[Closed] Premier - other than ad removal - is it worth it?

There's some good stuff in the P-forum.

I've been here a few years and had Premier more than not. At the moment I'm done on the articles, they are starting to look the same and some of the photos in the mag fail to inspire me. But that is probably because I've been fanatical for a few years. A couple of years off and I will probably return to the fold.
Some of the UK stuff I look at and think why did they bother to run that?, but that again is probably just me. I like stunning shots and they usually come from stunning locations, not a trip along the SDW or the Ridgeway.

Every kilo lost in chub club by a subscriber gets multiplied by a factor of 1.2

Worth it just for that, I reckon.

Not for me. The site owners are not interested in the only part of the site that interests me (the forum), so I don't feel the need to contribute financially to the lifestyle part of their business (the magazine - print and online part).

In principle it's just to support the forum for me - gotten a lot out of it over the years. Guess it depends if that's worthwhile to you or not (I don't read the articles myself).

Mine lapsed with a cc expiry coinciding exactly with the site shitting the bed about a year back or whenever it was with the update, so subscribing wasn't credible. It seems (I think) to have gotten better now so I should renew.

gotten a lot out of it over the years.

This would be the reason for me, but it goes two ways, i like to think I have helped with my own tiny snippets (although I expect I haven't as I can't think of anything I know of any value other than some out of date accounting stuff and loads of crap about trade contracts, LA standards and fire regs.)

In principle it’s just to support the forum for me

It's been made pretty clear that the subs are not to support the forum. That was the only reason I subscribed so I've now cancelled. May start paying again if attitudes change. As rene59 says really.

You do have access to singletrack partners. I would have saved 10% of the cost of a bike if Ubyk had delivered it...

Other than Advert removal, no, not for me.

But for Advert removal, it's worth every penny.

I've always read the mag, part of the ritual was going into town, buying the mag, visiting the pub for a couple and a read through. I never subscribed as I felt I was doing my bit. A little over a year ago I had the shit kicked out of me outside of said pub and stopped going, haven't bought any of the mag's since and can't say I've missed them.
However, I still like using the forum, I don't really mind the ad's, but if subscribing will 100% get rid of the bloody 'We value your privacy' box that still pops up with EVERY SINGLE page change, then I'll do it now!

@kayak23: what's the P forum?

Inner circle stuff. Not really supposed to talk about it on the public forum

To the folk that say ‘the money doesn’t fund the forum, only the mag, so I’m not paying’ you do realise that if there is no mag, there is no forum, yes? Or are you assuming that if the mag dies off it will free up funds for the forum?

I would assume that if the printed mag dies off then the move will be towards an online publication with a homepage, magazine downloads and a user forum.

I think the forum funds the mag doesn't it? I mean there is a stack of activity here so the ad revenue must be reasonable. Its the most active forum I know of.

I’m talking about the the folk that don’t even want an online mag, just a forum that occasionally talks about bikes.

but I do feel the need to support the stuff I use

Thats is why I subscribe and gain the lofty “P”

I like the forum, I don’t read the mags. The forum needs paying for somehow, ads are one large income stream but I hate adverts... in fact I despise being told what I should buy and when..

So, to support Chipps and Mark and especially the Mods (even though they are “free”) and to keep this link open to my only contact with the real world... is why I subscribe.

I’m not especially bothered about the latest forum tool, or really how it all works, all I properly care about is the effort the Owners have put in recently to cover us and themselves over the thorny issue of GDPR and the data they own and share. For me, that’s worth the subscription alone.

I didn't trust the previous version of the forum, but I have faith that the Owners now control the what and how, the Mods control the festering pit when we argue and I still get to post bollocks any time of day or night.

There are tools out there that could limit exposure, we know what they are and how they work, but your P does entitle you to “free from” ads and all that horseshit.

I’ll now keep subscribing until I fail to engage with some of the other posters on here.

To the folk that say ‘the money doesn’t fund the forum, only the mag, so I’m not paying’ you do realise that if there is no mag, there is no forum, yes? Or are you assuming that if the mag dies off it will free up funds for the forum?

THe owners have been clear in that they are not in the forum business. If the mag dies off the forum will too, but lets face it, it's already dying. If the mag was a standalone success and profitible, do you think they would invest in the forum or still let it die given the only reason they seem to have it in the first place is to help fund the mag?

