28-Apr-2024 08:04 GMT.
UNDER CONSTRUCTION
[Motd] Advertisers neededANN.lu
Posted on 14-Jan-2001 13:22 GMT by Christian Kemp43 comments
View flat
View list
In a recent MOTD, I stated that the advertiser situation was bad, but I didn't expect to make less than 5$ in 13 days. So I decided to pull the only remaining advertisement banner, but I am hoping to find an alternative means of at least covering my online cost (various virtual servers, phone bill, etc.). I haven't given up the hope that Amiga companies (Amiga, Haage&Partner, and many others) will finally understand that the market would be even less alive without Amiga news sites, and finally decide to make suitable contributions to the news sites they've been using for years to post their press releases and announce their products on.

Do I sound slightly bitter? Perhaps. But with a phone bill of 100$ every month, an upcoming domain renewal for 90€, a website generating 5$ out of over 50,000 pageviews is just ridiculous...

List of all comments to this article
Sorted by date, most recent at bottom
Comment 1Elwood13-Jan-2001 23:00 GMT
Comment 2Mark Wilson13-Jan-2001 23:00 GMT
Comment 3Christian Kemp13-Jan-2001 23:00 GMT
Comment 4nOMAAM13-Jan-2001 23:00 GMT
Comment 5Thomas Würgler13-Jan-2001 23:00 GMT
Comment 6Adam Waldenberg13-Jan-2001 23:00 GMT
Comment 7Adam Waldenberg13-Jan-2001 23:00 GMT
Comment 8Brian H13-Jan-2001 23:00 GMT
Comment 9JR13-Jan-2001 23:00 GMT
Comment 10Ian13-Jan-2001 23:00 GMT
Comment 11Paul McCord13-Jan-2001 23:00 GMT
Comment 12Chris Groves13-Jan-2001 23:00 GMT
Comment 13JW Olson13-Jan-2001 23:00 GMT
Comment 14Falk Lüke13-Jan-2001 23:00 GMT
Comment 15Christian Kemp13-Jan-2001 23:00 GMT
Comment 16Christian Kemp13-Jan-2001 23:00 GMT
Comment 17Christian Kemp13-Jan-2001 23:00 GMT
Comment 18nOMAAM13-Jan-2001 23:00 GMT
Comment 19Christian Kemp13-Jan-2001 23:00 GMT
Comment 20Michael Jantzen13-Jan-2001 23:00 GMT
Comment 21Mark Wilson13-Jan-2001 23:00 GMT
Comment 22kvince14-Jan-2001 23:00 GMT
Comment 23Paul Watkins14-Jan-2001 23:00 GMT
Comment 24Kolbjørn Barmen14-Jan-2001 23:00 GMT
Comment 25anonimus14-Jan-2001 23:00 GMT
Comment 26Jens Larsson14-Jan-2001 23:00 GMT
Comment 27John McKenzie14-Jan-2001 23:00 GMT
Comment 28Dundar Unsal14-Jan-2001 23:00 GMT
Comment 29Jason Murray14-Jan-2001 23:00 GMT
Comment 30Mousky14-Jan-2001 23:00 GMT
Comment 31Dave15-Jan-2001 23:00 GMT
Comment 32Jens Larsson15-Jan-2001 23:00 GMT
Advertisers needed : Comment 33 of 43ANN.lu
Posted by Wayne Hunt on 15-Jan-2001 23:00 GMT
For once, I thought I'd throw my two cents in here. Thanks to Christian for bringing up the subject.
For the last five years, I've run (with some help lately) the Amiga.org Web site. On average, our costs for just the physical aspect of the site have ranged from $600 per year (1995) to over $4500 per year in 1998/1999. Overall, I estimate that out of pocket, I've spent roughly $25000 in five years on running the site if you count software, support, hardware, and attending shows to support the site. Amiga.org has never gotten out of the red as far as expenses go.
Then again, we've never held some mystical misconception that Classic Amiga-supporting businesses could be held to some magical "advertising averages scale". What people fail to realize is that these "scales" are established by your average PC site with 100x more visitors which are sponsored by companies with tens of thousands times the advertising budget of the average CompuQuick or Nova Design.
The rule of thumb is: "Charge what the market will bear" and right now ladies and gents, anyone getting into the Amiga market hoping to make money is either an idiot or a hobbyist with too much money on their hands.
I've also seen an overbearing tendency in this conversation to blame Amiga, Inc. and you might not understand this, but I have more reason to blame them for the condition of the current market than anyone else. The question is... Why? They didn't buy the "community". They didn't buy our support, they never claimed that they would ever truly support the classic community, so why are we (as webmasters) so absolutely willing to blame them for our problems? That's not Amiga Inc's fault, nor is it their responsibility to uphold every major Amiga news site, even with minor sponsorship. They simply can't.
What we've been forced to deal with is a fact of technical life (15-year-old, non-manufactured computer), and the bungling of certain issues by certain people which could have helped save this market. Speaking only of the Classic Amiga in a market sense, it's dead or dying, but I digress..
As I said, I got into this in late 1994 because I thought HTML (pre 1.0) was cool and fun to play with. Sure, along the way I had always dreamt of making it my real job, and getting paid for it, but it isn't going to happen. I love helping the community-at-large, and I enjoy being in the position where I find the site today.
Unfortunately, at the same time, I've come to despise the loud, bitchy (apologies), vocal minority who only complain about the *free* services Amiga.org provide without so much as a "thanks". I'm sure that Christian, Pekr, and others here would certainly agree with me that continual badgering of the 1% vocally abusive minority sometimes outweighs the 99% majority of people who're just happy your site exists but never stop to say "thanks".
While I can't speak for Christian or anyone else here, I run Amiga.org now because I enjoy it as a hobby. It's not about money (there is none). It's not about power (what exactly would an Amiga webmaster have power over anyway?).
For me, it's about the hope that something better is coming and it's about doing something I enjoy (writing code). If I ever confirm for myself that nothing new is ever coming and/or I don't enjoy coding the site any longer, I'll move on. Simple.
I wish Christian and all the others sincere luck in making their sites profitable, but at the same time, please be realistic about it. The money in this market just isn't there any more.
Wayne Hunt
Site Manager
Amiga.org
Jump...
#34 David Connolly #35 Mark Wilson
TopPrevious commentNext commentbottom
List of all comments to this article (continued)
Comment 34David Connolly15-Jan-2001 23:00 GMT
Comment 35Mark Wilson16-Jan-2001 23:00 GMT
Comment 36John Block17-Jan-2001 23:00 GMT
Comment 37John Millington17-Jan-2001 23:00 GMT
Comment 38Christian Kemp17-Jan-2001 23:00 GMT
Comment 39John Block17-Jan-2001 23:00 GMT
Comment 40Falk Lüke17-Jan-2001 23:00 GMT
Comment 41Christian Kemp19-Jan-2001 23:00 GMT
Comment 42Falk Lüke19-Jan-2001 23:00 GMT
Comment 43anonymous29-Jan-2001 23:00 GMT
Back to Top