Yes, but if they're unsatisfied beyond a certain point, they'll leave for good, and that's an overall loss, both on the ads and on a potential future subscription.
You have to find that balance between keeping the subscription desirable, and keeping the experience good for non-subscribers so they don't bail quickly before even thinking about subscribing.
Personally I think putting in some kind of long-term reward makes sense, because I think people will *perceive* it as being worth a lot more than it actually is. I mean, if you are going to grind out thousands of moves just to get an extra game or two, that's really not a good use of your resources compared to just spending the $30. If you stick around chances are you'll eventually work that out on your own and just pay the subscription.
The "why would you give the 7th sandwich free after the first 6 were free" argument leaves out the possibility of subscription. If every time a person came in for a free sandwich there was a small chance they would pay for a $1000/year membership to the sandwich shop (sandwiches are more expensive than hosting chess games), then yeah, you might keep giving out more free sandwiches.
I agree that giving non subscribers more benefits isn't going to make any of them want to subscribe. But, I believe that until they know what being a sub is like, many will just be content with their 6 games. How that's done is up for debate... Perhaps allow 1 tournament each year for non-subs? Access to 1 seige board/year? Something along those lines; let nonsub's experience the life of a subscriber (and how much better it is) and I'm sure many would be tempted to pay the 30 bucks.
Originally posted by incandenzaIt probably makes no difference if the non-subs are more active as far as ad revenue is concerned - I would think the advertisers pay re the number of registered users and/or the number of visits to the advertisers sites.
Yes, but if they're unsatisfied beyond a certain point, they'll leave for good, and that's an overall loss, both on the ads and.....
So whether someone comes here once a week or every day I doubt there is much difference.
I could be completely wrong of course. 🙁
Originally posted by Dr StrangeloveAccording to you, giving an ad to RHP costs same as giving and ad to Google.
It probably makes no difference if the non-subs are more active as far as ad revenue is concerned - I would think the advertisers pay re the number of registered users and/or the number of visits to the advertisers sites.
So whether someone comes here once a week or every day I doubt there is much difference.
I could be completely wrong of course. 🙁
Number of visit does not matter, number of actual active users (popularity) does not matter, the frequency of the user's exposure to ads does not matter.
Are you in online advertising business?
Originally posted by kenanWell if nothing [as according to you] matters regarding the ads - why bother encouraging more non-subs?????
According to you, giving an ad to RHP costs same as giving and ad to Google.
Number of visit does not matter, number of actual active users (popularity) does not matter, the frequency of the user's exposure to ads does not matter.
Are you in online advertising business?
I detect a slight logic gap somewhere.
Originally posted by Dr StrangeloveIt does matter is what I meant to say in a sarcastic manner.
Well if nothing [as according to you] matters regarding the ads - why bother encouraging more non-subs?????
I detect a slight logic gap somewhere.
We are encouraging more active members, so that more people can be exposed to more ads. Let's not forget every non-subscriber is a potential subscriber as well.
I do not see a logic gap because I do not believe that giving 4 more games after 50,000 moves is going to effect the business negatively. It might effect only positevely. More members with with very slightly more games (thus more moves) is equal to a stronger market for advertising.
Originally posted by kenanMore members maybe.
It does matter is what I meant to say in a sarcastic manner.
We are encouraging more active members, so that more people can be exposed to more ads. Let's not forget every non-subscriber is a potential subscriber as well.
I do not see a logic gap because I do not believe that giving 4 more games after 50,000 moves is going to effect the business negativ ...[text shortened]... with very slightly more games (thus more moves) is equal to a stronger market for advertising.
But you are talking about more games, aren't you???
Originally posted by kenanThis is starting to look like a good idea... but a better solution is to put more ads on each page.
It does matter is what I meant to say in a sarcastic manner.
We are encouraging more active members, so that more people can be exposed to more ads. Let's not forget every non-subscriber is a potential subscriber as well.
I do not see a logic gap because I do not believe that giving 4 more games after 50,000 moves is going to effect the business negativ ...[text shortened]... with very slightly more games (thus more moves) is equal to a stronger market for advertising.
Russ, get this done NOW!
P-
Originally posted by Dr StrangeloveMore games mean more satisfaction from the free service so it means the drop rate of deserters of RHP might decrease since people might actually try to reach those goals (little psychological trick). And that my friend, indirectly means more members.
More members maybe.
But you are talking about more games, aren't you???
You seem like a forever-non subscriber. Why are you against this doc? You might want to play more games when you retire and have tonnes of free time. 😀
I think the idea of a non-subs tournament is probably the best way to entice non-subs to subscribe. After I subscribed I thought it was great being able to play in a tournament. A good tournament could open up a lot of eyes to how good this site really is. If you'd told me when I was a non-sub that I would have over 90 games going when I subscribe I would have shook my head.
I also toyed with suggesting a 1 week trial for non-subs, but I'm not sure it would work - if they enter a tourney and get through the first stage, how could you restrict them to 6 games after their trial is over?
Originally posted by kenanI'm not especially for or against the idea - I am just saying how illogical it is as far as the owners are concerned. [well that's how it seems to me]
More games mean more satisfaction from the free service so it means the drop rate of deserters of RHP might decrease since people might actually try to reach those goals (little psychological trick). And that my friend, indirectly means more members.
You seem like a forever-non subscriber. Why are you against this doc? You might want to play more games when you retire and have tonnes of free time. 😀
I already have the TIME to play more games but I don't enjoy playing lots at the same time. When I played 6 at a time, I hated waking up to see that there were 6 games waiting; so now I only play 3 or 4 at most usually. 🙂
Originally posted by Dr StrangeloveHear hear!
I'm not especially for or against the idea - I am just saying how illogical it is as far as the owners are concerned. [well that's how it seems to me]
I already have the TIME to play more games but I don't enjoy playing lots at the same time. When I played 6 at a time, I hated waking up to see that there were 6 games waiting; so now I only play 3 or 4 at most usually. 🙂
Originally posted by GarethNichollsA genius 😛
I think the idea of a non-subs tournament is probably the best way to entice non-subs to subscribe. After I subscribed I thought it was great being able to play in a tournament. A good tournament could open up a lot of eyes to how good this site really is. If you'd told me when I was a non-sub that I would have over 90 games going when I subscribe I w ...[text shortened]... get through the first stage, how could you restrict them to 6 games after their trial is over?
Consider this my rec.