<< <i>Yes, Legend spends six figures per year with PCGS on advertising. I find it rather naive to suggest a major advertiser should have zero control or input on content. >>
It would be naive to suggest that, say, McDonald's dictates CSI plot lines, or Coke picks the winner of Survivor. Advertisers do not exert control over, or interfere with, content that way. Advertisers exercise control over content through allocating dollars. If they don't like the network, or the show or its ratings, they advertise elsewhere. I don't foresee Legend ever doing this as they have practically married themselves to the PCGS brand and have nowhere else to go.
Now excuse me, I need to go bid on some coins in the LM auction.
since Legend principals read this, and in light of the new Ebay revelations, I'll note:
due to the restrictions place upon new password creation, one must use more characters to make as secure of a password on the new site as compared to the old one.
in short, I liked the old auction site's password creation ability a lot better.
<< <i>Yes, Legend spends six figures per year with PCGS on advertising. I find it rather naive to suggest a major advertiser should have zero control or input on content. The referenced post completely missed the mark IMO. >>
In some ways I understand this but in others I find it very disturbing. This is just a general comment about the concept which is universal and not directed personally at the OP.
I get where the post is coming from, cyber bullying is a real problem with social media in general. I have seen it a little and experienced some on this board but not nearly as bad as some of the sports or finance boards.
Negative comments and misinformation will drive people away and at this time the hobby needs as many people to be interested as possible.
<< <i>Yes, Legend spends six figures per year with PCGS on advertising. I find it rather naive to suggest a major advertiser should have zero control or input on content. The referenced post completely missed the mark IMO. >>
<< <i>Perhaps the ANA should have a chatroom on it's website. Then Ms. Sperber, as an ANA Governor, could dictate how it is operated as opposed to dictating how other businesses should operate theirs. >>
You mean the other businesses where she spends tens of thousands a month in advertising on the chat rooms thus making it worthwhile for the business to keep them open...right? >>
Isn't it odd she criticizes her own customers..what a winning business strategy model
<< <i>Yes, Legend spends six figures per year with PCGS on advertising. I find it rather naive to suggest a major advertiser should have zero control or input on content. The referenced post completely missed the mark IMO. >>
I don't believe for a second that it costs 5 figures much less 6 figures to run the PCGS Forums.
Many have started forums for w-a-a-a-y less money and the real strength of the PCGS forums is certainly not in advertising dollars as much as it is for folks to want to post on PCGS's site.
Start controlling the forums by NOT allowing folks to express their opinions, and folks sill simply post elsewhere as many have chosen to do in the past.
I have a high disregard for folks that play the "advertising dollars" card since as already has been stated, if you don't like who you are advertising with then just advertise else where.
Of course, lets not forget that the intent of the thread revolved around Laura wanting to "close" the PCGS Forums so, just let that speak for itself.
I decided to change calling the bathroom the John and renamed it the Jim. I feel so much better saying I went to the Jim this morning.
I honestly wonder that if the CU forums were closed a couple years ago...would Laura not be pictured as an ANA governor in my latest copy of The Numismatist? I voted for her only because I learned of her passion for change right here on this very board. If I'm not mistaken, she was one of the lowest vote getter's and slipped into office by the skin of her teeth. That said, I understand and love her hardcore passion and hope she can move it to where it will be more useful...instead of chopping the head off of her future voter-pool constituents.
<< <i>I honestly wonder that if the CU forums were closed a couple years ago...would Laura not be pictured as an ANA governor in my latest copy of The Numismatist? I voted for her only because I learned of her passion for change right here on this very board. If I'm not mistaken, she was one of the lowest vote getter's and slipped into office by the skin of her teeth. That said, I understand and love her hardcore passion and hope she can move it to where it will be more useful...instead of chopping the head off of her future voter-pool constituents.
Erik >>
Agree.
I decided to change calling the bathroom the John and renamed it the Jim. I feel so much better saying I went to the Jim this morning.
I find it rather naive to suggest a major advertiser should have zero control or input on content.
