• This site uses cookies. By continuing to use this site, you are agreeing to our use of cookies. Learn more.

Cost of no-ads upgrade

Liam W

Well-known member
#2
I don't really, but if I was, I would use this formula:

(monthly_ad_revenue / user_count) = cost_remove_ads_per_month

With maybe it rounded a bit...

Liam
 

Ridemonkey

Well-known member
#3
I don't really, but if I was, I would use this formula:

(monthly_ad_revenue / user_count) = cost_remove_ads_per_month
The problem we had with that is the users who are most inclined to purchase ad-free memberships are also the users who generate dramatically more ad revenue than other users.

When you average it all out, you're counting users as if they all generate the same number of pageviews or clicks, but obviously that's not really the case. Your most active users are probably generating at least an order of magnitude more views and clicks than non-active users, but those same active users are the ones who buy memberships.
 
#4
The problem we had with that is the users who are most inclined to purchase ad-free memberships are also the users who generate dramatically more ad revenue than other users.

When you average it all out, you're counting users as if they all generate the same number of pageviews or clicks, but obviously that's not really the case. Your most active users are probably generating at least an order of magnitude more views and clicks than non-active users, but those same active users are the ones who buy memberships.
Not necessarily.

Many active members may be 'ad blind' and rarely click an ad. Unregistered users who manage to visit via organic means and google-driven traffic may be more likely to click ads.

I've experimented with this. I charged £15 in the past. Hardly any subscribes. I reduced it to £5 and got about 5 times the amount of paid subscriptions, with zero reduction in ad revenue.
 

Ridemonkey

Well-known member
#5
Not necessarily.

Many active members may be 'ad blind' and rarely click an ad. Unregistered users who manage to visit via organic means and google-driven traffic may be more likely to click ads.

I've experimented with this. I charged £15 in the past. Hardly any subscribes. I reduced it to £5 and got about 5 times the amount of paid subscriptions, with zero reduction in ad revenue.
Sure, it may depend on your ad model or user base, I only mean that a simple equation of ad revenue over active users may well not be a good representation of what you should charge.
 

Newt

Active member
#8
The problem we had with that is the users who are most inclined to purchase ad-free memberships are also the users who generate dramatically more ad revenue than other users.
Well you charge upfront to cover that "loss", you just can't have it all ;)
 

dvsDave

Well-known member
#9
We did this for years and eventually retired the program. I added two ad units that are only visible if you aren't signed in, and those generate about $350 a month, which is much more than I was ever getting from our ad-free membership programs.

I mostly do direct advertising, I directly contract with manufacturers and dealers who want to reach my members. The only network ads I run are those that are only visible to non-members. My members accept the ads because they recognize the brands on the ads. Make your advertising relevant and you'll get much better results for your advertising efforts rather than training your users that it's not only okay to ignore the ads, but suppression is encouraged. (it's hard not to look like a hypocrite when you've got an ad-block detector and a no-advertising membership program running at the same time)