Advertising...?

[Lee DeRaud]

The only question is...Would the benefit of having a Shop Tours site share the same domain with SawMill Creek outweigh any negative impact?

Leaving aside the effects on SMC, are you allowed to run a for-profit site on a '.org' domain?

[Marty Walsh]

...

My only thought on how to make this work is to make SMC forums a non-profit organization controlled by Aaron. Aaron can then license the SMC's good name to Keith who own's and operates SMC's Shop Tours. Or change Aaron and Keith around. Either way, I cannot see a way to eliminate any potential corporate pressure other than completely seperating the two entities. In the end, it is your decision and the fact that the common user has the opportunity to voice his/her opinion on this topic and be listened to speaks volumes of the community here at SMC. So please, keep yourself and SMC protected as best you can and in that order!

Many Thanks!!

Matt,

Interesting that you bring up a non-profit organization, since it's one of the many options I'm mulling over and discussing with folks in an attempt to help Keith reap the benefits he so rightly deserves, yet keep the creek pollution/influence free.

It's certainly a tricky area, especially when there are big name (deep pocket) manufacturers/distributors involved from an advertising perspective.

I don't envy Keiths current position, since I sincerely believe he knows what he's created here for us, and I know he doesn't want to ruin it. I also know that he understands what CAN happen if advertisers have a way to exert pressure on the forum content. Our monetary contributions are worthless when compared to the value that the membership brings with their intellectual content! Loose that, and the creek is no longer!

Keith - Thanks again for allowing me to express my concerns in an open honest format. I want you to profit...I just don't want the creek to suffer. But hey, you already know that...

- Marty -

[Marty Walsh]

Leaving aside the effects on SMC, are you allowed to run a for-profit site on a '.org' domain?

Lee,

You're "allowed" to use .org for anything:

"The .org domain is operated by Public Interest Registry. It is intended to serve the noncommercial community, but all are eligible to register within .org. "

but it was "intended" for non-profits:

"ORG is the Internet home of noncommercial organizations, including nonprofit and nongovernmental organizations, philanthropies, charities, religious organizations, educational and cultural institutions, arts organizations, sports clubs, and others, who create .ORG Web sites and e-mail addresses. "

I'm not sure the distinction is that important to what we're discussing, since so many people use .org for other than its intended purpose.

- Marty -

[tod evans]

keith, i`m not against you and aaron being paid for your efforts, in fact i`m all for it! do you feel that advertising dollars are the only way you guys can be fairly compensated? i have no idea how many folks would chip in money for the new shop-tours deal or how much would be donated....but did you ever think smc would come as far as it has?

if the only way to fund the shop-tours sight is through advertising then i`d like to suggest that a very compentent attorney draw up an advertiser agreement where all advertisers agree to not manipulate the content of any threads on smc either behind the scenes or up front. and.....that they forfeit any right to sue the forum or any of its members for the content of the forum.
my major fear is that those of us whos opinions sometimes vary from the mainstream forum contributor will have posts edited or censored due to the politics involved when money changes hands. i also think that advertisers should be looked at not as cash customers but as potential threats to the forum we all have come to enjoy, i look at any advertiser as an entity that is looking to make a buck not as an entity looking to promote an honest, open exchange of information.
please give some serious thought as to how you wish to deal with these issues.......02 tod

[Marty Walsh]

keith, i`m not against you and aaron being paid for your efforts, in fact i`m all for it! do you feel that advertising dollars are the only way you guys can be fairly compensated? i have no idea how many folks would chip in money for the new shop-tours deal or how much would be donated....but did you ever think smc would come as far as it has?

if the only way to fund the shop-tours sight is through advertising then i`d like to suggest that a very compentent attorney draw up an advertiser agreement where all advertisers agree to not manipulate the content of any threads on smc either behind the scenes or up front. and.....that they forfeit any right to sue the forum or any of its members for the content of the forum.
my major fear is that those of us whos opinions sometimes vary from the mainstream forum contributor will have posts edited or censored due to the politics involved when money changes hands. i also think that advertisers should be looked at not as cash customers but as potential threats to the forum we all have come to enjoy, i look at any advertiser as an entity that is looking to make a buck not as an entity looking to promote an honest, open exchange of information.
please give some serious thought as to how you wish to deal with these issues.......02 tod

tod,

Touche'! Well said! And fantastic suggestion regarding a formal legal agreement barring any recourse against the forum or it's members by advertisers.

