Cause for concern?

bluechucky · **Joined:** Sat Feb 26, 2005 6:29 am **Posts:** 13689

Only just stumbled on this thread and think its a great discussion being had here.

Some ideas I've been bouncing around and would like some feedback on are the following:

1. Would people be interested in web hosting? We have capacity to host websites, and can do that for a "donation" - we can't offer receipts so it wont be tax deductible.

2. Does anyone have a business they would like to advertise on TC? Maybe we can offer some of the space next to (or just under) the header for a set period of time? Anyone have a contact at Visy? :lol:

3. Would anyone be interested in paying a small yearly fee for a talkingcarlton.com email address with web access and imap/pop access?

4. One touched on before was to raffle the player sponsor jumpers off. Say $1 a ticket and those that have put into sponsorship automatically get $50 of free tickets (equivalent to their sponsorship donation). Give a chance for those who have not contributed to the sponsorship to get an opportunity for a fee.

5. Maybe a sausage sizzle during the warmer months?

any thoughts and other ideas?

Belisarius · **Joined:** Tue Jan 06, 2009 9:20 am **Posts:** 548

Dr.SHERRIN wrote:

Personally I think the site is struggling. A large part of its contributors aren't reflective of the Carlton supporters whom I associate with, who have a genuine love and interest of the club and its history. There is a general lack of knowledge of football or how football clubs operate. I honestly believe quality discussion is diminishing and intelligent viewpoints are as rare as hens teeth. I'm not apportioning blame on anyone, just expressing how I think it's going.

Surely it's a little bit better at the moment without all the we have no gameplan threads DOC, or for example trying to explain that a player who isn't being tagged cannot be described as playing a "quarterback role" if they are only having ten possies or less :lol:

If posters such as yourself and Blue Vain for example post more, surely the standard will improve. The lovely thread by Peter Sherry I believe highlights the role that posters such as yourself can play. I think we have a fair cross section of ages on the site so education can play a role. You won't always have people agree with you and some will be quite unpleasant in expressing that, but that is just the nature of the internet and it really can't be compared with talking with your mates. I'm sure that some on here who come across as nutters are actually quite reasonable people face to face.

Perhaps in cyber world "white line fever" should be replaced with "keyboard fever" :lol:

I think that posters such as yourself can really help people actually watch a game rather than just experience it. If you can get people to think about why a player might be positioned where they are at any given time. Are they actually supposed to be where they are or are they doing the wrong thing? Who are the players to watch in the team to give an indication as to where players should be? I think you can learn a great deal from watching the team leaders and where they are instructing players to set-up. In what game situations do we zone or go man on man and what type of zone, how many are in it and do we vary against different teams etc etc.

Perhaps at times you might not find this mentally challenging, but I think that at the same time you can refine your own ideas and theories about the game. If posters such as yourself don't challenge others with your views then perhaps they won't grow as informed viewers. I think at times the results might surprise you :smile:

bondiblue · **Posted:** Wed Jun 09, 2010 8:28 am

jimmae wrote:

bondiblue wrote:

Hey, interesting that the Talking Players thread was returned; the real differentiator to all other sites.
Whose idea was it to close it down in the first place?
What was the expected result of the closure?
Whom did the decision makers decide to consult with to make this happen?
When feedback was made and disappointment displayed by loyal long term posters how were they treated?
I know the answers to all of the above.

Not this again. TalkingPlayers wasn't always here, and the reasons for its closing were valid.

Could they have been analysed and addressed in a shorter time frame? Sure, but people have day jobs bondi. At the end of the day this is a site run out of the pockets of a select few and the work here is done voluntarily. I think a review and better perspective is required on both sides of the line that seemingly divides. In retrospect, the mods could have been more public about their issues with that specific section of the site, and the members could have realised they were creating circular drivel that was generating angst. Didn't happen that way - oh well.

jimmae, you missed the point.

I was attempting to answer Rexy's question.

I am giving you my viewpoint about the attraction of TC: Talking Players was one of the attractions for me.
I am giving you the viewpoint of posters who use to be here whom some say are missed.
As for the reason why Talking Players closed, based on your reasoning, Moderaters were not Moderating. Nip the problem at the bud I say. Don't make the politics too complex.