Social media is based on the premise of Web 2.0 which suggests the exchange of user-generated content. While you see this forum as an advertising venue, others see it as a platform for social exchange. To think you are entitled to control is to miss the point of the medium entirely. It is "social" media.
Developing theory is what we are meant to do as academic researchers and it sets us apart from practitioners and consultants. Gregor
The way you "control" or "have input" is through discourse. You cannot "control" member engagement. However, you can kill the platform by focusing on one-way communication rather than interaction and co-engagement. GM recently pulled a $10 million dollar per year advertising campaign on Facebook because their management couldn't determine it was effective.
Developing theory is what we are meant to do as academic researchers and it sets us apart from practitioners and consultants. Gregor
<< <i> I find it rather naive to suggest a major advertiser should have zero control or input on content.
Social media is based on the premise of Web 2.0 which suggests the exchange of user-generated content. While you see this forum as an advertising venue, others see it as a platform for social exchange. To think you are entitled to control is to miss the point of the medium entirely. It is "social" media. >>
<< <i> I find it rather naive to suggest a major advertiser should have zero control or input on content.
Social media is based on the premise of Web 2.0 which suggests the exchange of user-generated content. While you see this forum as an advertising venue, others see it as a platform for social exchange. To think you are entitled to control is to miss the point of the medium entirely. It is "social" media. >>
<< <i> I find it rather naive to suggest a major advertiser should have zero control or input on content.
Social media is based on the premise of Web 2.0 which suggests the exchange of user-generated content. While you see this forum as an advertising venue, others see it as a platform for social exchange. To think you are entitled to control is to miss the point of the medium entirely. It is "social" media. >>
Nah, I can handle the truth. It might be possible to manipulate the platform with advertising dollars. That's just a failure of management -- short term thinking rather than long term. However, it's much harder to manipulate the audience. If the perspective of the forum is manipulated to becomes too narrow, much of the audience just leaves. The platform becomes an echo chamber and management must attribute it to lack of interest rather than their manipulations. If our hosts go down that path, they won't be the first.
I have just published a long-term analysis of the social media strategies of a multinational software firm based in Bangalore with 7 billion+ per year in revenues. I was fortunate enough to collect numerous interviews with senior management responsible for their social media engagement. They invest considerable resources in building topical communities (much like this one) in social media to gather state of the art market intelligence from relevant audiences and drive open innovation. They recognize the value of peer-validated stakeholder insights and interests. They don't advertise in these communities. They co-engage as peers around their shared interests in the topic. I find it fascinating that they strategize to create what PCGS might be trying to close, if the rumors posted earlier in the thread are accurate.
Developing theory is what we are meant to do as academic researchers and it sets us apart from practitioners and consultants. Gregor
<< <i>Nah, I can handle the truth. It might be possible to manipulate the platform with advertising dollars. That's just a failure of management -- short term thinking rather than long term. However, it's much harder to manipulate the audience. If the perspective of the forum is manipulated to becomes too narrow, much of the audience just leaves. The platform becomes an echo chamber and management must attribute it to lack of interest rather than their manipulations. If our hosts go down that path, they won't be the first.
I have just published a long-term analysis of the social media strategies of a multinational software firm based in Bangalore with 7 billion+ per year in revenues. I was fortunate enough to collect numerous interviews with senior management responsible for their social media engagement. They invest considerable resources in building topical communities (much like this one) in social media to gather state of the art market intelligence from relevant audiences and drive open innovation. They recognize the value of peer-validated stakeholder insights and interests. They don't advertise in these communities. They co-engage as peers around their shared interests in the topic. I find it fascinating that they strategize to create what PCGS might be trying to close, if the rumors posted earlier in the thread are accurate. >>
If in fact Legend is paying 6 figures to CLCT, then CLCT must be making over $1M on advertising. No way they get rid of that money. None what so ever. CLCT wants to diversify their revenue stream away from just grading which can swing wildly.
Am I the only one bothered by the fact that Laura doesn't know the difference between a "chatroom" and a "forum"? As far back as I can remember, this forum's chat functionality has been largely unused.
