It looks like you're using an Ad Blocker.

Please white-list or disable in your ad-blocking tool.

Thank you.


Some features of ATS will be disabled while you continue to use an ad-blocker.


What would you pay per-month for an Ad-Free ATS?

page: 15
<< 12  13  14    16  17  18 >>

log in


posted on Mar, 2 2016 @ 06:33 AM
I wouldn't pay a single dollar for subscription but I would gladly donate every once in awhile.and besides the ads don't even bother and I actually love ads because I get to see what's hot out there without having to search them personally.its not like youtube where the ads can block you from seeing the content.i see billboards on the road everyday but they don't block the road.

posted on Mar, 2 2016 @ 06:36 AM
I'd be interested to know how many of the people saying "Oh I'd definately, absolutely definately, pay $x per month..." are currently using the donation button?

Apparently the experience bourne out over many, many different websites and projects is that less than a third the people who claim they would pay, actually pay.

I love human nature

posted on Mar, 2 2016 @ 06:47 AM

originally posted by: blupblup

originally posted by: TruthxIsxInxThexMist
a reply to: SkepticOverlord

I've been a member of this site for a long time now so I don't see any ads and I'm hardly creating Threads these days or participating that much on members Threads, I mainly just read them now and move on to the next one unless there is a great Thread to participate in, so I would say maybe a paid subscription for those who use the site more than others. Those who just read shouldn't pay anything and are maybe limited to post in 14 threads per week? Which makes it 2 threads per day on average.

Oh sure that'd be great... so not only a subscribers forum as proposed by SO but now limiting those who can't pay to only being able to post a set number of times?
Seriously? Do you actually think before you type.

Cool... ATS very own Untouchables.


Yes I did think and it makes more sense to me. Think of it this way: Why should someone with no children subsidise those who do have children?

posted on Mar, 2 2016 @ 06:53 AM
a reply to: EvillerBob

Absolutely - someone says "I'd pay $100 if you had a donate button" another member points out there already is one.... it'd be interesting to see whether the member who offered the cash actually delivers.

Also with these 300,000 active members or whatever the figure is, why not just ask for a one-off payment of a dollar?
That's quite a lot of money, how long could you keep going on that?

The other site I post on as my main site has no ads at all and no subscription and while moderation is fairly strict, people can still talk like adults and use adult language to express themselves, not to insult one another, but to express themselves on a topic.
When it's time for a donation drive that's what they do, they ask and people donate.
They explain how much the severs cost, how long they will keep going etc etc.

That's a fair and open way of doing it IMHO.

edit on 2/3/16 by blupblup because: (no reason given)

posted on Mar, 2 2016 @ 07:02 AM
a reply to: TruthxIsxInxThexMist

I think you have misunderstood the basis of this.

There would be three options.

1) Do not use ATS because you block ads.
2) Do use ATS and allow ads.
3) Do use ATS and pay a subscription to remove ads.

The ones paying the subscription are not subsidizing the second category. The second category is "paying" for themselves by not blocking ads.

Well, I guess there's the fourth one of "Do use ATS with limited features and annoying banners because you block ads." but I don't think SO would be happy with that one. I doubt he enjoys irritating people and pissing them off, but sees it as a business necessity.
edit on 2/3/2016 by Eilasvaleleyn because: Reasons

posted on Mar, 2 2016 @ 07:06 AM

originally posted by: TruthxIsxInxThexMist

Yes I did think and it makes more sense to me. Think of it this way: Why should someone with no children subsidise those who do have children?

Well people paying tax in a society for the benefit of everyone is quite different from a privately owned website (business) asking for money from people. IMHO.
We pay tax and that pays for roads (Whether you drive or not) bus passes for old folks (whether you're old or not) and so on and so forth, and we do this because it's fair for everyone. Those who can't afford to pay taxes don't pay any... but they still get to use all of the facilities and get all of the benefits in society of those that do pay taxes and that is absolutely fair.

I have no idea what model ATS is going with or what this Pay to Post/Read system will look like but I find any suggestion from either owners or other members such as yourself, of a two-tier system or a site that is better, more accessible or has special privileges for those who pay compared to those who don't, quite frankly... awful.

But if that's the way ATS goes... then that's what'll happen I guess.

posted on Mar, 2 2016 @ 07:14 AM
I would however want the option to pay annually.

posted on Mar, 2 2016 @ 07:38 AM

originally posted by: Eilasvaleleyn
a reply to: theboarman

This is for an ad-free experience. Why do so many people seem to think that it's payment for site access?

Why do so many not think this is just around the bend once precedent is set?

posted on Mar, 2 2016 @ 07:43 AM
A couple observations...

1. I'm not sure a 'monthly' subscription would be the way to go. I would think an annual subscription might be better. Sure, you could let people make installments if they wish. I think people will balk at a recurring fee. I know I would.

2. It would be my contention that the proper way to frame this would be as an "opt-out" type membership. In other words, people would pay the membership in order to opt-out of advertising exposure. People who pay the fee don't see ads, and people who don't see the ads.

3. Subscription or not should have no bearing on being a forum member. Anyone can be an active and participating member (with no restrictions), it's just some people will see ads (threaded in posts or whatever) and others will not.

My observation is you don't want to do anything which will limit participation because it is the content they provide which draws views from the general Internet, hence views of advertising.

edit on 3/2/2016 by Flyingclaydisk because: (no reason given)

posted on Mar, 2 2016 @ 07:45 AM
a reply to: SkepticOverlord

In the survey, I believe there should have been a "$0.00 - I would not pay a cent" option.