And I have to agree with what Doc posted. Have a look at periods, long periods, especially when Talking Players was missing, and see how much discussion was happening take away a handful of regulars....was pretty skinny for new posts.

The real questions I have is:

How much money does TC need to keep going?
How much revenue does it generate from (whatever)?
What's the gap?

If the $50 to host is an issue, I think the gap can be closed pretty swiftly.

Open and Honest discussion is a good start, and this thread Rexy started encourages such practise; he's obviously concerned and values the site. :thumbsup:

I do to.

Then once you know the above you can consider if TC needs to become a bit more exciting and increase its audience.
If jimmae and some of the Mods think Talking Players should be closed down, then go for it, measure it and see how rich TC would be without it, then compare the content with other sites. No brainer.

grrofunger · **Posted:** Wed Jun 09, 2010 8:51 am

talkingplayers isnt going anywhere

bluechucky · **Joined:** Sat Feb 26, 2005 6:29 am **Posts:** 13689

bondiblue wrote:

The real questions I have is:

How much money does TC need to keep going? About AU$60 a month... depending on the exchange rate.
How much revenue does it generate from (whatever)? Details here: viewtopic.php?f=13&t=15945
What's the gap? about half... or $30 AU a month. With $200 in the kitty, that is about 7 months worth right now.

Google money is only paid in the month AFTER you accumulate $100US so it could take about 6 months before we see the money, so timing is an issue.

Salsiccia · **Posted:** Wed Jun 09, 2010 11:03 am

jimmae wrote:

Rexy wrote:

Overdramatic? :lol:

The mods words Jimmae, not mine. Don't shoot the messenger mate.

None of them confirmed what you were saying, unless you count Grro's Graham Smorgon act. :lol:

They did make the point that revenue needs to go up a bit, but they have surplus cash from previous years which is sitting there.

I don't think merging will help either: CSC is a much slower site in terms of traffic, and TBV is all but dead, meanwhile SCE has a very small, if incredibly active, clientele. The Carlton board on BF is the closest thing to competition TC has. There's just a lot of jaded regulars who are sitting in the shadows or have gone AWOL.

What happened to the TC merchandise plans? Is sponsorship a possibility? It wouldn't take much. Have alternative hosting services/agreements been canvassed?

EDIT: Just for some additional perspective, server costs are currently around USD$700 per year, and there's AUD$450 in the bank, with about AUD$30 coming in each month at present. Projecting based on those figures, TC would 'go broke' in just under 12 months.

Please don't merge with CSC. They are a bunch of vindictive, negative teenage navel gazers. I would be forced out .... again.

Dirko · **Posted:** Wed Jun 09, 2010 11:04 am

On the Glenelg forum I use http://www.snoutslouts.org/, we have a membership set up.

A three tier level of;

GOLD aka Cornes = $50 (includes Player Sponsorship, Sponsorship Bonanza & Website costs).
SILVER aka Carey = $25 (includes Sponsorship Bonanza & Website costs).
BRONZE aka Kernahan = $10 (website only).

This seems to work well, and usually over a two year period you score a free ticket to a function as part of the Sponsorships things.

Wojee · **Joined:** Mon Feb 28, 2005 8:17 am **Posts:** 35135

GIBBINS stubby holders.

bluechucky · **Joined:** Sat Feb 26, 2005 6:29 am **Posts:** 13689

sjabc wrote:

On the Glenelg forum I use http://www.snoutslouts.org/, we have a membership set up.

A three tier level of;

GOLD aka Cornes = $50 (includes Player Sponsorship, Sponsorship Bonanza & Website costs).
SILVER aka Carey = $25 (includes Sponsorship Bonanza & Website costs).
BRONZE aka Kernahan = $10 (website only).

This seems to work well, and usually over a two year period you score a free ticket to a function as part of the Sponsorships things.

What makes up the sponsorship bonanza?

At very worst, we will move servers, but I can't guarantee stability and the service we get here.

jimmae · **Posted:** Wed Jun 09, 2010 1:04 pm

bluechucky wrote:

bondiblue wrote:

The real questions I have is:

How much money does TC need to keep going? About AU$60 a month... depending on the exchange rate.
How much revenue does it generate from (whatever)? Details here: viewtopic.php?f=13&t=15945
What's the gap? about half... or $30 AU a month. With $200 in the kitty, that is about 7 months worth right now.