I would assume that if the printed mag dies off then the move will be towards an online publication with a homepage, magazine downloads and a user forum.

That needs massive hits to get a decent income from ads. THe forum could be a key part of drawing clicks to the site. It needs to be done well. Check out PinkBike to see it done well (they have comments instead of a forum) but look at the size of their IT set up. I saw figures somewhere on the Terabytes of movies they served.
Factory decided print was dead. They certainly found they couldn’t make money from web only.

It's been stated again and again that STW have no intention of running down the magazine and the forum subscription/advertising revenue is the only way to keep it alive. As someone who doesn't read the mag or the online version of the articles I decided to stop subsidising them when complaints about the forum update were so arrogantly dismissed. If the money from subs and advertising actually went in to improving the forum - and STW were actually seen to value the contribution of the forum members - I'd reconsider renewal. As far as I am concerned the forum contributors are the folk I want to read. Route guides and product reviews are ten-a-penny on the internet and there are always interesting blogs to read on subjects I can actually relate to.

STW is my home on the net really. I don't do fb etc so its a social thing as well as a massively handy resource both for biking and not biking topics.

I'd be genuinely upset if the forum went.

I do read the online mags etc, not always, but when I do I usually enjoy them.

I don't begrudge the small cost of the subscription one little bit to be honest. I think it's great value for the hours and hours I'm on here reading and sometimes posting.👍

come on here less and less these days, but ill always keep my sub out of support for this place.
ive had invaluable advice on here over the years, both financial and personal that makes the sub excellent value for me, i could never pay back what the sites given me, it costs a pittance in the grand scheme of things.

i see why people get pissed off with the site, and the ads. i sometimes think of referring my friends to the forum to read interesting posts, but then remember what it looks like without that P. its an awful flashing vegas type experience that i wouldnt want to wish on anybody, so i never do, i post questions for them instead and relay the answers.

theres no place like this tho, it can be hilarious, heartbreaking, heartwarming, insightful, and extremely helpful. i dont think theres a subject on earth that doesnt have an expert on here 🙂

its the people that make the site what it is, and its (we're) all well worth the (small) cost. IMHO.

wot sadexp sed - I have a 'P' because STW adds value to my life and has done for 20 years.

And that's worth paying for.

Sadexpunk I get you, but see it from a different angle. We are the product, paying for the privilege seems a bit rich. Those who provide the expertise don't get paid, they are the product that draws you here, as are you part of that product with your contributions. I can't be persuaded to pay using the forum access angle as we all provide so much to make this place interesting.

I'm a sub just for the forum to - I can see why the staff might be a bit annoyed about that though, they no doubt spend a lot of time carefully crafting the magazine and I don't even bother reading it (mostly as I've not ridden a bike for a couple of years...).
I think the forum is 'good enough', yeah there's been some big issues in the past and some smaller issues are still present but it's not their core business/interest so I can see why they're not heavily investing in it, I doubt the ad revenue would pay for another FTE to admin/improve it.
It's a pity though that the chat forum seems much less busy these days, my morning catch-up visit would usually see me on page two before I had caught up with threads, these days it's often half way down page one, which means I get back to doing work earlier which is a shame :p If it gets any quieter I think it could go into a death spiral and we'll all be looking at Pistonheads or something as alternatives.

5Plusn8 - maybe it's the differences between treating STW as a club not a pub?

Pub - 'pay as you go' by buying drinks = you allow ads to pay for your visit
Club - 'pay upfront' by buying membership = you hand over cash and can make use of enhanced facilities.

bit of a stretch, perhaps, but I take the latter approach as I value what's here and fear that lots of people turning up and askign for free tap water (via that which cannot be discussed) but wanting to join in all the taps might mean it's not financially viable.

The free tap water thing is a stretch, lots of crap questions go unanswered, or answered quickly - eg there is a tap outside mate, go for your life.
As I said I see the forum as a place to get and offer advice/opinion that is what attracts people here, we are the product. I can put up with the ads, for me premier seems to be about mag and article access as well as ad removal, the articles seem woeful..

