We are considering getting rid of advertising, much to the fanfare of many readers. Unlike the favorite meme of the left that we are in the employ of “big oil” the reality is that we aren’t, never have been, and never will be. WUWT’s “big oil” donations are about as real and valuable as these carbon credit certificates.
We don’t get that much from advertising, and lately it seems like it has become too intrusive, and slows down the site. In actuality, our ad partner is serving more ads than ever before for even less returns. It’s seemingly the law of diminishing returns in action.
If we do eliminate the advertising, we would be moving to a donation support model and will be encouraging donations more regularly. Some of you have already setup monthly donations, and for that we are very grateful.
Of course both Charles and I are curious how our audience will respond so we set up these two polls to help in our strategic planning.
Thanks again for all the great support we receive, both in emails and comments, and of course for your generous financial contributions as well.
Anthony Watts, Charles Rotter
Discover more from Watts Up With That?
Subscribe to get the latest posts sent to your email.
Second post:
Before you ask for donations, how much is required for WUWT to stay afloat (report as two categories (501C3 and non-501C3)? I would probably make a one-time donation anyway.
If you are looking at 501C3 status:
Good luck!!!! 😎
For me the most annoying ads are the ones that are endlessly repeated in between every paragraph.
To make your WUWT experience even better, you can also install the ‘I don’t Care About Cookies’ extension to rid yourself of that accursed EU cookie warning. You still get the cookies, but this nifty bit of magic accepts them without you having to hit that stupid ‘accept’ button every time you come to this site, or any other site – it works for all but one site that I use. I clear my browser info every day, so I get the cookie warning every day… well, I used to….
https://www.i-dont-care-about-cookies.eu/
A couple of points on the need for ad. removal and the the donation other vote.
Ads. don’t bother me one bit. I view on a desktop PC with a modest monitor.
Donations? Hmm, I suspect that anything at the levels you are suggesting is going to substantially reduce traffic, especially those sceptical-curious who are the people one needs to draw in.
By sceptical-curious I mean knowledge-seeking default-concensus people.
I certainly would never have come here initially if there was a paywall.
Others have suggested a two tier access – free with ads or donation supported add free. That might be a suitable optimisation.
don’t confuse donation (with is entirely voluntary) with pay-to-play (a paywall). As I understand it, Anthony is suggesting a donation model not a paywall. (for those in the US or familiar with US television, think “PBS pledge drive” – PBS is mostly ad-free and you don’t have to donate to get access to PBS, however periodically PBS will “encourage” you to donate via pledge drives).
Ah, thanks John. As you were 🙂
That’s what it looks like to me, and if regular donation gets rid of the ads I’m all for it.
However, I disagree with your statement that “PBS is mostly ad-free” – if you account for the inter-show ads for their own shows and the block at the beginning and end for the sponsors, you end up with shows about the same length as regular ad-driven TV. Just not broken up in the middle.
I donate when I feel a bit richer and the markets are up.
I think donation is the way to do, then you can scrap 90% of the cookies as well
Two clicks to shut them off. Ad’s are fine.
I just set up $10 monthly contribution via Paypal.
skinflint.[me]
Ads can be inappropriate and intrusive at times but if needed for site finance so be it.
3 different demographics.
General public is very important but will not pay.
suggested rates are far too high, sorry.
Will try to get the energy up to make a donation as you do a very good job.
Thanks for coming back to it and all the effort you, Charles, Willis and the rest of the team put in.
pretty much agree with you there angech. As I mentioned elsewhere, I’m not particularly bothered by ads, so intrusiveness isn’t much of an issue. It’s the inappropriate ads that I take issue with. Not out of offense – like most healthy straight males, I don’t mind the seeing the occasional “scantily clothed young ladies” (as one poster described the ads) but rather because most places of employment are not so keen on such images appearing on their screens.
In short, if it wasn’t for the inappropriate ads, I’d be all for keeping the ads, they’re easy enough to ignore or block most of the time.
As for donations, I see nothing wrong with the suggested pre-set amounts so long as there’s also a “one-time donation” option that lets one pay any amount they want so that those who can’t or won’t do a recurring donation (be it monthly or yearly) can donate as much as they want (or can afford) whenever they want.
I have personally benefitted from discussions on WUWT in refining my understanding of the surface temperature control processes that regulate Earth’s energy balance.
That has enabled me to clearly identify the glaring failure of climate models. Specifically every model is making ridiculous hindcast cooling of the Nino34 region to match the current temperature while still maintaining a warming trend where there is no warming trend.
Beyond that, what can WUWT offer? Does WUWT have any scientific merit that policy makers should view as valuable and be paying for? Who is willing to pay for a scientific understanding of the climate rather than “modelled” predictions? Is WUWT an educational blog? What is the endgame for WUWT; how will it evolve? How can WUWT develop robust funding?
I do get some entertainment value and am willing to part with AUD100/year for that.
My only problem with the adds is when a paragraph that I have spent time composing gets wiped. I think that occurs with pop-ups but may be the result of other posts occurring while I am composing.
Your advertising revenue has fallen because your visitors are skeptics, in the best sense of the word. “Invest in Amazon: with Just $250 You Could Get an Extra Income.” Sorry, I’m skeptical. “Men: Forget the Blue pill ….” Sorry I’m skeptical. “granny remove wrinkles with $5 tip?” Still Skeptical. Your readers like this site because they get to read a lot of back ground information on an important issue. There are graphs and even formulas. That’s okay. we like to study before making big decisions. we think about our decisions and weight the evidence. Advertisers hate people like us. The only way to sell us something is to provide a well made product at a reasonable cost. That’s no way to make a fast buck.
