Interest in educational webinars or videos

[Carl Russell]

Private Messaging is another feature that could be limited to paying DAPNet members….

Carl

[Andy Carson]

The NPR comparison is interesting, and I think worth some discussion as it provides at least one model we can follow.

NPR is a two tier organization. The national organization recieves the majority of its funding (37%) from member station fees. These member stations receive 39% of its funding from individuals, which is the single greatest area of contributions. Corporations provide only 17% of the revenue, or less than half as much as individuals. The corporation for public broadcasting (generated by the fed gov) provides 11.4%. Foundations, colleges, and “other” provide about 8% each.

Referance: http://www.npr.org/about/aboutnpr/publicradiofinances.html#npr

If we want to follow this model, we must dramatically increase the funding we obtain from individuals. Some of these funding sources for NPR are not avaliable to us, so other areas will need to increase proportionally to compensate. I think 50% support from individuals, 25% from grants, and 25% from corporate sponsors matches the NPR model pretty well.

[Andy Carson]

It is also worth mentioning that HBO restricts all content to paying subscribers and generates over 3 BILLION in annual revenue plus 700 million for pay-per-view content. Compare this to the 571 million in total revenue for PBS… In this simple example, requiring subscription is over 6 times more effective at generating revenue than asking for individual and public donations. The two strategic pathways really aren’t close in terms of documented ability to generate income…

Referances: http://paidcontent.org/tech/419-what-recession-premium-cable-channels-continue/
http://www.nytimes.com/2012/01/02/business/media/pbs-shifts-tactics-to-reach-wider-audience.html?pagewanted=all&_r=0

[Tim Harrigan]

Andy, this is an important philosophical question that the BoD should discuss at the planned retreat.

[Andy Carson]

Additionally worth mentioning is the comparison between NPR and Sirius/XM radio. Both of these are “ad free” if we ignore the corporate sponsorship aspect of NPR and the brief ads on the Howard Stern show.

NPR has an annual budget of $166 million, compared to Sirius/XM’s projected revenue of ~3.4 BILLION. So for radio, the pay-to-listen strategy is more than even 20 times more effective at generating revenue than relying on donations alone. Again, these two strategies are not really even close in a head-to-head comparison.

Referances: http://www.reuters.com/finance/stocks/SIRI.O/key-developments/article/2634798

[Tim Harrigan]

@Carl Russell 37945 wrote:

Like public radio this site can be supported more by sponsorship and donations rather than by membership.

I would be inclined to keep this site free to the public, not restricting access to any content. Rather restrict to paying DAPNet members only things like profile signatures, or advertising (if it ever get to that), or increased capacity for uploading pics and attachments. And there could be a category highlighting links or services etc offered by DAPNet members only, clearly viewable by everyone, but only accessible for posting by those who are paying members. No one uses it now, but this site has a blog area, this could be limited to DAPNet members only.

In other words, grow the content on this site, and make it available to as many folks as possible, but limit the ability to use the connectivity of this site to DAPNet members only. It would require some overview from Admin, but most of what I described above can be done easily in the admin panel by creating filters for certain user groups…

Just mind running wild….:eek:

Carl

Andy, I tend to agree with Carl here, there are many subtleties involved that take it beyond income maximization into the much cloudier realm of multi-criteria optimization and qualitative considerations. This is something for the Board to hash out, in my mind.

[Andy Carson]

I think this is a good discussion to have. I am attracted to a compromise approach, where some content is free and some content is restricted to members. In truth, this is because I want to see some of this content and this seems like a good way to pay for it. From my survey of website interest, I am confident that others want this content too. My survey shows no evidence that connectivity is interesting or that people will pay for it. I think it is wise to discuss requiring membership and content the context of how much money we aren’t going to make by requiring membership compared to how much good we do by educating the nonpaying public and maintaining visibility. I am not married to requiring mebership, but I think we need to be honest that this is going to make money. I do not think the only measure of an organization is how much money it makes, but this is an important issue. It does no good to do lots of “good” and then die off. Better to do some “good” and remain economically viable in the long term. We simply can’t do the same things we have done and expect different results. Let me say this again. We can’t do the same things we have done and expect different results. We have a huge online visitorship. It is a huge asset. I believe we must do something meaningful to them. They have let their interests be known, very clearly in my mind. I believe we should listen.

