Poll: More ads on The Excpaist - Problem solved?

Recommended Videos

eximista

New member
Aug 7, 2011
37
0
0
lacktheknack said:
eximista said:
why do you think they need more money? they have the money... they just don't pay their stuff...
That's ridiculously stupid.

Seriously. How would you EVER come to this conclusion?
well they owned james 20k... he wanted 14k and alex gave him this 14k. Looks like he had enough money... just never wanted to pay him.
 

lacktheknack

Je suis joined jewels.
Jan 19, 2009
19,305
0
0
eximista said:
lacktheknack said:
eximista said:
why do you think they need more money? they have the money... they just don't pay their stuff...
That's ridiculously stupid.

Seriously. How would you EVER come to this conclusion?
well they owned james 20k... he wanted 14k and alex gave him this 14k. Looks like he had enough money... just never wanted to pay him.
They probably took out a loan to save face (what with this being a PR disaster). That's the reasonable explanation.
 

eximista

New member
Aug 7, 2011
37
0
0
lacktheknack said:
eximista said:
lacktheknack said:
eximista said:
why do you think they need more money? they have the money... they just don't pay their stuff...
That's ridiculously stupid.

Seriously. How would you EVER come to this conclusion?
well they owned james 20k... he wanted 14k and alex gave him this 14k. Looks like he had enough money... just never wanted to pay him.
They probably took out a loan to save face (what with this being a PR disaster). That's the reasonable explanation.
Yes of course... they wanted to steal charity money and you think they have a face?
 

lacktheknack

Je suis joined jewels.
Jan 19, 2009
19,305
0
0
eximista said:
lacktheknack said:
eximista said:
lacktheknack said:
eximista said:
why do you think they need more money? they have the money... they just don't pay their stuff...
That's ridiculously stupid.

Seriously. How would you EVER come to this conclusion?
well they owned james 20k... he wanted 14k and alex gave him this 14k. Looks like he had enough money... just never wanted to pay him.
They probably took out a loan to save face (what with this being a PR disaster). That's the reasonable explanation.
Yes of course... they wanted to steal charity money and you think they have a face?
Weren't paying attention, were you? All the talk fired back and forth, and how the charity overflow was to "Save Extra Credits", with NO COMMUNICATION on what that meant? Since the Escapist hosted Extra Credits, they figured that "Saving Extra Credits" could be achieved via saving the Escapist from its current major financial issues. At least, if they're to be believed, that's the case. But Extra Credits tried to go a different direction with it, and now we have this epic fail.

"Steal charity money" sounds more like "get in fight over what the charity money is for" at this point. So yes, saving face.
 

eximista

New member
Aug 7, 2011
37
0
0
lacktheknack said:
eximista said:
lacktheknack said:
eximista said:
lacktheknack said:
eximista said:
why do you think they need more money? they have the money... they just don't pay their stuff...
That's ridiculously stupid.

Seriously. How would you EVER come to this conclusion?
well they owned james 20k... he wanted 14k and alex gave him this 14k. Looks like he had enough money... just never wanted to pay him.
They probably took out a loan to save face (what with this being a PR disaster). That's the reasonable explanation.
Yes of course... they wanted to steal charity money and you think they have a face?
Weren't paying attention, were you? All the talk fired back and forth, and how the charity overflow was to "Save Extra Credits", with NO COMMUNICATION on what that meant? Since the Escapist hosted Extra Credits, they figured that "Saving Extra Credits" could be achieved via saving the Escapist from its current major financial issues. At least, if they're to be believed, that's the case. But Extra Credits tried to go a different direction with it, and now we have this epic fail.

"Steal charity money" sounds more like "get in fight over what the charity money is for" at this point. So yes, saving face.
I don't know much about economics... but if you have to take a loan to pay your staff - you are down.

So why do they need more money? they have lost extra credits... know they have one show less than befor. If they can't handle it know they have to get down.

If your firm wouldn't pay you your salary... would you get them your money so they can pay you your own salary?? Well I wouldn't...
 