Google money is only paid in the month AFTER you accumulate $100US so it could take about 6 months before we see the money, so timing is an issue.

Ah. So I was working with fairly old figures, and yeah cash flow timing sounds like an issue.

bondiblue wrote:

Then once you know the above you can consider if TC needs to become a bit more exciting and increase its audience.
If jimmae and some of the Mods think Talking Players should be closed down, then go for it, measure it and see how rich TC would be without it, then compare the content with other sites. No brainer.

Fair enough bondi, misread your intent. No need to close TP again, the message was sent. Mods could probably make better use of the announcements feature via PM and post when there is a systemic problem like TP posting.

Rexy · **Joined:** Fri Aug 15, 2008 6:46 am **Posts:** 28227

bondiblue wrote:

jimmae wrote:

bondiblue wrote:

Hey, interesting that the Talking Players thread was returned; the real differentiator to all other sites.
Whose idea was it to close it down in the first place?
What was the expected result of the closure?
Whom did the decision makers decide to consult with to make this happen?
When feedback was made and disappointment displayed by loyal long term posters how were they treated?
I know the answers to all of the above.

Not this again. TalkingPlayers wasn't always here, and the reasons for its closing were valid.

Could they have been analysed and addressed in a shorter time frame? Sure, but people have day jobs bondi. At the end of the day this is a site run out of the pockets of a select few and the work here is done voluntarily. I think a review and better perspective is required on both sides of the line that seemingly divides. In retrospect, the mods could have been more public about their issues with that specific section of the site, and the members could have realised they were creating circular drivel that was generating angst. Didn't happen that way - oh well.

jimmae, you missed the point.

I was attempting to answer Rexy's question.

I am giving you my viewpoint about the attraction of TC: Talking Players was one of the attractions for me.
I am giving you the viewpoint of posters who use to be here whom some say are missed.
As for the reason why Talking Players closed, based on your reasoning, Moderaters were not Moderating. Nip the problem at the bud I say. Don't make the politics too complex.

And I have to agree with what Doc posted. Have a look at periods, long periods, especially when Talking Players was missing, and see how much discussion was happening take away a handful of regulars....was pretty skinny for new posts.

The real questions I have is:

How much money does TC need to keep going?
How much revenue does it generate from (whatever)?
What's the gap?

If the $50 to host is an issue, I think the gap can be closed pretty swiftly.

Open and Honest discussion is a good start, and this thread Rexy started encourages such practise; he's obviously concerned and values the site. :thumbsup:

I do to.

Then once you know the above you can consider if TC needs to become a bit more exciting and increase its audience.
If jimmae and some of the Mods think Talking Players should be closed down, then go for it, measure it and see how rich TC would be without it, then compare the content with other sites. No brainer.

We have to be careful that we address the underlying issues that have created the downturn or drop-off in interest/revenue, or put simply, let's not just wallpaper over the cracks.

bondiblue · **Posted:** Wed Jun 09, 2010 1:18 pm

bluechucky wrote:

bondiblue wrote:

The real questions I have is:

How much money does TC need to keep going? About AU$60 a month... depending on the exchange rate.
How much revenue does it generate from (whatever)? Details here: viewtopic.php?f=13&t=15945
What's the gap? about half... or $30 AU a month. With $200 in the kitty, that is about 7 months worth right now.

Google money is only paid in the month AFTER you accumulate $100US so it could take about 6 months before we see the money, so timing is an issue.

Thanks for that Bluechucky.
Bottom line is TC aint closing down with that sort of tiny financial exposure.

I'd be happy to contribute more than the $100 TC sponsorship of our 2 players.
I'd really like to see TC become a better site. There's always room for improvement.
Just ask and listen and discuss...and drop the friggin egos.
This site is about Carlton: where it has come from, where it's at, where it can improve, where it is going, how it can win next week and the next flag.

bondiblue · **Posted:** Wed Jun 09, 2010 1:23 pm

I just jumped onto that link bluechucky.

Why have the figures plummetted so much?