Further sucky articles that seem to have been written without much thought - This review this morning about Panzer rim protection - taking on the big guns, when there is a great british company offering the same product (perhaps better as it includes valves) for much less money. https://www.rimpactmtb.com/product-page/rimpactmtb-275-pair. Its seems like lazy journalism, especially as the forum is the place where I found out about Rimpact.

I'm happy with the small fee for the P.
I see it as a contribution to the forum as, as others have said, it's a great source of knowledge and (mild) humour and I'd hate to see it go.

I subscribe to support the forum & I like getting the mag through the letterbox.
I'd pay extra to be able to filter out the moaners though.

I’d pay extra to be able to filter out the moaners though.

How much? If you go direct, I'll go away for ever?
At least nobody on here could be accused of being a shill for STW - there isn't much convincing argument. I remain open to be persuaded.

To the folk that say ‘the money doesn’t fund the forum, only the mag, so I’m not paying’ you do realise that if there is no mag, there is no forum, yes? Or are you assuming that if the mag dies off it will free up funds for the forum?

I don't know how it all works, tbh I'm not sure I care that much.

I don't really read the mag, I've nothing against it, but I don't really have time.

STW for me it somewhere to come for a fight to escape the stress of work occasionally. Subs are £2 a month and I don't notice it. Ads aren't really an issue, I've got Ad Blocker, perhaps if they took the same stance as some other sites that block access with ad blockers more would subscribe.

If they don't already, perhaps they should care a bit more about the forum. PistonHeads seems to be able to keep the lights on being a sort of online media outlet/Mag/Gammon Daycare.

I agree totally with Poopscoop.

I subscribe to support all aspects of STW, the forum being the main reason and I do read most of the articles. I (you might think foolishly) purchase component recommendations from articles and from the forum members. I personally believe this is the best resource about MTB on the web so I will support it.

I subscribe to support the forum & I like getting the mag through the letterbox.
I’d pay extra to be able to filter out the moaners though.

I feel that my P gives me the right to moan about how shonky some forum elements are lately. Well, not moan but make snidey remarks, I'm better at them.
I pay the P fund just for the smell of the mag.

i dont think theres a subject on earth that doesnt have an expert on here

The moment this was driven home for me was a couple of years back when someone was asking about hot air balloon experiences. Someone else popped up and said, "well, I'm a balloon pilot and..." What struck me then wasn't "oh my god, we have a balloon pilot on here" but rather "this is STW, of course we have a balloon pilot on here..."

It's a cheap way for me to have a bike mag or three to read on holiday (on kindle) rather than pay full whack at the airport for an annoying chunk of paper that will be torn and ragged by the end of a trip...
I'm not interested in having the printed mag so being able to exclude that from my "Subscription" is ideal IMO.

No Ads on the forum is a pleasant benefit and I do read the odd article online sometimes.

As it's only ~£1.50 a month it's an entirely affordable sum so why not...

It is a small amount but I suspect many don't feel they get value for even that low amount.
As has been said, it is the knowledge and banter on this forum that makes this place for many.
Without the users there is nothing (and I'm sure the staff wouldn't be complaining as very few frequent the forum as they have no interest), yet the service for both paying and freeloading users is far from value. That is what stops many from paying...the other users value everyone but the owners don't appear to - based on various forum issues and interactions.
Make us feel valued and I'm sure many would pay. If I felt like we were being treated fairly and there was a sub for the forum, I'd happily pay it...but I don't and there isn't so I won't.
(aware I'm rather low in the pecking order of things and users but thanks for letting me vent)

yet the service for both paying and freeloading users is far from value

You think ? In the last 24 hours i've had valuable information about a bike purchase. A mate has been educated about MTB tyres. I've read about Ebikes and their benefits and i've advertised a bike for sale....
Add that to all the other snippets of information i've had, read or just heard about...

It's a bargain

I find it quite odd that the barrier to entry is essentially that you don't get a free cuddle with every subscription. It's like 5p a day FFS. If anyone who posts more than twice a day thinks that's bad value then I'm at a loss as to what to add to that.