PCGS.com is more more popular than the forums. The coin values, pop report, and cert lookup generate much more usage than the forums. I am thus skeptical that these forums generate the ad dollars that TDN claims. I could highly believe that Legend generates add dollars on pcgs.com, but not that much here on the forums. The usage is just too low. If Legend is low 6 figures for the forums, it would imply they spend 4X on pcgs.com.
<< <i>Am I the only one bothered by the fact that Laura doesn't know the difference between a "chatroom" and a "forum"? As far back as I can remember, this forum's chat functionality has been largely unused. >>
I believe you are. I am confidant a little counseling will bring you back though!
<< <i>Am I the only one bothered by the fact that Laura doesn't know the difference between a "chatroom" and a "forum"? As far back as I can remember, this forum's chat functionality has been largely unused. >>
FYI - coinflation.com gets as much web traffic as the forums. I therefore no longer believe Legend pays six figures to advertise on the forums. She probably pays 6 figures to CLCT for all the CLCT digital properties and the ads pop up based on usage, but that does not mean she pays 6 figures for these forums. Based on usage and the "6 figures" number, Legend maybe contributes $10K - $15K towards the forums in ad dollars. That seems to fit my recollection of the forums bringing in maybe $100K/yr. CLCT could give that up and not miss a beat.
Shareholders still thank Legend for their support.
<< <i>FYI - coinflation.com gets as much web traffic as the forums. I therefore no longer believe Legend pays six figures to advertise on the forums. She probably pays 6 figures to CLCT for all the CLCT digital properties and the ads pop up based on usage, but that does not mean she pays 6 figures for these forums. Based on usage and the "6 figures" number, Legend maybe contributes $10K - $15K towards the forums in ad dollars. That seems to fit my recollection of the forums bringing in maybe $100K/yr. CLCT could give that up and not miss a beat.
Shareholders still thank Legend for their support. >>
I am certain that I have never seen more speculation, assumption, and guessing in my life. And all in one paragraph!
<< <i>FYI - coinflation.com gets as much web traffic as the forums. I therefore no longer believe Legend pays six figures to advertise on the forums. She probably pays 6 figures to CLCT for all the CLCT digital properties and the ads pop up based on usage, but that does not mean she pays 6 figures for these forums. Based on usage and the "6 figures" number, Legend maybe contributes $10K - $15K towards the forums in ad dollars. That seems to fit my recollection of the forums bringing in maybe $100K/yr. CLCT could give that up and not miss a beat.
Shareholders still thank Legend for their support. >>
I am certain that I have never seen more speculation, assumption, and guessing in my life. And all in one paragraph! >>
Seems logical to me:
Legend spends "six figures" on add dollars. Legend is one of many paying advertisers known web traffic - PCGS.com(4x) coinflation.com(1X) forums (1X) psacard.com (1X) Other income on income statement - about $4M. Majority of that is CCE, Expos.
I have an email into the CFO to see if he will tell me what the forum ad dollars are.
I don't mind the add banners on this site. They're well placed and not intrusive at all. They're all coin related and once in a while I'll click on one to check it out.
"If I say something in the woods and my wife isn't there to hear it.....am I still wrong?"
<< <i>Why would anyone waste money on banner ads? Adblock plus , noscript , and flashblock have kept 99% off that garbage off my screen for years. >>
FYI - Don stated once that using ad blockers was grounds for banning.
Nice knowing you too. >>
why would anyone need ad blocking software? I notice them but they are easily ignored. I do try to click through on some to give the hosts of the free forum some money. Unfortunately for the click-through rates, many of the advertisers already see my business.
<< <i>They earn ad revenues because of the audience. FWIW Ruin the audience and you lose the ad revenue. >>
Ding ding ding! We have a winner! >>
The ad revenue from the forum audience is trivial. The majority, based on usage, appears to be from the pop reports, price guides, and cert lookup. >>
The argument, regardless of actual revenue generated banner ads in the forums, is that ads won't get displayed as often if you start going nuts censoring peoples opinions in the forums. They will simply go elsewhere to voice them.