[Carl Russell]

@Countymouse 37961 wrote:

……We simply can’t do the same things we have done and expect different results. ……..

OK, I just couldn’t resist….

We are not doing the same thing and expecting different results……. Currently we are doing something different and expecting the same results. The way it is being used right now definitely could benefit from some creativity. It really is not the way this site grew into its current form.

I never ran this site without sponsorship and donations. I made about $1500/year. It wasn’t enough, but it helped to support the effort I put into managing connectivity here. That included helping to sort out thread topics, expanding discussions by encouraging sharing and moderating tone, seeding discussions, developing categories and forum layout, and managing the forum and upgrading functionality. I also spent a lot of time and outreach drawing people’s attention here.

I made sure there was some active management, a person that presented themselves publicly as The Administrator, directing the site, acting out the things that perk people’s interests, taking on a public persona, engaging people, and taking responsibility for the way content gets here and is shared.

I know that it can’t be done for free. There is a value here that is marketable to folks/businesses/organizations who want to support it and gain exposure doing it. At the same time there are things about this site that users take for granted that could easily be seen as perks, and they might be just enough to encourage more DAPNet memberships. I feel that if you start charging for content you will lose interest very quickly…… remember it isn’t The Sopranos here.

The ideas that I have laid out in other posts were all on my radar before, but I could not continue putting in the time, and creation of DAPNet was an attempt to use a model of broader funding to support a more intense management of the resources here. One of the last things I did was to make sure this site was upgraded to a more comprehensive format, just so that there could be greater connectivity, and under the management I had practiced, that could have generated more income and DAPNet memberships.

That is why I am excited that you are looking seriously here.

Rather than discounting connectivity, use it. Bring connectivity back to the forefront. Show people why being connected to this community is so valuable. Use certain aspects of connectivity as perks for DAPNet members only. Call up some high profile folks to sponsor this site. Horse Progress Days was on the short list to swap advertisements. The connectivity on this site is not being used like it could be, or like it was, and while some of your ideas about improving content presentation are great, the basic premise of this site could be picked up and polished off with little cost, and large effect.

This is a social network site with a side-effect of valuable information and educational experience. Improving content presentation without improving management of the social network is missing the point. This content has more value because of the sounding board resulting from the connectivity that refines and improves the content. Content here is not valuable because of precision, but because of the many nuances that are brought to a topic by the many eyes that review it.

I hope that both aspects of this site can be taken seriously… for all of our sakes.

Carl

[Andy Carson]

Thanks for the additional information, Carl. I truly was not aware of much of this history and it gives me much to check up on and think about.

I will check up on sponsorships and donations over time. I know how much comes from sponsors/grants/individuals now, but will need to check to see which parts have grown or fallen off in the past years. If (and I do mean “if”) some sources of funding have remained constant while the membership has grown, I suspect we need to investigate other sources of funding. Additional content is one way to do this. If (again I mean “if”) these origional sources of funding have dried up, than I think we need to regain these, or at least see what is needed to regain these is within our scope/ability before we gamble with modifying content/accessibilty to see if this helps.

We may just have to agree to disagree about the relative values of content vs connectivity. At first pass, I find it hard to understand how such a reasonable and intelligent person can ignore real data and surveys demonstrating public interest. But let me try to step into your shoes for a moment, and perhaps, you can step into mine.