Sure, the forum probably isn't the top of the priority list in the context of the site as a whole despite it being the primary reason to visit for some forum members, but STW is a publishing company with a forum rather than a forum company that happens to write a few articles occasionally. Without the magazine and the rest of the site, the forum wouldn't exist because everyone employed at STW would be out of a job.

yet the service for both paying and freeloading users is far from value

Those who freeload don't get any value? 🤔

It's cheap for the basic description, removes the ads, gives you access to more stories and the magazine if your care to browse them. More importantly it keeps the forum going which is why we all are on here for the forum.

That's the funding model they have chosen. The subscription fee is for the magazine and online articles and the removal of ads, not for the forum. Similar to how the TV licence is for live broadcast tv and iplayer (which I dn't use therefore no tv licence), not for the radio or bbc website (which I do use).

If they change the funding model then I'll look at it again and consider subscribing. Why pay for something I don't use nor need to pay for? It's not like they are a charity or anything.

I think this thread illustrates that there's people who see the use of the forum as something that should run through an ad based revenue model (and then, in a lot of cases, choose to ad block the revenue element), those who see the forum itself as worth throwing a couple of quid a month in to support and, finally, those who want a printed bike magazine with a forum and are happy to pay to support both.

And I doubt any of them will be won over to another approach by the arguments of others.

There's probably also a group of subscribers who only want the mag and never visit the forum. Weirdos.

Bugger. Suckered back into subscribing.

That’s the funding model they have chosen. The subscription fee is for the magazine and online articles and the removal of ads, not for the forum.

If this is the case it's interesting as that then gives me no reason to subscribe.

Why pay for something I don’t use nor need to pay for?

Because you won’t get the thing you do use if you don’t pay for the thing that you don’t. If that’s the way you want to look at it.

I subscribed, it means you get a blowie from chipps if your ever drunk in tod. For that alone its worth it.

Can't I have a t-shirt instead?

Because you won’t get the thing you do use if you don’t pay for the thing that you don’t. If that’s the way you want to look at it.

In which case I go somewhere else. No big deal. I'll not be the one out of a job if the thing folds.

One alternative would be to ring-fence the forum subscriptions to, you know, develop and test changes to the forum and then let the magazine subscribers pay for the costs of the magazine but I guess those want the magazine aren't, actually, wanting it badly enough to pay the full cost of it.

what funkrodent said.

People's who's attitude is: In which case I go somewhere else. No big deal. I’ll not be the one out of a job if the thing folds really need to think about what they're saying.

👍😳👍😳🧐💋

Just signed up after reading some of the posts on this thread, had forgotten what a forum looked like without adverts everywhere, £1.99 a month well spent considering I check the forum on most weekdays!

really need to think about what they’re saying.

I think they are saying all they need to.

Funkrodent

I guarantee that in the long run whether you’re here or not won’t make the slightest bit of difference as to whether Mark and the team can keep the ship afloat, and at least they can continue to crack at it without your negativity dragging them down (I’ll bet my bottom dollar that they do read these threads on the forum)

Insults aside - if they don't need us, why don't they charge for forum access? You could say I'm not paying at the moment because I don't have to, if the non payers presence is so valueless then why not charge everyone for access?

I asked for a convincing argument as to why I should pay a voluntary charge, your argument is that your insults apply if we don't pay. Its not very convincing. I think the best way to convince non payers to pay is to make the service pay only, then we will see who values it. I have not seen that happen and I think that is because our presence here is worth something.
TBH if I was forced to pay, I probably would, the fact I am not asked to makes me think I must be worth something (well not me, but other less sanctimonious moany types with some knowledge to offer), so I don't see why I should pay for the STW to have value of my presence.

I asked for a convincing argument as to why I should pay a voluntary charge, your argument is that your insults apply if we don’t pay.

No, he's pointing out that there is a handful who come on here who insult the business, the forum, the staff and owners adding very little to the forum. Some of them probably freeload too so add absolutely zero value to the fotum.

@funkrodent *applause*

One thing I'd like to add to this,

Online advertising pays buttons, unless you’re Google or facebook with unimaginable readership bases and economies of scale. Small publishers like Singletrack get sweet FA – I’ll speculate at maybe hundreds a month, probably not even enough to cover their office rent – from the online stuff that is on the site. They have it because a) they would be crazy not to (every penny counts) and b) because it helps drive people to a more consistent and profitable way of driving long-term revenue, which is subscriptions.

