Ad-blockers, subscriptions and money? ATS is worth $2 million and makes $466,920 a year

originally posted by: daaskapital

originally posted by: uncommitted

originally posted by: daaskapital

originally posted by: uncommitted
a reply to: daaskapital

"Our money"? Where does that come from, do you own shares, do you think you have a financial stake in this website?

If one were to pay any amount of money to a business, it is only reasonable to know where it is going.

Rubbish. If you are paying for a service it's reasonable to expect that service to be provided - that's it. Unless you are a shareholder you have no actual legal right to know where or how the money you pay for that service is spent, or how much is collected - you really don't see that do you?

I'm not talking about law or shareholders. You're trying to steer the discussion in a different direction.

People on ATS have expressed interest in increased transparency. Obviously, the site doesn't have to comply, but it would ease the minds of many if it at least showed how people's money would be spent.

We know ATS is having problems with money, and we know they're having problems with ad-blocking software. It wouldn't be much of a hassle to ease the minds of members and show which areas they plan to invest any donations or payments into.

My mentioning of an annual report was only an example of the extent to which some companies report on their activities. Obviously, ATS isn't obliged to create an annual report, let alone engage with members about their troubles and plans, but some clarity on the overall financial situation of the website would be nice.

I'm not trying to steer the discussion in a different way - you seem to be of the assumption that for some reason you are entitled to know financial information about this website - you have no such entitlement. Is that simple enough for you?

originally posted by: uncommitted

originally posted by: daaskapital

originally posted by: uncommitted

originally posted by: daaskapital

originally posted by: uncommitted
a reply to: daaskapital

"Our money"? Where does that come from, do you own shares, do you think you have a financial stake in this website?

If one were to pay any amount of money to a business, it is only reasonable to know where it is going.

Rubbish. If you are paying for a service it's reasonable to expect that service to be provided - that's it. Unless you are a shareholder you have no actual legal right to know where or how the money you pay for that service is spent, or how much is collected - you really don't see that do you?

I'm not talking about law or shareholders. You're trying to steer the discussion in a different direction.

People on ATS have expressed interest in increased transparency. Obviously, the site doesn't have to comply, but it would ease the minds of many if it at least showed how people's money would be spent.

We know ATS is having problems with money, and we know they're having problems with ad-blocking software. It wouldn't be much of a hassle to ease the minds of members and show which areas they plan to invest any donations or payments into.

My mentioning of an annual report was only an example of the extent to which some companies report on their activities. Obviously, ATS isn't obliged to create an annual report, let alone engage with members about their troubles and plans, but some clarity on the overall financial situation of the website would be nice.

I'm not trying to steer the discussion in a different way

Your last three posts attempting to change the discussion towards law and shareholders says otherwise.

you seem to be of the assumption that for some reason you are entitled to know financial information about this website - you have no such entitlement. Is that simple enough for you?

No, i don't have a right to the financial information of ATS. I never said i did. You're just assuming that myself and others, who would like some more transparency, are expecting ATS to bend to our will and give us everything we want. That's simply not the case.

Many people are happy to financially support ATS. Some would just like to see more transparency or have more information before doing so. ATS isn't obliged to hand such information over, and nobody really expects them to. I even mentioned in my OP that i don't expect ATS to 'go out of their way in publishing' their financial information.

a reply to: DAVID64

Yep as much as I thought they were complete BS I miss stuff like The Timewave Zero and web bot threads predicting doom & gloom using complex algorithms.

And crazy posters who were genuinely crazy, like the guy who was a popular poster suddenly one day decided to claim he'd been attacked by aliens at his house and had a fight with them, went to a lot of effort making up fake evidence and was eventually called out on it.

I miss those days

originally posted by: daaskapital

originally posted by: uncommitted

originally posted by: daaskapital

originally posted by: uncommitted

originally posted by: daaskapital

originally posted by: uncommitted
a reply to: daaskapital

"Our money"? Where does that come from, do you own shares, do you think you have a financial stake in this website?

If one were to pay any amount of money to a business, it is only reasonable to know where it is going.

Rubbish. If you are paying for a service it's reasonable to expect that service to be provided - that's it. Unless you are a shareholder you have no actual legal right to know where or how the money you pay for that service is spent, or how much is collected - you really don't see that do you?

I'm not talking about law or shareholders. You're trying to steer the discussion in a different direction.

People on ATS have expressed interest in increased transparency. Obviously, the site doesn't have to comply, but it would ease the minds of many if it at least showed how people's money would be spent.

We know ATS is having problems with money, and we know they're having problems with ad-blocking software. It wouldn't be much of a hassle to ease the minds of members and show which areas they plan to invest any donations or payments into.

My mentioning of an annual report was only an example of the extent to which some companies report on their activities. Obviously, ATS isn't obliged to create an annual report, let alone engage with members about their troubles and plans, but some clarity on the overall financial situation of the website would be nice.

Regarding ads though, I could do without the glut of ones advertising Russian single women.
I'm not trying to steer the discussion in a different way

Your last three posts attempting to change the discussion towards law and shareholders says otherwise.

you seem to be of the assumption that for some reason you are entitled to know financial information about this website - you have no such entitlement. Is that simple enough for you?