One time annual payment at the most for me. I don’t do subscriptions and haven’t for a long long time. They are to easy to forget about and to many made it extremely difficult to cancel.
You might want to consider the model some sites do where pay for ad free experience but still allow free viewing with ads. If you go pure subscription you’ll lose the curious visitors who then get hooked on the site.
Sign up as a Brave Browser rewards creator (https://creators.brave.com/) and visitors can contribute while surfing.
Just Donated $50 by using the Donate button at top right corner of this page.
It took me just 2 minutes to do it and easy too using the Debit card.
I am currently giving 50 twice a year. I can switch to monthly if it adds up to 100.
I had to use an add blocker because the adds were slowing me down to where this site was acting like molasses on a cold day. In the past they also have tried to slip in adds that would try to get me to download and install software. Thankfully I never agreed no matter how alarming the message was.
Most of my ads are scantily clad redheads, what’s not to like ??
“No plan of operations extends with certainty beyond the first encounter with the enemy’s main strength.”
Charles, Anthony:
AUD$100 annually is OK with me (age 67)
I don’t like monthly payments
I do NOT like Paypal.
Debit card, credit card, or better still BPAY would be fine.
I believe you need to make a distinction between financial supporters – who can post comments – and the impoverished, or occasional visitors, who can read and learn but not contribute.
Well, I live in South Africa, on a rapidly diminishing (because of inflation) pension, and we’re on the wrong end of the Rand/dollar exchange rate. I intend to donate a lump whenever there is some free cash, but although I really appreciate your blog, I am unable to commit to any regular payment. Right now, after paying lump sum insurance, plus whatever will be demanded as excess after my last hospitalisation, I seem to be suffering from “Too much month at the end of the money” syndrome. Let’s see what I can do in future months, because I frequently refer to “wattsupwiththat” when local warmists demand sources for my ‘denialism’
Anthony the only ads that I don’t like on this site are the Google ads that show up in a box at the bottom of the page. These ads make it harder for me to read the article and I always X them out. But it is a pain to do so.
I’ve seen proposals to only allow “members” to comment, and some comments about “only if this type of post stops”
I fully disagree with both of those. One of the best things about WUWT is the ability for anyone to freely comment and the extremely light touch on moderating. Another great thing is the way it’s open to sharing many different positions and opinions, opening them up for discussion. Moving away from that model would, IMO, ruin the site.
I’ve also seen a proposal for something like an ad-removal pass. I would be 100% behind that and would get on. $5/month for no ads wouldn’t even be a question for me.
Lots of comments. And sifting thru them I think it comes down to voluntary contributions as the way forward. I’ve gone on record as not liking subscriptions, and some of the subscription vehicules are problematic anyway.
Over the last few years as I’ve disengaged from making a living and started paying more attention to what’s going on, I’ve stepped up my monetary support for things that effect me. Political campaigns, candidates, political pressure groups. So, where before I might sent $25 or $50, I now send $200 or $500. Because it makes a difference. I have friends of the same political ilk that send nothing. They can afford to but they are tight, I sometimes wonder if they have ever bought a round. But they talk talk talk about how crappy it all is. I suggest to them they send some money and they look at me like I just grew a third ear.
Among other causes I send WUWT money on a semi regular basis, more this year because of the platform difficulties. In the future I plan to donate at an increased level. I think it’s an important Blog, and I want it to stay healthy. I don’t care about the ads, I just ignore them. If the income from them is so marginal as to be useless I’m sure we won’t see them.
It’s time to support what you care about. I hate to call what we are going through a war, but we are in a great struggle, and it’s time for people to pick a side and do something.
If it was me and would offer multiple tiered amounts/frequency if possible, barrier free support
I voted “other” with the understanding that I could leave comment. But, the opportunity to leave a comment was not apparent in the voting procedure. Some of us are living on a fixed income. So, I would suggest you have an annual fundraising period (Like PBS) where you ask for donations to make a goal. Then even the poorest of us could make a pledge. Otherwise, I guess it the same old story of “Money talks, Poverty walks”.
That is a good idea. However, what are the legal requirements for WUWT for this? Are there any restrictions or does WUWT have to comply with being a non-profit to do so?
I’m not sure of the laws in CA since leaving, but at the federal level, even a “for-profit” business can solicit donations. It’s no different than any other source of revenue. “Non-profits” get certain tax benefits. The big deal about the 501(c)(3) is that it’s the only type of organization (or one of a very few types) that allows the donations to be deducted from taxes.
I get all that my question was more to how WUWT is structured as a business for income tax purposes. Is it a business or a personal blog?
Could be both.
I was considering sending a contribution through my Brave browser, but it appears that WUWT is not set up to receive tips at this time.
I do not see ads, but I would make up for it if I could tip. I probably won’t get around to donating otherwise.
The ads don’t annoy me as much as the format change did. I just find the new one completely less appealing, especially the font change.
I vote for solicited once a year donations, say $20. OR, for small monthly donations, say $2 to $5.
I subscribe to the idea that small amounts times very many donations will always be larger that large donations a few times/people.
I also believe that open and honest expression of need catches more fish. Tell us how much you need: to run the site; to pay your expenses; to make a profit? Lay out the business case.
I’ve helped in the past and am willing to help again.
Please keep up the good work.
The ads on this site are the most aggressive I’ve seen anywhere- especially the one that splatters itself across the bottom of the screen. I don’t mind if there are some on the side of the screen as long as they don’t flash at you.
I don’t really think it costs all that much to run a site like this but maybe I’m wrong.