New terms - commercial content on RMweb

[Oldddudders]

2 minutes ago, kevinlms said:

You mean that you'll be complaining about all the ads, that your subscription currently blocks! Warners will still get some revenue from Google.

But cutting off one's nose to spite one's face is part of the art for those who take their bat home. 

[John Isherwood]

Just now, Oldddudders said:

But cutting off one's nose to spite one's face is part of the art for those who take their bat home. 

 

See above.

 

CJI.

[Phil Parker]

1 minute ago, cctransuk said:

Nope - my adblocker always eliminated the ads anyway.

 

Of course, it does. You don't want to see adverts that fund the site - you expect everyone else to pay for it!

[woodenhead]

@cctransuk Your username is a business name.

 

If it looks like a duck, quacks like a duck......

[dj_crisp]

1 hour ago, martin_wynne said:

 

 

A suggestion for Andy -- CHARGE folks for posting, and refund it if they get more than 3 likes? 🙂

 

Martin. 

 

I'd be very much out of pocket money if people had to like my stuff that I post 😉😉

[jjb1970]

I am really struggling to see why this would be an issue, it seems perfectly reasonable to me.

 

As an aside, rather than throwing a tantrum in public, why not contact the relevant people in private to ask them whether you would be considered an advertiser and what the fees might be? We are guests here, it's a commercial site and Warner have the right to define rules.

[AY Mod]

6 minutes ago, woodenhead said:

@cctransuk Your username is a business name.

 

If it looks like a duck, quacks like a duck......

 

This weekend's challenge - think of new name; maybe an anagram? I've got 'racks' but I'm struggling after that.

[woodenhead]

28 minutes ago, AY Mod said:

 

This weekend's challenge - think of new name; maybe an anagram? I've got 'racks' but I'm struggling after that.

I've got one but I won't be posting it, actually very funny considering.

Edited August 2 by woodenhead

[Miss Prism]

I've probably missed it, but is there a link to the new terms?

[AY Mod]

3 minutes ago, Miss Prism said:

I've probably missed it, 

 

You didn't.

 

 

For those that clicked 'accept' without reading them they can be found here https://www.rmweb.co.uk/privacy/

[froobyone]

When I first reached out to Andy about advertising the few OO kits I produce, I was more than pleasantly surprised when he said it was OK to post about them. This was unexpected, as the norm for most fora is to absolutely come down like a ton of bricks on anyone posting for commercial reasons. 

The rules have now changed. Fair enough. If I was making a living from what few kits I sell, I would be happy to pay for the ability to advertise. Sadly, I don't and I'm happy to accept that I can't advertise or link to ebay anymore. RMWeb owe me nothing, quite the opposite. I am indebted to the previous kindness shown to me and will continue my patronage purely as a contributor, until such time that I can afford to pay for Gold or to advertise. 

I will be mindful when posting certain views of Woodburn, due to the large advertising hoardings advertising all my kits. :P

Best wishes

Dan

[sjp23480]

Golly!  Lots of invective here!!!!

 

I have to say that I am also surprised this took so long.  Probably an overdue decision given current trends in advertising income across the whole publishing industry.

 

Ultimately, a "supplier" will make a commercial decision to "pay-to-post" on RMWeb.  This will be based on the anticipated returns or reputational benefit of being part of the community. 

 

Unfortunately, some may lack the knowledge/data to make this  decision.  I remember the footnote on every page of the modelling press - "Please mention (insert magazine name) when placing an order".   

 

I for one, would never have known about several suppliers that I have done business with, were it not for RMWeb.

 

Its just disppointing to see that this has become "personal" and descended into conflict and invective.  The RMWeb team indicate they will take a reasonable approach and they appear ready to grant exceptions under specific circumstances.

 

More information would be helpful - an FAQ would be very useful.  But this knee-jerk reaction feels unnecessary and will not change what in the long run will prove to be a prudent (if not universally popular) commercial decision.  

 

 

 

Edited August 2 by sjp23480

[Chris M]

Personally I think it is a shame that this has happened. But, Warners are a business, and a business has to make a profit or die. RMWeb is clearly run at a cost to Warners and they have every right, and a duty to their shareholders, to try to make the forum cover its costs.