Nalgas D. Lemur

New member
Nov 20, 2009
1,316
0
0
TestECull said:
Where's the "I'm already highly annoyed by the spam of ads we currently have so if they add even more I'm going to leave" option? Because that's what I'll do. I already think there's too many ads as it is. They add more and I'll just take my business elsewhere, and I'm sure I'm not the only one.
Klumpfot said:
I imagine that having more ads will lead to either an increase in the usage of software used to block them, or a (perhaps major) decline in the number of users that frequent the site. Or both. A better solution would be to monetize some of the content in some fashion.
steeple said:
I'm pretty sure it would just make things worse, since more and more ads mean that new-comers would be overwhelmed by it, and just go somewhere else...
that's what I think could happen, anyway...
Heh. The first handful of posts already said what immediately came to mind when I saw the subject line of this thread. Have you even noticed the ridiculous number of threads complaining about how intrusive the ads are getting, which have been getting posted more and more frequently over the past several months as they've already been adding more ads (which have been getting more obnoxious and do things like obscure the page content until they're manually dismissed, which pay better than less irritating ads at the cost of pissing off users more)? I suspect the whole reason they have a rule against advocating ad blocker use is that they already went well past the threshold a while ago where it started annoying people more than the higher paying ads were worth, so good luck making up the difference by plastering even more ads over things...
 

The Naked Emperor

New member
Jan 5, 2011
41
0
0
It doesn't really matter whether or not they put more non-Escapist ads on the site. It might help, yes, but I think ad revenue is going to drop considerably-across the board, for every kind of site-as ad blockers get more popular. I'm not using one because I personally don't mind the ads on most sites I go to and I find that it makes video content very glitchy, yet even though there will always be people like me there are enough people who use ad-blockers that it will hurt their profits overall.

I'd be more than happy to pay for a publisher's club membership... If there was a point. Another post said something which really resonated with me: they're basically charging us for something we can get free after a three minute google search. I'm not going to pay in order to remove ads from the site. Give me exclusive content, articles that are published months before they hit the main site, discounts on escapist products, give me stuff like that and I will pony up without hesitation.

Speaking of-where are The Escapist books? I'd love to have yearly archives in book form, and I'm sure the staff could easily put something brand new together which would be worth selling as its own standalone thing.

I'm also going to say that I think the way the community is managed is part of the issue, too. I've mostly lurked here in my time on the site but it seems like the forums have seen a drastic drop in quality. There's obviously been a flood of people, but any time something like that happens you have to look at the management. There have been times when I've been extremely hesitant to post because I have no idea what's going to get me in trouble with the mods and what won't, and with their new system I mostly say, "to fuck with it" and I leave these threads to other people.

I'm not one of those people who thinks The Escapist is the bad guy in the situation with Extra Credits. It sounds like there was miscommunication on both ends and while there's likely a bit of exaggeration and double-speak coming from both parties this doesn't change my opinion of either of them. I will say, however, that if The Escapist's business model is faltering this badly then I don't sympathize with them although I understand it's not the easiest thing to switch around. It happens-businesses rise and fall and if they make a series of choices which makes them unviable, that's life. We'll all move on to something else; somebody somewhere will eventually step in and fill their niche, maybe even some of the people who currently work here. It's just kind of sad to see it falling apart like this.
 

lacktheknack

Je suis joined jewels.
Jan 19, 2009
19,305
0
0
eximista said:
lacktheknack said:
eximista said:
lacktheknack said:
eximista said:
lacktheknack said:
eximista said:
why do you think they need more money? they have the money... they just don't pay their stuff...
That's ridiculously stupid.

Seriously. How would you EVER come to this conclusion?
well they owned james 20k... he wanted 14k and alex gave him this 14k. Looks like he had enough money... just never wanted to pay him.
They probably took out a loan to save face (what with this being a PR disaster). That's the reasonable explanation.
Yes of course... they wanted to steal charity money and you think they have a face?
Weren't paying attention, were you? All the talk fired back and forth, and how the charity overflow was to "Save Extra Credits", with NO COMMUNICATION on what that meant? Since the Escapist hosted Extra Credits, they figured that "Saving Extra Credits" could be achieved via saving the Escapist from its current major financial issues. At least, if they're to be believed, that's the case. But Extra Credits tried to go a different direction with it, and now we have this epic fail.