Need more ads and need more hits? It looks that way.
How do you do that? Improve the site and start spruiking.
How do you improve the site? SWOT analysis.

Start with what's right then look at what's wrong. Look for gaps and start the discussion.
No point ignoring the need for improvement looking at those figures unless you don't care about a slow death.

ech · **Joined:** Mon Apr 05, 2010 7:17 pm **Posts:** 178

jimmae wrote:

I don't think merging will help either: CSC is a much slower site in terms of traffic

Jimmae, i'm a CSC poster that visits TC daily but I would argue CSC has more traffic than TC to be honest.

Dirko · **Posted:** Wed Jun 09, 2010 2:08 pm

bluechucky wrote:

What makes up the sponsorship bonanza?

Basically just another way for the club to get money from sponsors. It's a raffle. Tickets cost $300 IIRC, and prizes range from Corporate Boxes at the footy, signage at Glenelg Oval, etc etc.

For some reason the Snouts have never won a prize (about 40 of em up for grabs usually) :sly:

If we won a prize we'd Auction it off and raise more money that way :thumbsup:

jimmae · **Posted:** Wed Jun 09, 2010 2:13 pm

ech wrote:

jimmae wrote:

I don't think merging will help either: CSC is a much slower site in terms of traffic

Jimmae, i'm a CSC poster that visits TC daily but I would argue CSC has more traffic than TC to be honest.

In terms of total users, maybe, but TC locks guests out of viewing anything but the main forum. TC would cream CSC in terms of evening traffic.

bluechucky · **Joined:** Sat Feb 26, 2005 6:29 am **Posts:** 13689

bondiblue wrote:

I just jumped onto that link bluechucky.

Why have the figures plummetted so much?

Need more ads and need more hits? It looks that way.
How do you do that? Improve the site and start spruiking.
How do you improve the site? SWOT analysis.

Start with what's right then look at what's wrong. Look for gaps and start the discussion.
No point ignoring the need for improvement looking at those figures unless you don't care about a slow death.

I'm no google ads expert, but my understanding is the following (and I'm happy to be corrected)

1. The advertisers set the amount they are willing to pay per click.
2. In the early days, the money per click was high, that has dropped.
3. We do not allow graphic ads and we have banned other club ads from the site. I personally think this is wrong.
4. When we introduced google ads, we were on the old server, and the site was slow at the time. I personally suspect that the ads were in your face more because the site was slow.
5. The ads are supposed to be content specific.... I am guessing the site content is too small for advertisers to invest in.
6. A friend of mine makes a living from google ads, he has offered tips to improve the rate of return, but that includes things like the aforementioned graphic ads, as well as more contrasting colours and different placements. Not sure how well that would go down.

Belisarius · **Joined:** Tue Jan 06, 2009 9:20 am **Posts:** 548

jimmae wrote:

ech wrote:

jimmae wrote:

I don't think merging will help either: CSC is a much slower site in terms of traffic

Jimmae, i'm a CSC poster that visits TC daily but I would argue CSC has more traffic than TC to be honest.

In terms of total users, maybe, but TC locks guests out of viewing anything but the main forum. TC would cream CSC in terms of evening traffic.

Why does TC lockout guests from a number of forums?. Perhaps more Lurkers could be inspired to post more if they could see more topics without having to log in all the time. Draw in the bees :lol:

Belisarius · **Joined:** Tue Jan 06, 2009 9:20 am **Posts:** 548

Perhaps you guys need to take a look at the Fun Fundraising Ideas add. Kill two birds with one stone :lol:

Rexy · **Joined:** Fri Aug 15, 2008 6:46 am **Posts:** 28227

Belisarius wrote:

jimmae wrote:

ech wrote:

Jimmae, i'm a CSC poster that visits TC daily but I would argue CSC has more traffic than TC to be honest.

In terms of total users, maybe, but TC locks guests out of viewing anything but the main forum. TC would cream CSC in terms of evening traffic.

Why does TC lockout guests from a number of forums?. Perhaps more Lurkers could be inspired to post more if they could see more topics without having to log in all the time. Draw in the bees :lol:

Good point. A greater access for lurkers exposes them to more google ad click opportunities.

Cause for concern?

Who is online