I believe the OPs original purpose was a rebuttal of how much a content provider should cater to the whims of their advertisers.
<< <i>They earn ad revenues because of the audience. FWIW Ruin the audience and you lose the ad revenue. >>
Ding ding ding! We have a winner! >>
The ad revenue from the forum audience is trivial. The majority, based on usage, appears to be from the pop reports, price guides, and cert lookup. >>
The argument, regardless of actual revenue generated banner ads in the forums, is that ads won't get displayed as often if you start going nuts censoring peoples opinions in the forums. They will simply go elsewhere to voice them.
I believe the OPs original purpose was a rebuttal of how much a content provider should cater to the whims of their advertisers. >>
If that were the case the the open forum (http://popforum.net) would have much higher usage than this forum. According to alexa.com, usage is so light there, it is not even ranked. So your premise does not hold according to real world data. Interestingly, the NGC forums, have slightly higher usage than here. Seems strange because there seem to be less threads there. Possibly more lurkers there.
TDN stated that Legend spends 6 figures with CLCT. You will notice he didn't say for banner ads on the CU coin forum. And since that is what this discussion is about, one can possibly infer the statement was intended to be misleading. I'm suprised no one followed up on it.
Website valuation services value the revenue from this site at about $25,000/yr. Whether that is correct-I couldn't say, however, for the last several years in a direct comparison to across the street....THEIR website value rates higher. I check twice a year.
They seem to better understand how to monetize their traffic. Geesh, CU hasn't even figured out to widgitize my Android bookmark.
<< <i>TDN stated that Legend spends 6 figures with CLCT. You will notice he didn't say for banner ads on the CU coin forum. And since that is what this discussion is about, one can possibly infer the statement was intended to be misleading. I'm suprised no one followed up on it.
Website valuation services value the revenue from this site at about $25,000/yr. Whether that is correct-I couldn't say, however, for the last several years in a direct comparison to across the street....THEIR website value rates higher. I check twice a year.
They seem to better understand how to monetize their traffic. Geesh, CU hasn't even figured out to widgitize my Android bookmark. >>
Good info and melds with the alexa.com data. I do think this site generates about $100k/yr based on a conversation I had with the CEO two CEO's ago. Possibly because viewers here have more income/available money than standard web sites
<< <i>If that were the case the the open forum (http://popforum.net) would have much higher usage than this forum. According to alexa.com, usage is so light there, it is not even ranked. >>
The ad revenue from the forum audience is trivial. The majority, based on usage, appears to be from the pop reports, price guides, and cert lookup.
Many organizations work hard to build audience. PCGS benefits from hosting the venue where the community interacts. It helps promote the brand and reinforce their relevance to the coin community and their stakeholders. It is good to be part of the infrastructure. Regardless how trivial the ad revenue from the forum, it is hard to make a compelling argument for less revenue or a lower profile in the community. That does not mean, however, that someone in management won't try (smile).
Developing theory is what we are meant to do as academic researchers and it sets us apart from practitioners and consultants. Gregor
Much a do about nothing...........I think Laura got angry about something and it went into the Hot Topics at Legend. So, now we got off course a bit and some folks are debating advertising $$$. Anyway I say 360 postings should about wrap it up.
<< <i>Laura is talking her book as in coin business ..... as it pertains to her business Seems people on this forum may learn too much by exchanging knowledge and ideas such as guess the grade etc ..forum members use this knowledge to challenge her words, coins , grading etc 'Just the guess the grade threads have helped me alot when asking questions or buying coins from dealers >>
I wonder what it was that was posted here that actually cost her some business. >>
There were a few threads showing expensive PCGS coins with titles such as "How did this coin ever get a grade?" One such thread discussed a coin that had a scratch and another thread discussed a coin that showed disturbance next to the date where it was speculated that the area was repaired. There are several other past examples where expensive coins were discussed in a less than flattering light. I'm guessing that these discussions may have made these coins more difficult to sell and possibly one of them may have been in Laura's inventory. >>
I hope no prominent Dealer would ever make the mistake of pushing enhanced coins without calling attention to that enhancement. Making money is one thing but. ...... there needs to be a very stellar reputation when selling Coins.