I simply don't find ATS to have any value worth paying for. Everyone that has joined this site does so for their own reasons and for me, that reason is boredom. When I log on during the day, it is typically because a scheduled meeting was cancelled and it's a slow day on the job site. When I log on in the evening it's because I'm trying to be quiet as my son falls asleep.

I've read posts written by people that have been members for many years describing "the good old days" of ATS. I can't say whether or not this site was "better" in the past, but at the moment I can't really say this site is any different that forums on a whole host of other websites. Most of the threads on here are "Republicans bad/Democrats good" (or vice versa) or "Religious people are stupid and atheists are smart" (or vice versa). Once in a while there is an interesting thread that comes through about a mystery I haven't heard of, but that is very rare indeed.

I will say that ATS is a fine website, but never in a million years could I ever imagine paying one red cent for access.

posted on Mar, 2 2016 @ 07:56 AM
I have never, nor will I ever buy a Dodge Ram. I drive a cute little mini-cooper. I will gladly pay $5.00 per month to get Dodge Ram out of my life forever.

This discussion has become political and philosophical. To me it's: Ram, no Ram. I choose no Ram. Simple works for me.

posted on Mar, 2 2016 @ 08:24 AM
I know this is just suggesting we pay to see no ads and a more streamlined experience on here.

But ATS is obviously struggling as a viable business model. Last year we had a request for donations. This year we are talking about subscribing to avoid ads. What will it be next year? A lot of people have already assumed what is coming next.

The Times newspaper went full on 'pay wall' about 5 years ago and it's readership sank to about 2% of what it was. This was for a professionally produced newspaper with journalists, editors etc. Not a site where it's members produce the content. It looks like ATS could be on a slippery slope.

ATS is like a huge pub or bar. Some people will peer inside from the "Windows" and never come inside or contribute anything to the site except maybe giving it a plug on facebook or a link on another forum. Which could be negative or positive but it will draw people to it.

Many of us wander in and then slope off into a corner for a bit of idle conversation on our favourite topic once a week or so mainly with members we are familiar with. Others nip in for an hour or two every few days. And some sit at the ATS bar every day throwing in their two cents (or $5

Many of our paths rarely cross even though we all come to the same place and none of us want to see the business decline.

So if the business model is to move away from "Valuing Ads" to "Adding Value" for members then membership has to be maintained and preferably increased. Otherwise our favourite place will start to look empty won't it?

I know someone suggested selling merchandise but I think the problem with that is real world production, supply and shipping costs all squeeze the margins tightly and is probably a distraction that's not needed.

Perhaps ATS (with the help of members) could produce downloadable FREE pdf magazines on various topics taken from member content. You can easily put ads into something like this and they can't be blocked! Plus it drives traffic back to the site.

For illustration purposes only

I don't know if that's a viable option either because it needs organisation and bandwidth as well. But the production costs are minimal if enough members are willing to contribute.

edit on 2/3/16 by mirageman because: edit

posted on Mar, 2 2016 @ 08:32 AM
Think about 10$ hour a month at work or there about or less for most of us. .33 cents a day?

posted on Mar, 2 2016 @ 08:33 AM
I like your site. But I don't like ANY site enough to pay a monthly fee. Not even netflix. After all this is just user generated content which usually consists of news, hardly worth a fee.

Ads don't exist to me, and never will.
edit on 3/2/2016 by eXia7 because: (no reason given)

posted on Mar, 2 2016 @ 08:36 AM

originally posted by: blupblup
I have no idea what model ATS is going with or what this Pay to Post/Read system will look like

Im sorry, i may have missed it....but can you quote what you are reading that has caused you to draw this conclusion? What I came away with after reading the OP was nothing even similar to "pay to post/read". Its "pay to have the ads disappear".

posted on Mar, 2 2016 @ 08:45 AM

originally posted by: Logarock
Think about 10$ hour a month at work or there about or less for most of us. .33 cents a day?

That's the question.... Is ATS (membership or add-free option) worth that much? To some of us, the answer is no.

posted on Mar, 2 2016 @ 08:56 AM
a reply to: bigfatfurrytexan

Yes, some people have WILDLY misinterpreted what the proposition of this thread was. I tried to set the record straight a few times. Don't think it worked.

posted on Mar, 2 2016 @ 09:02 AM
This is an interesting idea. I applaud the fact that ATS is trying to involve the community on this issue. Someone may have mentioned this and I may have missed it. I was just going to add that this idea could work quite well if you add in the ability to gift a sub or member fee to others. I have seen it work quite well on other sites as it promotes community. This would be great to encourage other members to stay and contribute. People could have contest and such. Just a few thoughts to toss around.

ETA: The biggest complaint about ads that I have noticed seem to involve ads that jump around and video ads. Is there a way to filter the ad types that ATS displays?
edit on 2-3-2016 by NihilistSanta because: (no reason given)

edit on 2-3-2016 by NihilistSanta because: (no reason given)

posted on Mar, 2 2016 @ 09:08 AM
First, I don't use ad blockers, so there's that. I frequent a lot of discussion boards and, by far, ATS has the most and the worst ads. It's also got some of the lowest traffic. Are the intrusive ads partly why? Despite that, ATS has some of the best content but also some the worst discussions. The best because it's more thoughtful and well presented than than other sites. The worst because we can't talk about some topics and there are a lot of rules for discussion.

I wouldn't pay for "no ads" but I would pay for more open discussions. One lines, okay. Joking in thread, okay. Want to troll? Fine. Want to shill? Fine. Let the members pick it apart.

posted on Mar, 2 2016 @ 09:09 AM

originally posted by: andy06shake
a reply to: SkepticOverlord

Nothing. Dont want to pay for ATS period.


you people are mad if you would pay for information that should be free.
let the ats boycott begin.

new topics

top topics

<< 12  13  14    16  17  18 >>

log in