Sponsor news....need input Options

[SSpeedracer]

Chris- Thanks for including us in your thought process and maintaining an open discussion. A great step in the right direction!

I feel the love. (IMG:http://www.frrax.com/rrforum/style_emoticons/default/tongue.gif)

[NataSS Inc]

I am all for having sponsors but as much as I hate to say it, with as many parts that are available sooner or later you will have a conflict of interest and the arguements will ensue (sponsor vs. sponsor) like we saw on LS1.com. That was one of the worst things I have ever seen on a internet board. 2 sponsors at each others throats.

As long as sponsors stay in thier perspective areas (sales/GP areas) and only reply to specific questions in the tech forum, HOPEFULLY we wont have any problems.

[98_1LE]

I do not have a problem with vendors or sponsors discussing parts, tech, or anything on-topic in any forum, as most of them have a LOT to offer besides a sales pitch. I may not agree with everything any of them say, but I greatly appreciate their opinion and participation.

I also prefer that they have their business name as a username. That way, I do not have to wonder if their opinions are biased by a motive to sell something.

I agree with everything else. I do not have an issue with sponsors as long as we have free speech.

[ESPCamaro]

I agree with Chuck.

But, isn't there a way to keep a board alive WITHOUT sponsors? CC does it right? I wan't to know what is available. I don't care who sells it, or who TELLS me about it.

If Jason is telling me WHY his PHR brackets are so great GOOD. He's the one who designed it! If Lou tells us why his new K-member is better than stock great. We now know that a better alternative exists. If Sam says that Bilstein is coming out with a new wiz-bang DA Mono tube Super.

These guys have the inside track about what's up with what we are doing. And that's what I want the inside info.

Sponsors should be able to post anywhere. As should everyone else.

I say NO sponsors. If you want to sell something do it by actually participating in our discussions. Not by "putting up money"

[Chris 96 WS6]

Lonnie I don't' think "putting up money" automatically gets these guys sales. They still have to offer a product people want, and ultimately the customer makes the choice to purchase, no one can force you into it.

[trackbird]

I think there have been several valid points made by everyone and I agree with the majority of them.

However, I am not sure it is reasonable to pay for bandwidth out of pocket. Nor, do I think that money grows on trees (I've planted at least $85 in my backyard, so far....nothing.....). So, I think sponsors are an eventual "evil" (with all respect to those sponsors, potential or otherwise). But, I think we need to make sure that they don't impact freedom of speech on the board. Chris is on the right track with his ground rules. I'm not sure how many sponsors will go for the "no protection clause", but if the rates are reasonable enough, they may be fine with it (I know some boards get $125-$150 a month for ads, per vendor). If we can keep it at $50 to $75 (or whatever), they may go for it. And, if they build junk, get discovered and are called out about it, they are welcome to defend themselves, fix it, orget mad and leave. I don't want a reputation for sponsor abuse and I'm not suggesting Corner Carvers style beatings(though I have great respect for the info on that board and I cruise there on occasion). But, to protect people who manufacture "junk" because there is money in it is not a desireable situation (I'm already having visions of BMR, not to pick on out favorite whipping boy). I've got more questions than answers....

If anyone needs me, I'll be outside planting another 2 dollar bill.

[Nick]

But, isn't there a way to keep a board alive WITHOUT sponsors? CC does it right?

I'd even be willing to put in a few bucks a year to have the open forum we have now. Then the users would be the sponsors (which could create some conflict in itself).

Sponsors are fine. But if it gets out of hand, this will be "just another site".

[Chris 96 WS6]

My initial thoughts would be $50 per month or a discounted $500 a year if the sponsor paid all up front. Get 4 or 5 sponsors around here and I think I can get all the bandwidth we could reasonably need for the forseeable future.

I understand the fears some of you have about sponsors going downhill. However I do not think sponsors in and of themselves are negative just by their mere existence. Perhaps framing them as advertisers is more appropriate, sense we are actually doing them a favor too by providing exposure. The term Sponsor connotes that we couldn't manage without them.

In my mind, an advertiser pays a fee, for which we provide exposure via a couple of mechanisms...the banner and the Vendor/GP forum....and IMO that completes the transaction. We don't owe the sponsor any more than that.

I'll tell you something I hate. I hate how advertisers influence content in magazines. Like GMHTP for example. They don't blatantly bias an article, but what happens for example is Holley, lets say, will agree to a large, lucrative, multiple issue advertisement if GMHTP will do an article on the stealthram intake, wink wink. Its done with the understanding that the article will be very positive.

Prime example is the issue last year when they put the Crane ignition on the LT1 car and glorified it as the solution to all LT1 ignition problems even though it is well known that ignition amplifier boxes accelerate opti death quite substantially.


I want to assure you guys that I'll never compromise your ability to speak your mind as long as its done in a civil manner. You have my word on that.

[Chris 96 WS6]

But, isn't there a way to keep a board alive WITHOUT sponsors? CC does it right?

I'd even be willing to put in a few bucks a year to have the open forum we have now. Then the users would be the sponsors (which could create some conflict in itself).

Sponsors are fine. But if it gets out of hand, this will be "just another site".

The problem I have with mass donations are multifold:

1. Inevitably only some are going to donate. Most will just piggyback and enjoy the benefits of the board w/o any contribution. This is not acceptable to me from a matter of principle. It just comes with the territory.

2. What if someone who has contributed funds gets banned from the site? Do I refund their contribution? Do I have to keep up with hundreds of donations? What are the expectations donating users will have of me and my site?

3. In comparison, it is much easier for me, from my perspective at least, to define the role and expectations of the board/sponsor relationship, and to manage and handle those vendors with regard to issues that will creep up from time to time, etc.