[jonhall]

I don't think this is entirely surprising, but I suspect that a number of the 'trade' members on here aren't really trading in the conventional sense at all (i.e. for financial profit) . My items are sold to allow the cost of phototool, brass and postage to be divided up sufficiently finely so that my one part on 1/20th of the sheet that I want costs me a fiver, not the £100 that the overall bill comes in at.

 

Warners could probably have 100% of my overall profit in advertising revenue, because that would probably result in them providing ME with a modest revenue stream!

 

Much of that sort of 'trade' is using RMweb as 'word of mouth', I'm sure there are also a number of small traders who don't pay for any sort of advertising in print magazines, but send in a photo/press release to the mags most likely to publish them and be seen by their target audience - and in those cases, that printed 'content' would be considered editorial rather than adverts on the flash on the corner of the front page '85 pages of articles and news and whatever' ! 

 

I hope that the Mod's will take a pragmatic view if a users asks 'where can I get 'X' from, that any micro-trader would at least be able to say 'from me, details here' without incurring sanctions, but they might view it differently if 'stooges' are asking leading questions, that get extended product announcements in response!

 

Jon

[sjp23480]

Not sure if this has been covered, but it may also be helpful if "suppliers" or their product posts are labelled/tagged as such. 

 

Like the RMWeb Gold users.

[AY Mod]

6 minutes ago, sjp23480 said:

it may also be helpful if "suppliers" or their product posts are labelled/tagged as such. 

 

That will be evident in due course; subject to some tweaking.

[DLT]

1 hour ago, woodenhead said:

@cctransuk Your username is a business name.

 

If it looks like a duck, quacks like a duck......

A friend of mine got himself two ducks, and asked for suggestions of names for them.

"Aquaduck" and "Viaduck" were chosen.....

[spamcan61]

It's a pity take-up of RMweb premium hasn't been better, a measly quid a month to keep the site running. Plenty of folks with 4 figure post counts not subscribing.

Edited August 2 by spamcan61

[Miss Prism]

2 hours ago, AY Mod said:

For those that clicked 'accept' without reading them they can be found here https://www.rmweb.co.uk/privacy/

 

Thanks. I did read them at initial startup, but I thought I would return to them later.

 

It does seem very odd to put this policy content under 'privacy'.

[AY Mod]

9 minutes ago, Miss Prism said:

seems very odd to put this policy content under 'privacy'

 

It's the only way I can force the read/accept process.

[Dagworth]

3 hours ago, AY Mod said:

 

This weekend's challenge - think of new name; maybe an anagram? I've got 'racks' but I'm struggling after that.

crank cuts?

[John Isherwood]

2 hours ago, jonhall said:

Much of that sort of 'trade' is using RMweb as 'word of mouth', I'm sure there are also a number of small traders who don't pay for any sort of advertising in print magazines, but send in a photo/press release to the mags most likely to publish them and be seen by their target audience - and in those cases, that printed 'content' would be considered editorial rather than adverts on the flash on the corner of the front page '85 pages of articles and news and whatever'

 

Nail, head!!!

 

It would seem that that concept is beyond the comprehension of modern business.

 

No loss to such small suppliers; there are many alternative means of promoting 'word of mouth'.

 

CJI.

[Phil Parker]

2 minutes ago, cctransuk said:

It would seem that that concept is beyond the comprehension of modern business.

 

In the same way that everything has to be paid for is a difficult concept for some, who expect everyone else to pay for both their commercial and personal entertainment.

[AY Mod]

12 minutes ago, cctransuk said:

 

Nail, head!!!

 

It would seem that that concept is beyond the comprehension of modern business.

 

No loss to such small suppliers; there are many alternative means of promoting 'word of mouth'.

 

CJI.

 

You've told us what you think; I've told you what I think. Now you seem intent on just keep making a bad smell so I'm removing your access to the topic.

[andyman7]

7 hours ago, Oldddudders said:

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. 

Pretty much anything web based was much simpler 15 years ago because it was an emerging thing. I remember back in the day when ebay put seller in touch with buyer, no oversight, no consumer protection, no tax reporting, no regulation. Many wonderful deals, but it was never going to grow into a behemoth and survive without becoming the business it is now,

Indeed it is interesting to look at all the internet 'revolutionaries' and their original stick-it-to-the-man it's all peace-and-love approach and note that without fail every single one that has survived has become a square, corporate, lawyered up organisation.
The fact that RMWeb has retained so much of the original ethos with what is clearly a far more professional and commercial environment is testament to Andy Y and colleagues.