| Free Republic 2nd Qtr 2024 Fundraising Target: $81,000 | Receipts & Pledges to-date: $19,829 | |||
| ||||
| Woo hoo!! And we're now over 24%!! Thank you all very much!! God bless. | ||||
Posted on 04/19/2012 1:22:35 PM PDT by Jim Robinson
I've checked with an ad agency. We can probably raise the funds we need to operate FR at our current level and at the current market price for online advertising if we run a banner ad at the top of every page and at least one rectangular ad in the above the fold body of the page and a couple rectangular ads in the sidebar. If that doesn't generate enough revenue, we can also run pop ups or pop unders and we can even run audio and video ads if need be. But of course, if we go full bore commercial, we'd have to insure strict copyright compliance with very brief excerpting of all articles to avoid lawsuits. And the agency would require that we install a filter to censor out any bad or unacceptable words in our posts.
Or, of course, there's always the membership model. We could setup a members only system where paying members get full access and non-paying members get throttled back, etc.
I don't like either of the above models and think we'd soon lose a lot of our readers and participants. Of course that may happen anyway if we can't fund it and if we cannot get our equipment problem under control, or if my refusal to vote for or support an abortionist/homosexualist/statist who has plans to install ObamaCare, er, I mean RomneyCare into all 50 states runs everyone off.
The donation model has served us very well since 1997 when we first started using it. It's very clean, uncomplicated and we attract participants who perhaps can't afford membership dues but do want to join the discussion and join our rallies, protests, prayer sessions, etc. And the advertising model would probably bring in the revenue, but it comes with strings attached.
I'm sure there are other ways and ways to combine features of various models, sell books, cds, gear, etc, offer no ads for paid subscribers, etc, even ISP services, but all of these also complicate matters.
I'm an old dog and I like to avoid new tricks, new complications, additional overhead, additional accounting, additional rules and regulations, etc, wherever possible. I like to stick to simplicity and with what works.
Thank you all very much for your continuing participation and support.
I'm pretty sure that Jim posted this thread for discussion purposes and to let our membership know what could be in store, if we have to go to some other business means/models.
So monthly donations are bringing in 480K a year?
What smear DJ? I’m just relaying what is out on other forums. Conservative forums.
NASTY? This coming from one of the pros.
You drop your nasty hateful replies and then always bow out by stating:
Good Bye
Good Night
Good Day
etc.
As if you are above any engagement on your inflammatory remarks.
I’ll NOT retract a single word. Jim should be aware. See we actually DO LOVE FR more than the postition of authority some seem to believe they have.
An idea that I’ve been working on (in the back of my head for several years) is a sister site completely separate from FR where we can have an all of the above approach. I signed up a year ago on two different “cloud” providers and have even built a prototype “conservative social networking system” using some AJAX programming techniques and some user defined page set up techniques of my own design. Each user can sign up at the membership level he or she desires and can control his/her own page(s) or forums and control who may or may not post to them or even access them, ie, each paying member is his own site owner/administrator/moderator and can even recruit others to assist. And it could be a for profit site where we could sell merchandise or advertising or whatever. The only basic restrictions are they would have to be pro-life, pro-family conservative pages.
And FR would just continue along as it is.
So you agree with liberals that you should be able to freely use something you refuse to support.
Btw, this FReepathon pays for the current expenses and not future ones. All current donations go to today's expenses.
Opposing and squashing contrary opinions is typically a liberal trait, wouldn't you agree.
No. FR is not a debating forum. It is a grassroots, activist site to support conservatism. FR will not support any liberals.
I also don't buy freindships
I don't think you have enough money.
I am referring to your constant need to bring Jim Robinson into your conversations when you feel your doing a good job as a brown shirt for the site.
If I misstate something I expect Jim to correct it. It is HIS site!
Brown shirt? You definitely have liberal tendencies. Maybe that's why you expect to get banned at any given time.
Yes, I'm sure that's why it was posted. But the discussion is made necessary because the fundamentals of this site donor model have changed. Look at this from the perspective of a pure business consultant...if you had no vested interest here I suspect you'd agree that the market can't support operating expenses. The only options are to lower expenses or expand the market...so the question that follows has to be how best to achieve one or both goals.
It does. And they can't even see it. They think they are owed on someone elses dime.
Popups suck. Period.
Banners are OK as a concept, except banners have become extremely heavy weight and slow video or animated banners that delay page loading to the point of being painful.
"Good conservatives", eh? What kind of "good" conservative openly advocates supporting a dyed-in-the-wool LIBERAL like Willard Romney on the premiere conservative forum on the planet?
Jim has every right to hold HIS forum to a certain ideological standard, period. He doesn't allow liberals to post here, and he doesn't allow their enablers to post here, either.
What on earth is so hard to understand about that?
I would have no objection to your running ads on this site.
Everybody else does it and unless they are pop up, it doesn’t bother me.
If you need to do this, do it.
Also if you want to limit participation to paying members, I’m ok with that also.
As far as the problem with Romney goes, I’m voting for Romney and have made no secret of it.
But I’m not leaving this site... you’ll have to kick me out to get rid of me.
Ah, but it is broke, too often. Hence the OP.
It's not the right that's being questioned but the wisdom. Why is anyone going to participate in a political site if they can't say "we should support this candidate because . . ."?
Now, FR calls itself a conservative activist site. There are a lot of people who consider themselves conservative activists who think Obama must go. I don't think I'm going to go out on a limb when I say that the segment of those who think of themselves as conservative activists who think Obama must go is a whole lot larger than those who think it's OK for Obama to have a second term.
If you drive that segment away you are going to have a participation level much smaller than you previously did. It should go without saying that the donations will drop accordingly, as well as any influence you have. It should go without saying anyway. I guess it ought to be said.
Now you, or somebody, posted a graphic on one of the thon threads saying something like "Exit out Obamaville"
What is your plan to get us out of Obamaville? I don't like Romney. Now, just tell me what your plan is to get us out?
If Romney is the nominee I'm voting for him. Is that cause for a zot?
Hey, you want to see something interesting? Check out Buckhead's recent posting history. . Remember Buckhead, right? The guy who got FR in the Newseum?
Ten comments since August with his last one being "Bull, respectively"
You're mixing two different discussions there, but I'll try to answer you.
First of all, your twerpy snark about 'elitists' is out of order. Jim is asking for our input on the question of funding. There are some Freepers who've consistently donated in the high range since joining. Many haven't, but still try to throw something in the pot at every Freep-a-thon. Do you consider those who consistently manage to generously donate, 'elitists'?
If the funding model changes, and those same people now donate for Premium level memberships annually, should they now be considered 'elitists'?
Your charge is repugnant, and you ought to retract it.
As to Jim's Mission Statement, that answers the confusions about his policies regarding free speech 'rights' on his website. As long as Free Republic is his property (which it most assuredly is), he gets to define the goals, purposes, and policy of the site. Folks who want to stray outside the boundaries of his very clear statements regarding this, are essentially going out of agreement with his Mission Statement.
It couldn't be any clearer to me. Read it again, and slowly digest every word. There's nothing unambiguous about it. It's almost laughable to me that some people continue to be baffled when he shows someone the exit who disagrees.
How is whining about Jim's zotting of liberal enablers contributing to this thread?
The truth is, you saw an opening to get up on your Romney supporting soap box to try and sell us on the idea that 'maybe it might be a good idea to let those Romney boot lickers back in here.'
BTTT.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.