I don't know how applicable this is to STW as I don't have that degree of insider knowledge but I would be exceptionally surprised if you're not bang on the money.

Mark once told me how many new subscribers STW would need to be able to do away with third-party advertising networks completely. I don't remember the exact figure now but I remember at the time thinking that it was astonishingly small.

Bang on Funkrodent.

Occasionally I think about cancelling, as I don't bother too much with the mag any more, but tbh that's more my issue of my interests changing, and I always come back to 'it's 3 quid a month, and this place has on occasion been ace over the years'.

People’s who’s attitude is: In which case I go somewhere else. No big deal. I’ll not be the one out of a job if the thing folds really need to think about what they’re saying.

I did think about what I was saying. The forum is not that big a deal to me and there are other ones out there I could easily switch to. I was a subscriber when I first joined, read some of the back issues, didn't like them much so stopped reading and stopped subscribing. Stayed for the forum which they do not charge for. If I am a free loading tight scrounger contributing nothing then they are free to get rid of me. If they want to charge for using the forum then I'd consider that when/if it happened. I use many online resources. If they all started charging 10p a day then it soon adds up and priorities would need to be made. It's their business not mine, I have no vested interest in it, nor any sense of personal connection to the owners and staff really. If you do, good for you if you want to contribute finacially to it. As the forum is currently free then that's individual choice.

I think the best way to convince non payers to pay is to make the service pay only, then we will see who values it.

I think perhaps the flaw here is that you are massively underestimating the number of lurkers on the forum (or indeed, on any forum). Our big hitters may be visibly prolific posters but they are a very tiny minority of the site's users.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/1%25_rule_(Internet_culture)

It's purely speculation on my part, but I'd guess that the 90/9/1 rule (where 90% of users only read, 9% post occasionally and 1% post regularly) is probably optimistic in relation to the number of active posters.

No, he’s pointing out that there is a handful who come on here who insult the business, the forum, the staff and owners adding very little to the forum. Some of them probably freeload too so add absolutely zero value to the fotum.

Fair enough, its not my intention to insult them, I don't actually think the quality of some of the reviews I have commented on is that great, but I don't mean that as insult.
The general thrust for paying is that our presence here adds nothing, we are lucky to have it, so we should pay for what are seemingly moral reasons.
I stand by what I said - if we are truly worthless then why are we not compelled to pay? If we were compelled then I actually feel I might value paying, as it is I still feel like my presence here is part of the product and they need us, hence why we are not forced to pay.

Try going into a pub, to chat to you mates, other patrons, even the bar staff, but don’t buy any drinks. Better still, criticise the pub, it’s decor, it’s beer selection and staff. Then every now and then, openly have a sip from a hip flask in your pocket.

People act the same way, to similar degrees, on here and expect to be welcomed with open arms as they make the place look busy and provide conversation.

rene59 - you're entitled to your opinion. I suspect you wouldn;t be walking into a UK Airbus factory today saying: "Lose your jobs, see if I care!" so why share what you think about stw on stw.

I was questioning your manners, not your opinion.

So Cougar if what you say is true, then the non paying lurkers are worth something too? Otherwise why is it relevant? What am I missing here?

EDIT - I am not intending to be nasty to the owners, journos or mods, its navel gazing point only...

So Cougar if what you say is true, then the non paying lurkers are worth something too?

Collectively, they are worth something, but if one of them starts saying how shit they think the place is/not worth anything etc, that individuals worth drops from a few pence to, well, less than that.

wwaswas - I wouldn't go into an airbus factory saying that no. But if they tried to sell me something I didn't want whilst giving me for free something I did want (whilst at same time telling me they aren't interested in that same thing) and then try guilt tripping me into paying for the former anyway as their jobs are at stake, they'd get the same response.

I stand by what I said – if we are truly worthless then why are we not compelled to pay?

For the same reason that some people will happily spunk a grand on a smartphone and then piss and moan about having to pay 69p for an app. We've seen this in action on other threads, there's a very small but highly vocal subset of users who refuse to subscribe, openly boast about blocking adverts and then still feel justified in bleating on about how shit everything is. I can't speak for Mark or the rest of STW but personally I'd cheerfully see those self-entitled ****ers get in the sea. If it's so shit and yet they're still hanging out on here every day then just maybe if some of them considered investing a few pence STW could afford to hire another developer? Ether that or they could just GTF to those magical Other Places we keep hearing about and stop being such a pain in my arse.

