Advertising in forum posts

Discussion in 'Feedback' started by Batterup, Apr 15, 2006.

  1. Baron says money comes first. Give the guy a break is his claim. Well how about some disclaimers on the advertisment. Is it not common courtesy to forewarn members, is it not even required? If i was banned from this site today it would not hurt me in the least. Actually if i saw this site to be in fact not much more than a place for silly claims and allowed to continue, i would in fact leave. I come to these forums, chats to converse with traders ans exchange ideas, tactics etc.

    IF i wanted advertisements i have CNBC and plenty of magazines at Borders, Barnes etc.
  2. Here is noise traders attempt to deflect honest and worthy criticism about his claims.

    "There is always (in forums like this) an element of skepticism fueled largely by envy, jealously and disbelief that someone has found success in something as hard as trading. So be it."
  3. Without advertisements, I don't think Baron would spend 1-minute
    of his time putting this website on the Internet...

    The reason this site is *free* is because of advertisement revenue...

    Without the ads, this site (and others like it) are gone...

    It's a no-brainer.
  4. version77

    You miss the point. We all know the value of advertisements, thats the no-brainer part.

    What is misconstrued about the advertisers is not that they advertise with banner ads, places within the website etc, but that they use the content space as ad space.

    Advertisers will place ads where the viewers, users etc frequent, such as you watching your favorite TV show. Right?

    Keep the programing seperate from the ads, let the traders in the forums provide the content (programming), if the advertisers like that forum then send in the check for space etc. My contention is simply to not provide the FORUM ITSELF as the ad space. When that happens it distracts from the valve of the web site in general. Would a bunch of traders continue to frequent a webbie if the ads and content were commingled to such a point where they would be unworthy?

    PS...Last weeks WSJ: artical about big advertisers complaining to big media that as cable, networks etc use more and more programming time for ads instead of programming the VALUE of the ads are losing value. That is very true, we get so many it is natural to ignore them entirely. myself i watch TV with 2 sets on and mute button ready in a flash. It is very insulting to allow some ad content into my living space. Like i want to sit there and listen about some chicks pimple problems, see toe jam stuff, someone with diarrhea runs.
  5. But no one is forcing anyone to read these posts from sponsors.
    As soon as you open a post like this one it is easy to see it is from
    a sponsor. It says the poster is a sponsor right below the posters

    If one decides he does not want to read a post from a sponsor,
    then they should go elsewhere on ET. Or if they want to participate
    in the thread, then they should have the option to do that if wanted.

    Jumping all over the sponser because they have started a thread
    and calling them spammers, junk artists or whatever is kind of
    disgusting to read IMHO...

    The Times International thread was a prime example of how a
    thread by a sponsor can be literally destroyed by those here at
    ET because a so-called spammer or whatever opened a thread.
    No one was forced to read that thread... It was like Pitbulls attacking...

    I have the feeling this one is heading in the same direction.

    Hope not. For ET's sake...
  6. Cheese


    Agree 100%.
  7. You'd be surprised (or perhaps not so much) the lengths some personalities on this forum have gone in developing their online handles for the ultimate sake of selling something.
  8. Best sentence in all this debate about sponsors.

    However, here's reality...

    ET members themselves will often talk about a sponsor without the sponsor starting any threads.

    For example, the infamous +100 page thread about Traders International (that's now deleted) was not started by the was started by an ET member with legitimate questions about the sponsor.

    Yet, I also realize your talking about that sponsors shouldn't be allowed to engage in threads at all...

    Not one sentence...not one word.

    In addition, if anybody has been following the TI or Franz threads closely...

    When the sponsor does not engage in the discussion...the thread does not develop into +100 pages of debates, legitimate questions, members attacking members, personal attacks, bashing nor cult like support of the sponsor.

    Simply, threads about sponsors that sponsor themselves do not participate within...may reach a +10 page level and then quietly disappear among the inactive threads.

    (Hint to all future sponsors: If you don't want to see the ugly side of ET...just send Baron your banner ads but don't engage in any conversation in the forum itself...seriously.)

    Lets take the above one step further...take a closer look at other sponsors at ET.

    Interactive Brokers, eSignal, Thinkorswim et cetera.

    That means they shouldn't be allowed to participate in discussions that contain legitimate questions about their services and such would eliminate their ability to reply directly to complaints by their clients.

    I'm sure there's a group of traders on the other side of this discussion that would argue not having the ability to talk openly and candidly with sponsors would make it very difficult for them to evaluate, get answers to just about anything.

    Simply, this wouldn't fly to well with them.

    For example...

    The above link is a thread started by a sponsor.

    If you and I had it our way...that thread would not exist.

    What are solutions???

    We already have a sponsor thread just for sponsors to make announcements about their products.