No, i don't have a right to the financial information of ATS. I never said i did. You're just assuming that myself and others, who would like some more transparency, are expecting ATS to bend to our will and give us everything we want. That's simply not the case.

Many people are happy to financially support ATS. Some would just like to see more transparency or have more information before doing so. ATS isn't obliged to hand such information over, and nobody really expects them to. I even mentioned in my OP that i don't expect ATS to 'go out of their way in publishing' their financial information.

I talked about shareholders and legal obligations because they are the only reasons a company must be transparent. What this site makes and what it's spent on is nobody's business. If the owners want to propose a subscription fee, then your only real interest should be what you get for your subscription, not how the money is spent.

Why do people think they are co-owners of the site just because they post here? Where was it ever stated, that posting on the site, makes you part owner of ATS.

Just like I said in other threads. We all agreed to the terms and conditions. The terms and conditions clearly lay out the relationship between the membership and the site. Yes we generate content. But nowhere does it say we are owed anything for doing so. If you disagree with that. You should not have accepted the terms and conditions.

ATS provides us the platform and we use said platform. That is it.

Also people keep saying that if they subscribe to the site. In their mind, they are investing in the site. But that is just not true. You are not investing in ATS. You are not buying a stake in ownership. You are subscribing to a service. If you subscribe to the newspaper. Do you get to barge into the boardroom and demand an accounting of the finances?

While I do agree that more transparency is almost always better. If the site does not want to open the books. They do not have to. Would any of you post all your financial information on here because another poster demanded it for whatever reason?

ATS is not trying to put a chip in you and take your first born. They are talking about having a free version with ads, and a paid version without ads. That is all that is being talked about. Just because they are adding an ad free option. Why does the site all of a sudden have to treat us like co-owners?

If you do not want to subscribe or pay money into the site, then do not.

It would be cool for the site to be more transparent in how they do things. But just because we as members are potentially subscribing to something that is completely optional, for what amounts to fifty dollars a year, to get rid of ads. Does not mean all of a sudden we are co-owners of ATS and deserve to know every little financial detail.

It just boggles my mind. That people need to know all this to subscribe to something for that little of an amount. I know some people can not afford it. But for those people. Nothing will change. The site will still be the same. Free with ads.

Also I must say again. If you do not like the quality of the site. That is a completely separate issue. Why even come here and complain if you hate the site and think is it worthless. If you think it is worthless then you obviously will not be subscribing.

Let me put that into perspective for everyone;

I manage a medium sized retail business. My store turns over in excess of $2 million per year and our network of stores was brought by the current owners for $50 million in 2009.

Those figures found in the OP are chickenfeed. The valuation is pie in the sky, because a company is valued at 2 1/2 to 3 times the profit it makes. So even if ATS' entire revenue was profit (it can't be with web hosting fees, anti hacking ware etc etc) it would be worth at most around 1.2 million.

So....

Hating on this site because of it's alleged worth is stupid. Every one of us who uses this site adds value to it by generating traffic and we all gain knowledge and experience from participating in forums here.

There is no such thing as truly free in a capitalist world, someone has to pay the overheads to host this place. So, turn off your ad blockers or suck up the cat pic telling you off and deal with it.

a reply to: daaskapital

I doubt ATS is in financial trouble, the mother co., The Above Network , LLC., was rated as having a revenue of $2,400,000 lately.

I would suggest something like, make an sticky topic that has numbers how much it cost to keep the side open per month and ppl are welcome to donate and that topic would be updated when someones donate for upkeep, that way ppl would see what they are donating and they could feel and see how they are helping the community.

I seen other places have system that when ppl donates the money goes straight to bills payment to upkeep site up and ppl seem much more positive with that system.

I also seen site that started to kinda of like forcing its members to "donate" with loan marks cause i think its not donation if its forced and ppl start to leave by numbers, while it might help with the cost of the server in longer run perhaps it will hurt the community much more.

Lots of good conjecture going on here.
I for one will not pay, maybe donate here and there...nothing more.

None of my biz what goes on behind the scenes, I will take the current form of ad's.
If it goes pay to play... well... count me out.

Now, with ad's, if each member clicks on the ad and then clicks on the next page view that pop's up.. "called click through" then they "ATS" gets paid from ad sponsor...easy way to make money.... That I will and do already do.

ATS is a firm, its job as any other firm is to make as much money as it can. ATS sells us in every way it can and not only that but we provide most of the content. Once you join you cannot leave ( they sell the number of people who are members to get more adverts and more money) they delite any post they think might ofend the advert owners. ATS is not a wonderful community as some think, its a money making firm that pushes the limits on how much they can con people to get even more money. People do understand the everything you write here ATS owns the copy rights to, so they can sell it without paying anything to the writer. Check T&C www.abovetopsecret.com...

a reply to: daaskapital


Oh, sure, like GE, CBS and George Clooney tells us how they are doing and planning.