[ESPCamaro]

Well it looks like sponsors are gonna happen.

I do feel that sponsors should be allowed to post ANYWHERE. If we have the power in chosing then even a "sales pitch" shouldn't influence our decisions much.

Most of you know my position of vendor choice. The guy has helped me out going on three years. And I've seen him help out TONS, APON TONS of people. Should Sam choose to be a sponsor, he should also be aloud to post anywhere. If for no other reason that 1)he has helped a ton of people out 2)he is an enthusiast himself

And if we do that other sponsors would have to have the same oppurtunities.

[Chris 96 WS6]

OK so let me work on refining the guidelines for advertisers and firm up some "rules". I'll post them for review.

I have some ideas in my head as far as language, etc.

With regard to advertisers being able to post anywhere...I am thinking this: Advertisers get a banner ad and they get GP/vendor forum privileges...outside of that they are no different from any other vendor or private member, could post in any forum...as could non-sponsoring vendors. I don't know how to be any more fair than to say everybody can post everywhere (IMG:http://www.frrax.com/rrforum/style_emoticons/default/biggrin.gif)

[98_1LE]

I'll tell you something I hate.  I hate how advertisers influence content in magazines.  Like GMHTP for example.  They don't blatantly bias an article, but what happens for example is Holley, lets say, will agree to a large, lucrative, multiple issue advertisement if GMHTP will do an article on the stealthram intake, wink wink.  Its done with the understanding that the article will be very positive.

Prime example is the issue last year when they put the Crane ignition on the LT1 car and glorified it as the solution to all LT1 ignition problems even though it is well known that ignition amplifier boxes accelerate opti death quite substantially.

Another example was the 555RII test against Victoracers. Running pressures much higher than everyone has determined work best with RII's, GMHTP ran an article with a 2-page Nitto ad in the middle of it that had the RII beating Victoracers by 2 full seconds on a road course with the same car and driver. I asked Johnie Hunkins about it on cz28.com some time later, and after a long, slightly heated conversation, he posted that the Victoracers had been used a year before, and in storage since. He went on to say that several local racers assured him that age does not affect race tires (IMG:http://www.frrax.com/rrforum/style_emoticons/default/rolleyes.gif)

I had been a subscriber since they were HTP up to that point, and have not sent them a dime since.

I would be willing to PayPal a small fee to keep the site going. As long as we can be open and honest. The shared knowledge will save us all a lot more than the cost of keeping the site running.

[tonycook]

I'm with Chuck on donations from members. A mixture of sponsors and members contributions might be a viable solution. That way sponsorship money is less important but is still present.

[bowtieboy]

With the guidelines that Chris has stated, I would not be against sponsorship.

.....it would actually be kinda nice to be able to have a civil conversation/debate on product issues and keeping the sponsor from being "un-touchable" is a great idea.

I also like the idea that sponsors would be allowed to have their sponsor name in their user name.....yes, that's free advertisement but it also gives us the opportunity to know EXACTLY who were talking to.

[Chris 96 WS6]

I'm working on the guidelines now, which defines the expectations and roles for advertisers (sponsors), non-advertising vendors (other companies), and the rest of us private individuals (members).

I have one question though.

I've been reading through this thread and I've discovered one issue upon which people have fallen on both sides:

Some of you have said you do not want Vendor names in their usernames, because that is naked advertising in the tech forums. Others of you have said you want it plain and clear when you're reading a post that they are an advertiser so you know up front that the opinion is colored.

So which is it guys? Which is more beneficial to you?

[robz71lm7]

Just put "Sponsor" in their user title or user group.

[trackbird]

Put them in the names. It does two things.

1. Lets you know who you are talking to.

2. Lets you know the sponsors that are "active" in forums and have an "interest" in the hobby. (Sam Strano for example is always around and actively participating in discussions. Though not everyone agrees with him all the time, he has helped many people, he's probably generated far less income from the boards than some of the cam and cylinder heads guys and he's worked harder to get it). When buying from one of two vendors, I'd probably go with the one that helps and participates in the forums.

I'd put them in there.

My thoughts.

[Chris 96 WS6]

That jives with my thoughts.

Here's another:

The Sponsor sales & GP forum:

Obviously non-sponsoring vendors would not be allowed to post in there, as the sponsor is paying for that privilege. My initial instinct is to treat that forum like CamaroZ28.com does, that private persons cannot post notices for deals by non-sponsoring vendors either. I know that comprimises the freedom of members to tell each other about deals, but w/o that limitation is really cheapens the value of the sale/Gp forum to the sponsor.

Thoughts?

[mitchntx]

The benefits of knowing an individual user is a vendor would be most beneficial.

The point I tried to raise is that there really isn't that much of a benefit or incentive for an advertiser to pay, when any vendor can just register the name of his company as the username and gleen similar exposure.

Does that make sense?

So Chris, are you considering a sponor section and a non sponsor section?

Occasionally we stumble across great deals on shocks or tires or whatever. Where would we share that information?

[Chris 96 WS6]

So Chris, are you considering a sponor section and a non sponsor section?

Occasionally we stumble across great deals on shocks or tires or whatever. Where would we share that information?

That's the issue of the moment. I really hesitate to create a sponsor's forum and a non-sponsors forum...might as well just give away free banner space too, LOL.

here's three options:

1. Non sponsor deals could go in the classifieds
2. non sponsor deals could go in the respective tech forums. Like if you find a deal on shocks, you post about it in the suspension forum...but those looking for a sponsor deal can go straight to the GP forum and not get confused about who's a sponsor and who's not
3. Let it all go in the sponsor forum, which compromises the value of the forum to the sponsor but does not limit the members' rights at all.