Comments
<< <i>Yes, Legend spends six figures per year with PCGS on advertising. I find it rather naive to suggest a major advertiser should have zero control or input on content. >>
It would be naive to suggest that, say, McDonald's dictates CSI plot lines, or Coke picks the winner of Survivor. Advertisers do not exert control over, or interfere with, content that way. Advertisers exercise control over content through allocating dollars. If they don't like the network, or the show or its ratings, they advertise elsewhere. I don't foresee Legend ever doing this as they have practically married themselves to the PCGS brand and have nowhere else to go.
Now excuse me, I need to go bid on some coins in the LM auction.
due to the restrictions place upon new password creation, one must use more characters to make as secure of a password on the new site as compared to the old one.
in short, I liked the old auction site's password creation ability a lot better.
<< <i>Yes, Legend spends six figures per year with PCGS on advertising. I find it rather naive to suggest a major advertiser should have zero control or input on content. The referenced post completely missed the mark IMO. >>
In some ways I understand this but in others I find it very disturbing. This is just a general comment about the concept which is universal and not directed personally at the OP.
It seems heavy handed to leave or threaten to leave over forum posts saying a coin is overgraded.
Negative comments and misinformation will drive people away and at this time the hobby needs as many people to be interested as possible.
<< <i>Yes, Legend spends six figures per year with PCGS on advertising. I find it rather naive to suggest a major advertiser should have zero control or input on content. The referenced post completely missed the mark IMO. >>
Hilarity ensues
<< <i>
<< <i>Perhaps the ANA should have a chatroom on it's website. Then Ms. Sperber, as an ANA Governor, could dictate how it is operated as opposed to dictating how other businesses should operate theirs. >>
You mean the other businesses where she spends tens of thousands a month in advertising on the chat rooms thus making it worthwhile for the business to keep them open...right? >>
Isn't it odd she criticizes her own customers..what a winning business strategy model
<< <i>Yes, Legend spends six figures per year with PCGS on advertising. I find it rather naive to suggest a major advertiser should have zero control or input on content. The referenced post completely missed the mark IMO. >>
I don't believe for a second that it costs 5 figures much less 6 figures to run the PCGS Forums.
Many have started forums for w-a-a-a-y less money and the real strength of the PCGS forums is certainly not in advertising dollars as much as it is for folks to want to post on PCGS's site.
Start controlling the forums by NOT allowing folks to express their opinions, and folks sill simply post elsewhere as many have chosen to do in the past.
I have a high disregard for folks that play the "advertising dollars" card since as already has been stated, if you don't like who you are advertising with then just advertise else where.
Of course, lets not forget that the intent of the thread revolved around Laura wanting to "close" the PCGS Forums so, just let that speak for itself.
The name is LEE!
Erik
<< <i>I honestly wonder that if the CU forums were closed a couple years ago...would Laura not be pictured as an ANA governor in my latest copy of The Numismatist? I voted for her only because I learned of her passion for change right here on this very board. If I'm not mistaken, she was one of the lowest vote getter's and slipped into office by the skin of her teeth. That said, I understand and love her hardcore passion and hope she can move it to where it will be more useful...instead of chopping the head off of her future voter-pool constituents.
Erik >>
Agree.
The name is LEE!
Social media is based on the premise of Web 2.0 which suggests the exchange of user-generated content. While you see this forum as an advertising venue, others see it as a platform for social exchange. To think you are entitled to control is to miss the point of the medium entirely. It is "social" media.
and it sets us apart from practitioners and consultants. Gregor
and it sets us apart from practitioners and consultants. Gregor
<< <i> I find it rather naive to suggest a major advertiser should have zero control or input on content.
Social media is based on the premise of Web 2.0 which suggests the exchange of user-generated content. While you see this forum as an advertising venue, others see it as a platform for social exchange. To think you are entitled to control is to miss the point of the medium entirely. It is "social" media. >>
<< <i> I find it rather naive to suggest a major advertiser should have zero control or input on content.