Sometimes you just gotta go with your hunches, or you just gotta go....

a reply to: hopenotfeariswhatweneed

Is it really any of our business how much money the site makes ?

The short answer is a resounding, "No!"

However, when an organization approaches people with their hand out looking for donations, it is not uncommon to share at least some information regarding where that money is going and why it is needed.

In this case ATS can reveal as much or as little as they see fit, but the response and the dollars donated will likely be determined, in large part, on the level of transparency.

originally posted by: LesMisanthrope
Be real. ATS is bending over backwards trying to give us what we want, all while trying to fund it, run it, and make a living at the same time. Us transients are not the heart and soul of this website. There are people who actually work, while we just log in and off at our leasure.

Support your communities, or watch them rot.

I realize I'm showing up to the party late, but so far, this is best post I've read(and starred). I've really been disappointed at the pasting SO took over that thread. And trust me, I'm not paid for any defense of him. He doesn't even like me. He asked one question. Would anyone be interested in a subscription based, ad-free version of the site. That's it! And what happens? Out come the frickin pitchforks! WTF?

ETA: And what ATS makes as a business is none of our business. Either you like the service they're offering, or you don't. YOU have to determine what it's worth to you.

a reply to: DogMeat

Apparently, we don't have to "click through" for them to generate ad revenue any longer (according to SO anyways)
Now (I'm assuming this is something recent) they get paid if we see the ads, no clicking needed.

That's what I got out of some of his responses the other day anyways.

...........
And, you might want to watch clicking all those ads. They're not always "safe". ....just a friendly heads up.

...................
In regards to the OP. I think some level of transparency would be nice, but I won't "demand" it.
I'm not opposed to a subscription [ad free] deal and will pay (even though I don't see ads as it is because of contribution)....if/when months come along that I can't pay (I'm sorta broke) I'll deal with the ads (if they revert those of us not currently seeing ads back to having to see them).....doesn't bother me much either way.

I just don't get why people think they should know where all the money made by this site is being spent. It's their business, of course they want to make some money on it (much as possible).....why else put in all the work?

a reply to: daaskapital

I agree, but its donations, not a partnership. Maybe I missed it, but it doesnt seem like its an offer to buy into the company name for a market share.

Partnerships and part owners have a say in content and goals.

Thats counter intuitive for a conspiracy site

a reply to: Butterfinger

Well, it is a sort of "partnership", given that the contributors here are the reason the site lives. Without those providing content, I doubt the few staff could keep this place running all by themselves.

So, there is that...
I still don't think we should be "demanding" transparency, but I don't think that is what OP is doing here. He's simply saying "it would be nice" to have some [transparency]....and is urging SO to do such. Nothing more.

originally posted by: Aliensun
a reply to: daaskapital


Oh, sure, like GE, CBS and George Clooney tells us how they are doing and planning.

Sometimes you just gotta go with your hunches, or you just gotta go....

GE and CBS are public companies with shareholders are they not? As they are, they will talk to shareholders at least annually about their plans for the coming year - it's a legal requirement. George Clooney..... not really the same thing.

originally posted by: hopenotfeariswhatweneed
a reply to: daaskapital

Is it really any of our business how much money the site makes ?..... I can tell you as a person who has ran a few businesses that as soon as the employees get an inkling of how much money the boss makes they start to make demands of their own, lets just say it complicates things....in my opinion the employee has no rights to be privy to such information....in our case here on ats i guess we are clients of the business ...still that does not give us rights to dictate to the business how where and when money gets spent or for that matter how the business is run.....

It absolutely is our business when 1) Owners have asked for donations without telling or showing us how and where the money will be spent and 2) are now planning a subscription charge for people and paid members forums.
If this site makes enough to sustain itself and those who own/run it, then why are they asking for people to put their hands in their pockets and give them money? With no detail about where and how this money will be spent or what those who donate/pay will actually get for handing over their hard-earned $$$

originally posted by: Jakal26
a reply to: Butterfinger

Well, it is a sort of "partnership", given that the contributors here are the reason the site lives. Without those providing content, I doubt the few staff could keep this place running all by themselves.

So, there is that...
I still don't think we should be "demanding" transparency, but I don't think that is what OP is doing here. He's simply saying "it would be nice" to have some [transparency]....and is urging SO to do such. Nothing more.

But it isn't a partnership. It's a business model. They provide a forum(soapbox and microphone), and we use it to have our voices heard. Open mic night at any coffee house is not a partnership, it's an opportunity to share your music, poetry, and/or opinion.

The problem with this so-called "transparency" everyone is talking about is, it doesn't stop there. You'll have members asking SO what he eats for breakfast, so they can determine if he spends too much on it. It would be the most demeaning experience he could have on ATS. I think he needs to do what is necessary to run this place, and make a profit. At the same time, I will say I do wish he would fix some of the outstanding issues with the site itself, but thats another topic.

originally posted by: Klassified
You'll have members asking SO what he eats for breakfast...

I have reliable information that it is Sevruga caviar that Springer feeds him with a mother of pearl spoon and washed down with Krug Collection 1982.