Sorry. Rant aside: The point I was getting to is that mandatory payments would blatantly decimate the userbase. That's not an STW thing, that's the nature of the world.

but if one of them starts saying how shit they think the place is/not worth anything etc

I never said that. I have said I value the forum, however I try to impart info whenever I can so hopefully this balances what I get out.
I also keep being told the forum adds no value to the site.

So Cougar if what you say is true, then the non paying lurkers are worth something too? Otherwise why is it relevant? What am I missing here?

Dunno TBH. It's not my company, I just help out here.

I also keep being told the forum adds no value to the site.

I don't think anyone's said that have they?

if they tried to sell me something I didn’t want whilst giving me for free something I did want

I once took out a trial magazine subscription because I wanted the free gift. True story.

So in which case you made this statement without any reasonable back up as to what you expected it to mean? Dude, you are one of the smart people on here.

I think perhaps the flaw here is that you are massively underestimating the number of lurkers on the forum (or indeed, on any forum).

I stand by what I said – if we are truly worthless then why are we not compelled to pay? If we were compelled then I actually feel I might value paying, as it is I still feel like my presence here is part of the product and they need us, hence why we are not forced to pay.

Think if you were compelled to pay there'd be abar ten posters total on here tbh, given the state of this thread. That aside, have you seen this type of pay to post model operate successfully anywhere else on the internet? I know somethingawful do / did but I don't think it's v common (could be wrong).

Forums sprang up at the start of the internet as free to use and were a huge part of that early internet culture, so paying to post goes against people's expectations. Think it would take something well out of the ordinary to get people signing up for that sort of model.

So in which case you made this statement without any reasonable back up as to what you expected it to mean?

I was speculating, really. As I said, I have very little insider information, but a chunk of this is self-evident.

There is a very large number of people who use the forum, the main site or both and never type a word. Many don't even have a member login. This is almost certainly true of the vast majority of websites. These readers will still be valuable to the site (collectively as @tomhoward says) in any number of ways, as our rodenty friend explained just now far better than I could. And of course, any website that doesn't want to attract more visitors pretty much fails as a website, it's its raison d'etre.

Cougar -

I don’t think anyone’s said that have they?

you implied it

I don’t remember the exact figure now but I remember at the time thinking that it was astonishingly small.

So you and others have said

The point I was getting to is that mandatory payments would blatantly decimate the userbase. That’s not an STW thing, that’s the nature of the world.

Think if you were compelled to pay there’d be abar ten posters total on here tbh, given the state of this thread.

and

And of course, any website that doesn’t want to attract more visitors pretty much fails as a website, it’s its raison d’etre.

So why is it a problem if there are only ten users if the previous many users contribute little significant ad revenue.
I stand by my point - the fact we are not compelled to pay means that they need us in some way. Which does not feel conducive to making me want to pay when until the article quality improves, I am only interested in the forum.

If it’s so shit and yet they’re still hanging out on here every day then just maybe if some of them considered investing a few pence STW could afford to hire another developer?

But they have said they are not interested in the forum, they are not in the forum business, that's been made clear. I hang out here every day because of the user base, not because of the owners or their publication. If they don't want to capitalise on that then that's their business. What else do you pay for that you don't need nor want?

they have said they are not interested in the forum, they are not in the forum business, that’s been made clear

*Citation needed.

*Citation needed.

TBh I agree, I have been going on a few other posters saying this - whereas the actions of STW show that they are interested in the forum, even need/want the forum.

So Cougar if what you say is true, then the non paying lurkers are worth something too? Otherwise why is it relevant? What am I missing here?

Of course non-paying lurkers are worth something. The number of page impressions (clicks) is what STW sell to the advertisers. The advertising revenue from the forum/website keep the magazine going. Folk who post in the forums are worth a bit more as they are unpaid content creators and attract the lurkers.

The advertising revenue from the forum/website keep the magazine going.

On its own? That’s impressive...

Looks like this thread is going down the usual route, can someone pull the chain and spray some Fabreeze around afterwards.

Ta.

🤷‍♂️