"Steal charity money" sounds more like "get in fight over what the charity money is for" at this point. So yes, saving face.
I don't know much about economics... but if you have to take a loan to pay your staff - you are down.

So why do they need more money? they have lost extra credits... know they have one show less than befor. If they can't handle it know they have to get down.

If your firm wouldn't pay you your salary... would you get them your money so they can pay you your own salary?? Well I wouldn't...
If you're being sponsored by a major site, and it suddenly tells you that it's going under, most people (except you, apparently) would MOST DEFINITELY raise money to save their sponsor. Sadly, the Escapist apparently told NO ONE about their financial issues and now this crap happened.

I'm no expert on economics either, but one suggestion I've had is more popularity contests (March Mayhem attracts tons of traffic). Kross has stated that the Escapist is JUST NOW beginning to get higher paying advertising customers, crossing this with higher traffic from more popularity contests would be pretty lucrative. Even better, make them tournament style, and allow non-members to vote. That would make more people come back for each round, meaning more ad revenue. You're not dead until you're dead.
 

FreakSheet

New member
Jul 16, 2011
389
0
0
NON INTRUSIVE ADS.

Having a Yahtzee marathon, and having to see a 30 sec El Shaddai ad before every episode, is an F'ING pain in the butt!

Not to mention, when the two El Shaddai ads on the side are already lagging the video...
 

zelda2fanboy

New member
Oct 6, 2009
2,172
0
0
In my opinion, they should dump the news staff. Don't get me wrong, I love the writers, their spin on things, and the forum commentary. However, if they want this to be a video and writing feature based site, they really cannot afford the permanent staff. There are tons of sites for news and the escapist so rarely happens upon an exclusive that gains significant traffic that it seems barely worth it. There's too much competition, especially from people who happily do it for free. (Unless, the news staff is already doing it for free. Never mind in that case.)

Everything needs to be taken on a case by case basis. Hey, maybe we should all do a click-a-thon on all of the escapist's ads to boost their value.
 

eximista

New member
Aug 7, 2011
37
0
0
lacktheknack said:
eximista said:
lacktheknack said:
eximista said:
lacktheknack said:
eximista said:
lacktheknack said:
eximista said:
why do you think they need more money? they have the money... they just don't pay their stuff...
That's ridiculously stupid.

Seriously. How would you EVER come to this conclusion?
well they owned james 20k... he wanted 14k and alex gave him this 14k. Looks like he had enough money... just never wanted to pay him.
They probably took out a loan to save face (what with this being a PR disaster). That's the reasonable explanation.
Yes of course... they wanted to steal charity money and you think they have a face?
Weren't paying attention, were you? All the talk fired back and forth, and how the charity overflow was to "Save Extra Credits", with NO COMMUNICATION on what that meant? Since the Escapist hosted Extra Credits, they figured that "Saving Extra Credits" could be achieved via saving the Escapist from its current major financial issues. At least, if they're to be believed, that's the case. But Extra Credits tried to go a different direction with it, and now we have this epic fail.

"Steal charity money" sounds more like "get in fight over what the charity money is for" at this point. So yes, saving face.
I don't know much about economics... but if you have to take a loan to pay your staff - you are down.

So why do they need more money? they have lost extra credits... know they have one show less than befor. If they can't handle it know they have to get down.

If your firm wouldn't pay you your salary... would you get them your money so they can pay you your own salary?? Well I wouldn't...
If you're being sponsored by a major site, and it suddenly tells you that it's going under, most people (except you, apparently) would MOST DEFINITELY raise money to save their sponsor. Sadly, the Escapist apparently told NO ONE about their financial issues and now this crap happened.
No... nobody would do that?? You would try to help them - but you would not pay them... if a sponsor going down - you search for a new one. If sombody pay's better... you change the sponsor. Never heard of capitalism before??
It's not like extra credits would have problems to find a new site/sponsor...
 

lacktheknack

Je suis joined jewels.
Jan 19, 2009
19,305
0
0
eximista said:
lacktheknack said:
eximista said:
lacktheknack said:
eximista said:
lacktheknack said:
eximista said:
lacktheknack said:
eximista said:
why do you think they need more money? they have the money... they just don't pay their stuff...
That's ridiculously stupid.

