Cheaper subscription fee?

Let's turn the question and see what it will bring us: "Expensive subscription fee?"

Wee all know that the to-do list of Russ' is long. This forum constantly gives Russ more and more on his list. He cannot ever empty this list.

What about makeing the subscription more expensive, say $50 a year, perhaps even $60!

Then he would be able to hire an programmer to make new interesting activities, like pyramide ladder tournaments, alternative chess rules, like Fisher Random with castling, Atom chess, and such, empty the to-do list so we can have a set-up game where black can start, get rid of some annoying bugs, making moderation easier, etc etc.

Red Hot Pawn can be Red Hot, the best site in the web!

Yeah! Don't make the subscription cheaper when we want a still sophisticated, higher quality, and a funnier site for a higher price.

And we want to pay for it! Don't we?

I'd have something to say too - I don't intend to play a thousand games, I don't need extra vacation, I don't need to play tournaments or ladders, I don't need clans. But I like the site, so I would pay a small amount to support it. I'm talking small small, like maximum $5 per year. $40 is waaaay too much for a nonsub who thinks the site works great as it is. If possible, that small fee should also eliminate advertisements.

I declared this topique to be dead and may it rest in peace. I just posted my previous message so that you could all see that I buckled and am now a subscriber, so that you can all say "Well done Great King Rat, and welcome to out warm community of chess fanatics. May you have a fantastic time here!"

Having said that, some people thought that my original idea (15 euros per year but with advertisements, or other alternatives) was a bit far fetched. I don't know, because I don't have any idea of the financial situation of RHP. It was just a suggestion, that maybe the owners of the site could respond to. However, proposing to pay 5 dollars per year and then expecting to not have advertisements sound redicoules..... redicu... redicules...redicloules...... absurd. Even to me.

Well done Great King Rat. Welcome to the great fraternity of RHP subscribers. 🙂

Originally posted by Great King Rat
However, proposing to pay 5 dollars per year and then expecting to not have advertisements sound redicoules..... redicu... redicules...redicloules...... absurd. Even to me.

Aknoggeled... acnolejed... acknoglegged... ok. But what about the rest? I like the site alot as a nonsub, and would like to support it, but $40 is too much for my pocket. Can you propose anything?

p.s. well done!

edit: Does sending advertisements to users really earn that much? I would have thought it would be about $1 for every 1000 ads served (guesstimate), so I'd have to access RHP 5000 times a year, 15 times a day or so, to get to $5. Hmmm, maybe you're right, I hadn't thought about the numbers I guess.

Originally posted by fergalish
Does sending advertisements to users really earn that much? I would have thought it would be about $1 for every 1000 ads served (guesstimate), so I'd have to access RHP 5000 times a year, 15 times a day or so, to get to $5. Hmmm, maybe you're right, I hadn't thought about the numbers I guess.

I think most of the ads you see on RHP are on a pay-per-click basis (I might be wrong, it's been a long time since I was a non-sub).

If that's still the case then going by a rough industry average of 2.5% of users actually clicking on the adverts and each click being worth around $0.40, that $5 per year subscription would be worth the same as serving the ads to 500 users for year.

Originally posted by Daemon Sin
I think most of the ads you see on RHP are on a pay-per-click basis (I might be wrong, it's been a long time since I was a non-sub).

If that's still the case then going by a rough industry average of 2.5% of users actually clicking on the adverts and each click being worth around $0.40, that $5 per year subscription would be worth the same as serving the ads to 500 users for year.

How can you tell which are pay-per-click or not?

By your numbers, you only need to serve an ad 500 times: 2.5% of 500 times $0.40 = $5. There are one or two ads per page, so you need 250 page views per year to earn $5 from each user. I am certain that I do more than 250 page views per year, so I guess Great King Rat was right. So I, with an embarrassed face, withdraw my suggestion that $5 per annum could eliminate ads.

Ahh, unless you mean 2.5% of users click once per year on advertisements. But I don't expect so.

Originally posted by FabianFnas
Let's turn the question and see what it will bring us: "More expensive subscription fee?"

I am surprised that noone even commented this posting?!

Does this mean that we are satisfied with what we have? That some buggy, unintuitive functions, some missing features is alright? That new functions is not interesting? Nothing has to change?

With more financial base for the work of Russ he can develope this site to even higher levels. But we are not interested to pay for it?

But it seems to me that we all want more more more but cheaper cheaper cheaper.
That we want this site to die out in the hard competition from other sites...

Originally posted by FabianFnas
I am surprised that noone even commented this posting?!

Does this mean that we are satisfied with what we have? That some buggy, unintuitive functions, some missing features is alright? That new functions is not interesting? Nothing has to change?

With more financial base for the work of Russ he can develope this site to even higher levels. But we a ...[text shortened]... cheaper cheaper.
That we want this site to die out in the hard competition from other sites...

I agree and have in this thread, that you should Pay for what you get.

If you are not happy with what you are getting, and when I say you I mean ANYONE, then you don't have to re-subscribe. It is really that simple.

Originally posted by FabianFnas
I am surprised that noone even commented this posting?!

Does this mean that we are satisfied with what we have? That some buggy, unintuitive functions, some missing features is alright? That new functions is not interesting? Nothing has to change?