Social media is based on the premise of Web 2.0 which suggests the exchange of user-generated content. While you see this forum as an advertising venue, others see it as a platform for social exchange. To think you are entitled to control is to miss the point of the medium entirely. It is "social" media. >>
You want the truth? You can't handle the truth!
Now how do I post the good Colonel's icon?
<< <i>
<< <i> I find it rather naive to suggest a major advertiser should have zero control or input on content.
Social media is based on the premise of Web 2.0 which suggests the exchange of user-generated content. While you see this forum as an advertising venue, others see it as a platform for social exchange. To think you are entitled to control is to miss the point of the medium entirely. It is "social" media. >>
You want the truth? You can't handle the truth!
Now how do I post the good Colonel's icon?
Like so.
I have just published a long-term analysis of the social media strategies of a multinational software firm based in Bangalore with 7 billion+ per year in revenues. I was fortunate enough to collect numerous interviews with senior management responsible for their social media engagement. They invest considerable resources in building topical communities (much like this one) in social media to gather state of the art market intelligence from relevant audiences and drive open innovation. They recognize the value of peer-validated stakeholder insights and interests. They don't advertise in these communities. They co-engage as peers around their shared interests in the topic. I find it fascinating that they strategize to create what PCGS might be trying to close, if the rumors posted earlier in the thread are accurate.
and it sets us apart from practitioners and consultants. Gregor
<< <i>Nah, I can handle the truth. It might be possible to manipulate the platform with advertising dollars. That's just a failure of management -- short term thinking rather than long term. However, it's much harder to manipulate the audience. If the perspective of the forum is manipulated to becomes too narrow, much of the audience just leaves. The platform becomes an echo chamber and management must attribute it to lack of interest rather than their manipulations. If our hosts go down that path, they won't be the first.
I have just published a long-term analysis of the social media strategies of a multinational software firm based in Bangalore with 7 billion+ per year in revenues. I was fortunate enough to collect numerous interviews with senior management responsible for their social media engagement. They invest considerable resources in building topical communities (much like this one) in social media to gather state of the art market intelligence from relevant audiences and drive open innovation. They recognize the value of peer-validated stakeholder insights and interests. They don't advertise in these communities. They co-engage as peers around their shared interests in the topic. I find it fascinating that they strategize to create what PCGS might be trying to close, if the rumors posted earlier in the thread are accurate. >>
If in fact Legend is paying 6 figures to CLCT, then CLCT must be making over $1M on advertising. No way they get rid of that money. None what so ever. CLCT wants to diversify their revenue stream away from just grading which can swing wildly.
and it sets us apart from practitioners and consultants. Gregor
collectors.com usage data
85% of all of collectors.com web site traffic is on the forums.
pcgs.com usage data
PCGS.com is more more popular than the forums. The coin values, pop report, and cert lookup generate much more usage than the forums. I am thus skeptical that these forums generate the ad dollars that TDN claims. I could highly believe that Legend generates add dollars on pcgs.com, but not that much here on the forums. The usage is just too low. If Legend is low 6 figures for the forums, it would imply they spend 4X on pcgs.com.
<< <i>Am I the only one bothered by the fact that Laura doesn't know the difference between a "chatroom" and a "forum"? As far back as I can remember, this forum's chat functionality has been largely unused. >>
I believe you are. I am confidant a little counseling will bring you back though!
Many are using ad/banner blockers these days anyway, so the ads don't even show up.
<< <i>Am I the only one bothered by the fact that Laura doesn't know the difference between a "chatroom" and a "forum"? As far back as I can remember, this forum's chat functionality has been largely unused. >>
I mentioned that earlier in the thread.
Shareholders still thank Legend for their support.
<< <i>FYI - coinflation.com gets as much web traffic as the forums. I therefore no longer believe Legend pays six figures to advertise on the forums. She probably pays 6 figures to CLCT for all the CLCT digital properties and the ads pop up based on usage, but that does not mean she pays 6 figures for these forums. Based on usage and the "6 figures" number, Legend maybe contributes $10K - $15K towards the forums in ad dollars. That seems to fit my recollection of the forums bringing in maybe $100K/yr. CLCT could give that up and not miss a beat.