Seriously. How would you EVER come to this conclusion?
well they owned james 20k... he wanted 14k and alex gave him this 14k. Looks like he had enough money... just never wanted to pay him.
They probably took out a loan to save face (what with this being a PR disaster). That's the reasonable explanation.
Yes of course... they wanted to steal charity money and you think they have a face?
Weren't paying attention, were you? All the talk fired back and forth, and how the charity overflow was to "Save Extra Credits", with NO COMMUNICATION on what that meant? Since the Escapist hosted Extra Credits, they figured that "Saving Extra Credits" could be achieved via saving the Escapist from its current major financial issues. At least, if they're to be believed, that's the case. But Extra Credits tried to go a different direction with it, and now we have this epic fail.

"Steal charity money" sounds more like "get in fight over what the charity money is for" at this point. So yes, saving face.
I don't know much about economics... but if you have to take a loan to pay your staff - you are down.

So why do they need more money? they have lost extra credits... know they have one show less than befor. If they can't handle it know they have to get down.

If your firm wouldn't pay you your salary... would you get them your money so they can pay you your own salary?? Well I wouldn't...
If you're being sponsored by a major site, and it suddenly tells you that it's going under, most people (except you, apparently) would MOST DEFINITELY raise money to save their sponsor. Sadly, the Escapist apparently told NO ONE about their financial issues and now this crap happened.
No... nobody would do that?? You would try to help them - but you would not pay them... if a sponsor going down - you search for a new one. If sombody pay's better... you change the sponsor. Never heard of capitalism before??
It's not like extra credits would have problems to find a new site/sponsor...
Apparently it's not as easy as you think, seeing that they're heading right back to Youtube.

Besides, no one would pay out of their own pocket, you're right. Fundraisers aren't unheard of, though. I'm talking about raising money for your sponsor, which seems perfectly credible when you consider charity sponsors. Again, NO ONE TOLD THE OTHER WHAT THE OVERFLOW WAS FOR. I'm pinning the blame for the EC debacle right there.
 

eximista

New member
Aug 7, 2011
37
0
0
lacktheknack said:
eximista said:
lacktheknack said:
eximista said:
lacktheknack said:
eximista said:
lacktheknack said:
eximista said:
lacktheknack said:
eximista said:
why do you think they need more money? they have the money... they just don't pay their stuff...
That's ridiculously stupid.

Seriously. How would you EVER come to this conclusion?
well they owned james 20k... he wanted 14k and alex gave him this 14k. Looks like he had enough money... just never wanted to pay him.
They probably took out a loan to save face (what with this being a PR disaster). That's the reasonable explanation.
Yes of course... they wanted to steal charity money and you think they have a face?
Weren't paying attention, were you? All the talk fired back and forth, and how the charity overflow was to "Save Extra Credits", with NO COMMUNICATION on what that meant? Since the Escapist hosted Extra Credits, they figured that "Saving Extra Credits" could be achieved via saving the Escapist from its current major financial issues. At least, if they're to be believed, that's the case. But Extra Credits tried to go a different direction with it, and now we have this epic fail.

"Steal charity money" sounds more like "get in fight over what the charity money is for" at this point. So yes, saving face.
I don't know much about economics... but if you have to take a loan to pay your staff - you are down.

So why do they need more money? they have lost extra credits... know they have one show less than befor. If they can't handle it know they have to get down.

If your firm wouldn't pay you your salary... would you get them your money so they can pay you your own salary?? Well I wouldn't...
If you're being sponsored by a major site, and it suddenly tells you that it's going under, most people (except you, apparently) would MOST DEFINITELY raise money to save their sponsor. Sadly, the Escapist apparently told NO ONE about their financial issues and now this crap happened.
No... nobody would do that?? You would try to help them - but you would not pay them... if a sponsor going down - you search for a new one. If sombody pay's better... you change the sponsor. Never heard of capitalism before??
It's not like extra credits would have problems to find a new site/sponsor...
Apparently it's not as easy as you think, seeing that they're heading right back to Youtube.