The detailed nature of your post and historical perspective helps me understand some of the logic of your position, and I see this largely as a matter of perspective. I think that at the beginning of a website such as this one, the biggest challenge is attracting people to the site and the organization. “come look” “come post” “come read” “come visit” These are enormous challenges in a busy world and a busier internet. I can see how a strong focus on creating and maintaining connectivity would help here. I can also understand how by focusing on connectivity has created this organization and grew this website. I can see how this might become proof, in someones mind, that connectivity is the key. If someone is really focused on connectivity, I can see how the site might be used as a social network with some side discussions that generate content. Correct me if I misunderstand your position and logic, Carl. I think this is a reasonable and intelligent position based on the history of what the website/org was and how it came into being.

Now, if you could, please step into my shoes. I came to this site as a beginner at working animals in meaningful ways. I needed specific and general advice on how to do this. No one came to talk to me about this site. Advertising had no impact on me whatsoever. Even then, about 3 years ago, this was by far the best site to get advice for folks who wanted to do real work with thier animals. I know, because I checked out many sites before I chose to frequent this one. I chose this website because of content. In the past few years, content has only improved, and I am proud to have played a role in this. Content rich threads are not only popular with me, but also with hundreds (probably thousands) of others like me, who found the site through websearches and have been brought into the fold through text contributions and memberships. Today, DAP.com is the #1 result when you type “draft animal” into google. This is HUGE. I did not know the orginization before 2009, and didn’t experience the times when (I suspect) no one had heard of it. Today, I find it impossible to believe that anyone wanting to obtain info about draft animals online will not have checked out the #1 google search result. For me, I am honestly not interested in the social club aspect of DAP.com. Facebook does this better, and is indeed what a social networking site looks like. Facebook does such a good job at social networking, I would argue, that those who are intersted in a socializing go to the DAP facebook page. Those that come here, I and the data would argue, want something different. I come here because I want information. I feel that “baiting” people with information and then “switching” to something else (like connectivity) is disingenuous.

I hope this helps you understand why I think the way I do. I think this is also a very reasonable position and it is clearly supported by facts and figures from DAPNet as it is now. I think it is important to think about what DAPNet is now and how this is different from what DAPNet was in it’s infancy. Perhaps it has grown in ways that were not intended, but I personally like the place it ended up.

[mitchmaine]

hey andy, not clear myself what dap was or is now, how or if it has changed. i guess it has to with new people and new posts, questions, remarks and so on. and that is normal growth, but i have to think that the success of dap depended on what it was and why people wanted to join in then, than something we might change to now. you remember what they said about killing the goose.

[Andy Carson]

It like the goose analogy, Mitch, but what do you do with a goose that tries and tries to lay silver eggs and they keep coming out gold? 😉

[mitchmaine]

i’m not smart enough to get that metaphor, andy, but i do appreciate all the numbers and hits and so on, just don’t know what to do with them. the fact that we have 35,000 posts is a little awe inspiring. and then you wonder haven’t we just about said it all and somebody comes up with something and off we all go with it. i love it. keep at it bud

[near horse]

“…. remember it isn’t The Sopranos here.” 😮 And I thought I had a post as chief enforcer coming my way. Thanks Vito.

[Tim Harrigan]

@Countymouse 37978 wrote:

….. I come here because I want information. I feel that “baiting” people with information and then “switching” to something else (like connectivity) is disingenuous…

Andy, I suspect ‘connectivity’ is a concept like ‘networking’ in the sense that it can be interpreted in many ways. Can you explain how you are thinking about connectivity?

[Andy Carson]

I think of connectivity and networking as generally synonomous. Get everyone together is a big room, be polite, be inclusive. Don’t talk about religion, politics, life and death, or anything close to anyones heart. Avoid any topics that are controversial or might offend someone. Maybe show some pictures of your kids or pets and listen to people say “cute” or “here’s a picture of my kids.” Put on a big fake smile, shake a lot of hands, and pretend like you like this sort of thing. Don’t try to solve any problems or do anything substantial. Listen to other people try to pal up to you and sell you stuff you don’t want. Try to find polite and creative ways to avoid sales pitches or other conversations you arent interested in. Perhaps call yourself on your cell phone a couple times… Later, go home and bitch about what a terrible time you had and how boring everyone was. Like a big cocktail party.

[Author]

Posts