1 hour ago, Harlequin said:

 

Money is the bottom line, of course, but every step away from a simple forum where enthusiasts simply talked to each other about the hobby is a step further away from RMweb's roots.

 

Businesses are enthusiasts too - but now some of them might keep quiet or seek ways to work around the "agreement".

 

Shame there isn't another way. RMweb used to be a much simpler place.

Having been here 15 years, I can confirm that RMweb was indeed a much simpler place when I joined. After all, it was free, and Andy Y paid for everything, although if he rattled his tin from time to time, then some of us chucked in a few coins. It was also unreliable and much, much smaller. 

 

No-one, including Warners, I'm sure, imagines the sort of cottage-industrialists expressing alarm here are raking it in, and moving to the Caribbean any time soon on the proceeds. I recall a publisher enthusiastically announcing his new publications on a regular basis, and being taken to task by Andy Y. That chap still posts, but clearly now puts a bit of money behind the bar, so everyone benefits. But if I'm happy to pay £1 a week just to be here, as I have since Gold was first offered, then a negotiated sum to allow product promotion would seem little enough contribution, given the size of membership and other lurking readers. 

 

I understand there are other online forums in our hobby, which I assume are free, but have never felt inclined to explore them. 

[Chris M]

How about a club posting about its exhibition. Would you call that advertising?

[AY Mod]

Just now, Chris M said:

How about a club posting about its exhibition. Would you call that advertising?

 

If it's a commercial exhibition then yes.

 

The exhibition calendar will remain.

[John Isherwood]

7 minutes ago, AY Mod said:

 

How to say you're sexist without telling people you are - there's even been clues in this topic.

 

I presume that you refer to my preference not to participate in the 'wokist' adoption of neutral pronouns?

 

The collective term that I use long pre-dates such 'political correctness'; is widely understood; and does NOT mean that the user is unaware of the participation of females as well as males in that profession. (........ and, no - I am not going to qualify that with LGBTQ etc., etc).

 

It is a shame that a perfectly reasonable enquiry about a new policy should be countered with hostility and personal insults.

 

CJI.

[wombatofludham]

A lot of hot air over nothing.

Funnily enough this came to my attention a while back when a well known small supplier I was also following on Facebook (no names for obvious reasons) posted what I can only describe as a hissy rant that Warners had asked him to start paying for a dedicated trade area on here.  He said that not a lot of business came via RMWeb, not sure how he came to that conclusion, so decided not to do it, but decided instead to have a go at Warners via Facebook (ironic given their commercial stance). Immediately the "anti-RMWeb" keyboard trolls piled in.  I posted something along the lines of "OK, so you think a commercial publishing business should give another commercial business free access to advertise wares do you?  The words self entitlement come to mind.  PS Don't bother with a comeback, I'll no longer be following you" and despite having been a reasonably frequent user of their services previously, I've gone elsewhere ever since.  So quite why an overt change in terms and conditions to accurately state something that has been the case for some months now, based on the hissy fit on Facedache, has triggered this reaction seems to be a lot of pearl clutching over, frankly, nothing.

For what it is worth, I am a member of a number of online forums for different interest, ranging from the Eurovision Song Contest to model railways.  Many which started as "enthusiast" sites are now owned by commercial outfits because they couldn't afford the hosting costs due to their popularity.  In so doing they have brought with them a professional touch, reliability, better policing of content (increasingly important when morons try to spam or post offensive links, something increasingly coming under scrutiny by the Government trying to hold social media companies to account) all of which cost money.  Of all the sites which remain free at the point of use, RMWeb retains the character of an enthusiast focussed site more than some others.  Paying to have a banner seems fair to me in the same way I accept (at the moment) adverts to allow me free access (I might go Gold in the near future).  I know I probably give Andy some teeth sucking moments with some of my more pugnacious posts, but overall I value the site which retains the feel of an enthusiast led site which just happens to have the support of a larger backer to do all the stuff we don't realise goes on, from techy stuff to legal compliance.  And it remains free to use if you are happy to have ads.  

After all, if you wanted to sell something through you local paper, assuming you still have one, you'd have to pay to go in the small ads whoever you were, or for a column ad for a business.  That is effectively what is being asked for here.

[AY Mod]

2 minutes ago, cctransuk said:

I presume that you refer to my preference not to participate in the 'wokist' adoption of neutral pronouns?

 

Oh you've played the woke card. How very gammon.

 

You could just refer to the 'ad team'.

[Chris M]

5 minutes ago, AY Mod said:

 

If it's a commercial exhibition then yes.

 

The exhibition calendar will remain.

So would a which is a registered charity running an exhibition which will hopefully raise a few bob for the club/charity be seen as running a commercial event?

[Phil Parker]

2 minutes ago, cctransuk said:

It is a shame that a perfectly reasonable enquiry about a new policy should be countered with hostility and personal insults.

 

That wasn't a "perfectly reasonable enquiry", it was a tirade.

 

A sensible enquiry would have been "How much will this cost me? ", but you haven't bothered with that before saddling up the hobby horse. As said before, this isn't a one size fits all job. Those with the broadest shoulders will do most of the work. They, not unreasonably, expect that if they are contributing, those who don't, don't get the same benefits.

 

42 minutes ago, cctransuk said:

If these same 'ad boys' were doing their job, they should be able to raise sufficient revenue from BRM and the other titles, without repeated raids on the easy target of RMweb.

 

What you are saying, is that BRM, GR and NGW readers, should pay for RMweb, even if they don't use it.

[BMS]

If a person describes a construction article (or series of articles) of item(s)  that they have produced to an order from a customer does this count as advertising? 

[AY Mod]

1 minute ago, BMS said:

If a person describes a construction article (or series of articles) of item(s)  that they have produced to an order from a customer does this count as advertising? 

 

Being honest, it would depend how it's framed.

 

A construction documentary is obviously of interest to readers but if was just done to plug services then it would be scrutinised.

[Neil]

I wonder if we're in 'storm in a tea cup' territory here. Without wishing to know who pays what I assume that if I resuscitated my long dormant resin casting enterprise (a tiny cottage industry) I would be asked to stump up less than Hornby or Bachmann. I'd hope that a common sense approach would be taken but teasing out what would be reasonable for a cottage industry to pay might not be straightforward. It also strikes me that there will be grey areas; shows like Larkrail which charge for entry might seem to be 'commercial' but proceeds go to charity which sort of suggests it isn't. Rather than worrying about the ins and outs and trying to predict every possible permutation it's perhaps better to just see how things play out over time.

[AY Mod]

4 minutes ago, Chris M said:

So would a which is a registered charity running an exhibition which will hopefully raise a few bob for the club/charity be seen as running a commercial event?

 

That's fine.