With more financial base for the work of Russ he can develope this site to even higher levels. But we a ...[text shortened]... cheaper cheaper.
That we want this site to die out in the hard competition from other sites...

The site has survived 10 years so they must be doing something right.

Peopel who are not happy with a site, for whatever reason, will move elsewhere. If you feel that the available options are not worth the money then you would move.

5 years later, despite the site having its little foibles you are still here, so that says to me that you are happy enough with what the site offers.

Have you found a site offering better options? If so why are you still playing here?

Raising the fee will likely encourage more poeple to cancel their membership. Many of the little extras being asked for will affect only a few people. For instance how many people actually avail themselves of the conditional move option? The deep mode option still causes confusion amongst people trying to use it.

If Russ had said "I can make the conditional moves" an option but it will cost you $10 more per year I know I would not have been imterested and would have rethought my membership options.

People have a limit to what they are willing to pay. The trick is finding that limit to maxmimise revenie.

Originally posted by adramforall
The site has survived 10 years so they must be doing something right.

Peopel who are not happy with a site, for whatever reason, will move elsewhere. If you feel that the available options are not worth the money then you would move.

5 years later, despite the site having its little foibles you are still here, so that says to me that you are hap limit to what they are willing to pay. The trick is finding that limit to maxmimise revenie.

Come on 10.00 more dollars isn't going to kill your allowance and it would be well worth it, at least the chess side of this site which I love.

Did you know some people can afford to be on more than one Chess Site and do so? You don't have to just belong to one chess site, it is not a rule or a law.

On one Chess Site I have a life time membership. I am on 4 different chess sites, although this is my main playing site at the moment.

I don't think raising the fee would encourage more people to cancel their membership. It could be worked so that you paid for what you got. For example: The conditional moves you mentioned, well the fee could be put up for those wanting that, and those who didn't wouldn't get it, or have to pay for it. The amount games played at one time could be another optional thingy.

Everyone stays happy! 🙂

Originally posted by Very Rusty
Come on 10.00 more dollars isn't going to kill your allowance and it would be well worth it, at least the chess side of this site which I love.

Did you know some people can afford to be on more than one Chess Site and do so? You don't have to just belong to one chess site, it is not a rule or a law.

On one Chess Site I have a life time membership. I ...[text shortened]... ount games played at one time could be another optional thingy.

Everyone stays happy! 🙂

People don't see just $10 they see the fee has jumped from $40 to $50 and that is a massive increase. Another $10 would be a 25% fee increase.

If I said that the new car you wanted was going to cost 025% more next month would you still be willing to buy it?

Thread 104901 had a few moans about the previous increase. Like everything else when prices get too high people stop buying.

Yes RHP is far cheaper than the likes of Gameknot, it would cost me $89.50 to subscribe there and that is a price I am not willing to pay, but the reason people come here is that RHP is it is better value.

Originally posted by adramforall
People don't see just $10 they see the fee has jumped from $40 to $50 and that is a massive increase. Another $10 would be a 25% fee increase.

If I said that the new car you wanted was going to cost 025% more next month would you still be willing to buy it?

Thread 104901 had a few moans about the previous increase. Like everythin ...[text shortened]... ice I am not willing to pay, but the reason people come here is that RHP is it is better value.

Since you brought up Gameknot you should have gotten the lifetime membership on their 10th year anniversary if you are looking for getting your moneys worth. 384.00 U.S. for life time membership is good bang for your buck. You snooze you loose. 😉

89.95...There are all different amounts that you can pay, why pick that particular one? The 39.95 per year would be right up your alley. 😉

I think some people are just cheap and want as much as they can get for as cheap as they can get it. In life you as a rule will get what you pay for.

Originally posted by fergalish
How can you tell which are pay-per-click or not?

By your numbers, you only need to serve an ad 500 times: 2.5% of 500 times $0.40 = $5. There are one or two ads per page, so you need 250 page views per year to earn $5 from each user. I am certain that I do more than 250 page views per year, so I guess Great King Rat was right. So I, with an embarrass ...[text shortened]... h, unless you mean 2.5% of users click once per year on advertisements. But I don't expect so.

I use the same ad companies on my own sites.

Yup, I did mean 2.5% per year. With all the easily available adblocking browser plugins around these days, not a lot of people click on adverts these days.

Originally posted by Very Rusty
Since you brought up Gameknot you should have gotten the lifetime membership on their 10th year anniversary if you are looking for getting your moneys worth. 384.00 U.S. for life time membership is good bang for your buck. You snooze you loose. 😉

89.95...There are all different amounts that you can pay, why pick that particular one? The 39.95 per year ...[text shortened]... s they can get for as cheap as they can get it. In life you as a rule will get what you pay for.

Then again what happens if after paying the lifetime sub the site closes or you die?

Why did I use the $89.95 option from Gameknot - it was the option that would allow me to play the same amount of games as I do here, so I was comparing like with like.

Why would I want to pay $50 bucks more on another site to get the same that I get here?

As for people being cheap and want as much as possible as cheap as possible that is just another silly comment.

Look at cars for instance.

Dealership 1 Car costs $40,000
Dealership 2 Car costs $38,000
Dealership 3 Car costs $35,000

Why would you pay $40,000 when you can buy elsewhere for $35,000?

No difference on chess sites and its nothing to do with being cheap, its value for money.