    In fact, I don't think regular ET members have the ability to post in that thread unless the member is a sponsor...

    At the same time...I think it would be unfair to be prejudice and allow some sponsors the ability to engage in conversation with members while not allowing other sponsors the same priviledge especially if Baron is charging them the same fee.

    Such may put Baron and ET out of business.

    Now...before someone chimes in a saids eSignal isn't making any promises like a signal caller does.

    eSignal itself has sponsors or advertisers that makes promises such at this line...

    ...A Simply Approach to Futures that makes Dollars and Sense!...

    Yep, there's others at eSignal that I don't have time to mention.

    Therefore, no matter if its software company, broker, signal caller, blackbox indicator system seller, alert service, mentors, newsletter et cetera...

    All are sponsored, affiliated or partner with someone making questionable claims, making promises, questionable advertising tactics and so on.

    Once again...what's the solution that allows us to be happy while not taking away from Baron's ability to continue making a living from his forum???

    Since we are talking about sponsors or advertisers...why stop with the obvious.

    What about all the free blogs being freely discussed by vendor bashers themselves?

    You click on the blog links and you see lots and lots of advertisments by the same people the vendor bashers don't like along with the fact many of these free blogs are financially compensated when we click on those advertisement links.

    Some of them like Trader Mike blog...sell advertisement space and makes darn good income via such all under the facade its a free blog.

    What about all the free websites that we ET members gladly post links to in our discussions that are non-sponsors?

    These are free sites that are actually financially compensated if we click on the banner ads or ad links at their sites via their sponsors, affiliates and partners.

    Shouldn't we be asking them to do the same thing we are asking Baron to do in the other threads about not accepting advertising dollars from questionable sponsors??

    For example...

    My posting of the link above that's been posted many times before by other ET members here is taking away income from Baron because I'm highlighting a non-sponsor although its free but in reality they are generating income via their associations especially when I click on the links of their associations. the above isn't really part of this topic of not allowing advertising by the sponsors among the member discussions in the forum itself.

    I just thought I would sneak it in.

    :D :D :D

    Maybe the answer is Baron himself.

    What ever is decided...I'm sure Baron would adopt it as long as it doesn't cause him any financial problems (loss income via scarying away sponsors).

    There's no easy answer, no one way that will make Baron happy and all his forum members happy.

    Before I leave this thread...there is one thing that's been bugging me.

    I've seen on a few occassions where there's a heated discussion about a non-sponsor and then within a week or so...

    That non-sponsor becomes a sponsor.

    Example...anyone remember TraderBrad and Samson77 debates???

    Maybe in these particular situations Baron shouldn't accept advertising dollars from those (like TraderBrad) where there's a current existing legitimate concern by an active member (like Samson77).

    Things got really ugly when TraderBrad started participating in the thread in his efforts to defend his allowing gasoline to be thrown into the fire.

    Just something to think about.

  9. ktm


    Some of the attacks have been initiated when sponsors start threads or post and make claims or push their products. Granted, some "attacks" have been over the line, rather than just questioning the sponsor in a civil way or investigating further to obtain proof - and Baron has rightfully stepped in.

    If you look at IB threads, their folks are here with the attitude that they are around of their own free will to answer questions or set the record straight when it is necessary to do so. They don't push their products, but they will generally answer questions. Although they encourage everyone to use the website and other traditional means of gathering info, they generally try to provide insight and information into certian policies and decisions when appropriate.

    We would probably see less animosity if the sponsors took a more sedate approach to being here. I see nothing wrong with them chiming on existing threads to answer questions about their product or add to a conversation in an objective way about a competing product. I think most sponsors and employees of sponsors are identified as such under the handle, so it should be easy to see any recognized affiliation.
  10. EliteTrader remains the # 1 traders site on the internet for a long time.

    There is, in fact, a method to their madness.

    As guests we have experienced the most internal changes over the last few years, than we have seen in a long time. New Forums..PM choices ...awesome ignore functions....editing time duration change....etc...other little things...ALSO BARRONS wrote about ET. Thats right, a real journalistic article, not a funky ad hybrid.

    It seems that Baron is actively managing again and he is making a lot of good decisions. I HOPE HE MAKES MILLIONS.


    and get this...we do not have DDos attacks, and server downtime. Virus's are removed IMMEDIATELY...

    Thank you Mr. Robertson and keep things just the way they are...its working! If there were "Stars" on Wall Street or a traders "Hall of Fame"..Baron Robertson would be there....look at his contribution to Traders. !!!

    Any real serious Trader who wants to be a part of the Trading industry as a trader or any serious sponsor who wants to offer goods and services to Traders....there is no finer place for you to come. ET is the place. Baron I hope you charge premium $'s for the space.

    As a guest here I try to patronize and support those sponsors when I can.
    #10     Jul 30, 2006