Besides, no one would pay out of their own pocket, you're right. Fundraisers aren't unheard of, though. I'm talking about raising money for your sponsor, which seems perfectly credible when you consider charity sponsors. Again, NO ONE TOLD THE OTHER WHAT THE OVERFLOW WAS FOR. I'm pinning the blame for the EC debacle right there.
Why do you think Alex is the good guy? I think he would sell his grandmother if somebody would pay something for "that"...

And I'm pretty sure they will get an other site... but I wouldn't sign a contract right know...
 

rokkolpo

New member
Aug 29, 2009
5,375
0
0
Bobic said:
Honestly I think the solution is to not hire so many damned contributors. They're struggling for money yet they keep adding loads of shows. Seriously, only hire what you can pay for guys.
My thoughts exactly.
They just seem to be adding and adding.
No end in sight.
 

Assassin Xaero

New member
Jul 23, 2008
5,391
0
0
No! I'm not paying them money, and this site is already taking forever to load with the billion ads on it... All the ads and these captchas (especially the ad captchas) are complete bullshit...
 

hi_im_h

New member
Nov 19, 2009
18
0
0
A bigger fan base and more traffic would certainly help with this issue.
It was by pure chance that i stumbled across the escapist when i saw that Yahtzee had moved over here from his few YouTube videos.
If there were some way that the escapist could become a bigger player on the scene and attract more members and traffic then i dont see why we shouldnt be able to pull up out of this rut.
 

sean360h

New member
Jun 2, 2010
207
0
0
i think the real issue is that no one is paying for the service they provide they need to innovate the system give people a reason to be come a publisher like get content a week early or access to more features or cool stuff like that not like oh you can use you iPhone on the site which you may or may not own or get free shipping on a pc which is really expensive and you wont get the free shipping they talk about if you live outside the us


a website that does all im talking about is www.roosterteeth.com (the guys who made red vs blue) id be willing to bet that they have more sponsors than the escapist has in publishers and they are a small website in compassion to the escapist
 
Jun 11, 2008
5,329
0
0
Already said but rather than put in a great volume of different ad bombardments actually put in a larger rotation and advertise none Escapist stuff more which will actually bring in money rather than advertise stuff that is already on the site and people watch or don't watch anyway. As much as I love the new series that they bring in I do feel a lot of them don't make it because they are brought in without being able to pay for them.
 

evilneko

Fall in line!
Jun 16, 2011
2,218
49
53
Kross said:
Unfortunately the hard part is finding people to buy ads on our site. Even the ones we do manage to get often don't want to pay for non North American ad views. At all. So they get filler and house ads. We've gone months at a time with no third party ads on the site at all because nobody wanted to buy on a small site that didn't have the page views of some other larger gaming sites.

Now (like... this year) we're finally starting to fill our ad inventory because we have some ad sales people who are good at their job (or do it at all, we've had remote ad sales people who literally did nothing for months until we were able to tell it was more then business being bad and replace them) and are finally breaking into the top trafficked gaming news sites so ad buying people will look at us. But now we're suddenly rich corporate douchebag overlords and out to screw over the people who help make our site interesting. :(

As far as PubClub, it's great and helps us get ahead of some of our bills, and we love all of our supporters very much... but it's not a significant contributor to our ongoing bills as of yet. We would need to sell hundreds (if not a couple thousand) pubclub subscriptions a day to even come near to covering our various server/bandwidth/salary/office/contributor/etc costs. We are not selling quite that many yet, although we can always hope. :)
Y'know, I was gonna post something along the lines of "well, what about finding different advertisers, I mean Nexus pushes over a hundred terabytes per month and is mostly funded by ads." But then you had to go and post that. So much for that idea! Obviously, since Nexus is so much bigger, they get advertisers willing to pay more.