Shareholders still thank Legend for their support. >>
I am certain that I have never seen more speculation, assumption, and guessing in my life. And all in one paragraph!
<< <i>
<< <i>FYI - coinflation.com gets as much web traffic as the forums. I therefore no longer believe Legend pays six figures to advertise on the forums. She probably pays 6 figures to CLCT for all the CLCT digital properties and the ads pop up based on usage, but that does not mean she pays 6 figures for these forums. Based on usage and the "6 figures" number, Legend maybe contributes $10K - $15K towards the forums in ad dollars. That seems to fit my recollection of the forums bringing in maybe $100K/yr. CLCT could give that up and not miss a beat.
Shareholders still thank Legend for their support. >>
I am certain that I have never seen more speculation, assumption, and guessing in my life. And all in one paragraph! >>
Seems logical to me:
Legend spends "six figures" on add dollars. Legend is one of many paying advertisers
known web traffic - PCGS.com(4x) coinflation.com(1X) forums (1X) psacard.com (1X)
Other income on income statement - about $4M. Majority of that is CCE, Expos.
I have an email into the CFO to see if he will tell me what the forum ad dollars are.
Why would anyone waste money on banner ads? Adblock plus , noscript , and flashblock have kept 99% off that garbage off my screen for years.
<< <i>Why would anyone waste money on banner ads? Adblock plus , noscript , and flashblock have kept 99% off that garbage off my screen for years. >>
<< <i>Why would anyone waste money on banner ads? Adblock plus , noscript , and flashblock have kept 99% off that garbage off my screen for years. >>
FYI - Don stated once that using ad blockers was grounds for banning.
Nice knowing you too.
They're well placed and not intrusive at all.
They're all coin related and once in a while I'll click on one to check it out.
"If I say something in the woods and my wife isn't there to hear it.....am I still wrong?"
My Washington Quarter Registry set...in progress
<< <i>
<< <i>Why would anyone waste money on banner ads? Adblock plus , noscript , and flashblock have kept 99% off that garbage off my screen for years. >>
FYI - Don stated once that using ad blockers was grounds for banning.
Nice knowing you too. >>
why would anyone need ad blocking software? I notice them but they are easily ignored. I do try to click through on some to give the hosts of the free forum some money. Unfortunately for the click-through rates, many of the advertisers already see my business.
<< <i>
why would anyone need ad blocking software? I notice them but they are easily ignored. >>
They also remove the annoying commercials when you click on a video.
<< <i>They earn ad revenues because of the audience. FWIW Ruin the audience and you lose the ad revenue. >>
Ding ding ding! We have a winner!
I seem to remember Mark Zuckerberg making similar threats. Does anyone here remember the exact details?
Doggedly collecting coins of the Central American Republic.
Visit the Society of US Pattern Collectors at USPatterns.com.
<< <i>Don stated once that using ad blockers was grounds for banning.
I seem to remember Mark Zuckerberg making similar threats. Does anyone here remember the exact details? >>
I'm going to go re-watch the movie and see if I can find that scene.
Coin Rarities Online
<< <i>
<< <i>They earn ad revenues because of the audience. FWIW Ruin the audience and you lose the ad revenue. >>
Ding ding ding! We have a winner! >>
The ad revenue from the forum audience is trivial. The majority, based on usage, appears to be from the pop reports, price guides, and cert lookup.
<< <i>
<< <i>
<< <i>They earn ad revenues because of the audience. FWIW Ruin the audience and you lose the ad revenue. >>
Ding ding ding! We have a winner! >>
The ad revenue from the forum audience is trivial. The majority, based on usage, appears to be from the pop reports, price guides, and cert lookup. >>
The argument, regardless of actual revenue generated banner ads in the forums, is that ads won't get displayed as often if you start going nuts censoring peoples opinions in the forums. They will simply go elsewhere to voice them.
I believe the OPs original purpose was a rebuttal of how much a content provider should cater to the whims of their advertisers.
<< <i>
<< <i>
<< <i>
<< <i>They earn ad revenues because of the audience. FWIW Ruin the audience and you lose the ad revenue. >>
Ding ding ding! We have a winner! >>
The ad revenue from the forum audience is trivial. The majority, based on usage, appears to be from the pop reports, price guides, and cert lookup. >>
The argument, regardless of actual revenue generated banner ads in the forums, is that ads won't get displayed as often if you start going nuts censoring peoples opinions in the forums. They will simply go elsewhere to voice them.
I believe the OPs original purpose was a rebuttal of how much a content provider should cater to the whims of their advertisers. >>
If that were the case the the open forum (http://popforum.net) would have much higher usage than this forum. According to alexa.com, usage is so light there, it is not even ranked. So your premise does not hold according to real world data.
Interestingly, the NGC forums, have slightly higher usage than here. Seems strange because there seem to be less threads there. Possibly more lurkers there.
Website valuation services value the revenue from this site at about $25,000/yr. Whether that is correct-I couldn't say, however, for the last several years in a direct comparison to across the street....THEIR website value rates higher. I check twice a year.
They seem to better understand how to monetize their traffic. Geesh, CU hasn't even figured out to widgitize my Android bookmark.
<< <i>TDN stated that Legend spends 6 figures with CLCT. You will notice he didn't say for banner ads on the CU coin forum. And since that is what this discussion is about, one can possibly infer the statement was intended to be misleading. I'm suprised no one followed up on it.
Website valuation services value the revenue from this site at about $25,000/yr. Whether that is correct-I couldn't say, however, for the last several years in a direct comparison to across the street....THEIR website value rates higher. I check twice a year.
They seem to better understand how to monetize their traffic. Geesh, CU hasn't even figured out to widgitize my Android bookmark. >>
Good info and melds with the alexa.com data.
I do think this site generates about $100k/yr based on a conversation I had with the CEO two CEO's ago. Possibly because viewers here have more income/available money than standard web sites
<< <i>
I do think this site generates about $100k/yr based on a conversation I had with the CEO two CEO's ago. >>
<< <i>If that were the case the the open forum (http://popforum.net) would have much higher usage than this forum. According to alexa.com, usage is so light there, it is not even ranked. >>
Except when Russ posts his pretty glass threads!
<< <i>
<< <i>
I do think this site generates about $100k/yr based on a conversation I had with the CEO two CEO's ago. >>
Mike Haynes, now CEO of APMEX.
Funny, but I think I'm the ONLY one posting actual information.
Many organizations work hard to build audience. PCGS benefits from hosting the venue where the community interacts. It helps promote the brand and reinforce their relevance to the coin community and their stakeholders. It is good to be part of the infrastructure. Regardless how trivial the ad revenue from the forum, it is hard to make a compelling argument for less revenue or a lower profile in the community. That does not mean, however, that someone in management won't try (smile).
and it sets us apart from practitioners and consultants. Gregor
Too much to read through!
<< <i>
<< <i>
<< <i>Laura is talking her book as in coin business ..... as it pertains to her business
Seems people on this forum may learn too much by exchanging knowledge and ideas such as guess the grade etc ..forum members use this knowledge to challenge her words, coins , grading etc
'Just the guess the grade threads have helped me alot when asking questions or buying coins from dealers
I wonder what it was that was posted here that actually cost her some business. >>
There were a few threads showing expensive PCGS coins with titles such as "How did this coin ever get a grade?" One such thread discussed a coin that had a scratch and another thread discussed a coin that showed disturbance next to the date where it was speculated that the area was repaired. There are several other past examples where expensive coins were discussed in a less than flattering light. I'm guessing that these discussions may have made these coins more difficult to sell and possibly one of them may have been in Laura's inventory. >>
I hope no prominent Dealer would ever make the mistake of pushing enhanced coins without calling attention to that
enhancement. Making money is one thing but. ...... there needs to be a very stellar reputation when selling Coins.
Integrity is everything.