(Sheesh, I can't believe I'm recommending the use of an attorney!! Oops, sorry I won't go there... )

- Marty -

[Lee DeRaud]

Lee,

You're "allowed" to use .org for anything:

"The .org domain is operated by Public Interest Registry. It is intended to serve the noncommercial community, but all are eligible to register within .org. "

but it was "intended" for non-profits:

"ORG is the Internet home of noncommercial organizations, including nonprofit and nongovernmental organizations, philanthropies, charities, religious organizations, educational and cultural institutions, arts organizations, sports clubs, and others, who create .ORG Web sites and e-mail addresses. "

I'm not sure the distinction is that important to what we're discussing, since so many people use .org for other than its intended purpose.

- Marty -

Ok.

I thought using "sawmillcreek.com" for the for-profit entity would be a win-win answer...turns out there's a place in Ohio named "Sawmill Creek Resort" with that domain.

[Keith Outten]

Tod,

SawMIll Creek has already exceeded any expectations I ever had for our Forums. The success we have enjoyed based on the great people who have joined our community is just amazing and it is because of everything we have already accomplished that I feel we need to be cautious and act wisely where the Creek is concerned.

I guess in my mind I can't see where any advertiser would be able to complain about the content of our Forums if they don't advertise here, assuming our content is perfectly legal. I should remind eveyone that it is illegal to publicly post information that is false or damaging, you have the right to tell the truth and you should be able to back it up with facts and evidence to support your position. SawMill Creek isn't liable for anything your post, we are expected to remove any message we know isn't legal and we are bound to remove anything that is reported to be in violation of the law. If we were held specifically liable for every word you post there wouldn't be any public forums.

I also understand business to a certain extent and if one advertiser removes their support and their competitors don't they are just shooting themselves in the foot in many cases.

[Bart Leetch]

Will the Shop Tours site sharing the same domain with SawMill Creek effect our tax free status? If so I'd have to say no.

Because as I understand it if it does effect our tax free status we would have to pay taxes on every dollar contributed to run Sawmill Creek.

[Jim O'Dell]

snip
My only thought on how to make this work is to make SMC forums a non-profit organization controlled by Aaron. Aaron can then license the SMC's good name to Keith who own's and operates SMC's Shop Tours. Or change Aaron and Keith around. Either way, I cannot see a way to eliminate any potential corporate pressure other than completely seperating the two entities. In the end, it is your decision and the fact that the common user has the opportunity to voice his/her opinion on this topic and be listened to speaks volumes of the community here at SMC. So please, keep yourself and SMC protected as best you can and in that order!

Many Thanks!!

so, Matt. Is what you are suggesting sort of a franchise situation? The franchise capitalizes on the name of the parent business, but is separate and soley responsible for it's OWN product? That is an interesting thought, and could be incorporated into the TOS of each site. People joining each site should have to read and "sign" the TOS, and therefore would know that each is a separate "entity". I don't even know if the "owners" of each site would have to be different people.

Or would the franchise connotation make SMC a for profit company? and therefore negate the status it holds now, whether any funds were paid by shop tours to SMC or not??

Keith, that is something you should look at with your lawyer, and you may have already. Can the two be tied together, but keep the not-for-profit status of SMC? I know you will do everything required to assure SMC stays advertiser free. I personally don't see a problem with a separate site doing the shop tours as I'm sure you will separate the two in wording the TOS for each. I understand the "fears" from the others. And maybe I'm a little too naive, or just haven't run into similar problems in the past, but I don't see a problem looming.

A lot of us have been asking for a shop tour forum. You have listened and are trying to do that. Thank you! Jim.

[Dan Lyman]

While I don't post as often as a lot of you, I am reading the forums every day. I have contributed and will continue to do so in the future.

My take on internet forums is that they are commercial endeavors, or they eventually die off. They can die off due to lack of funding (yes I know the members here are generous), they can die off for lack of interest (not an issue here), and they can die off because the folks running them get burned out putting in all the time, effort, money, stress and worry even though it may be a passion in their lives. It can just become too much (they all have real lives and jobs after all) and if I'm not mistaken, we almost went down this road recently on SMC.

So, I say Keith should do whatever he feels is best for SMC and for us. I have no doubt the new site will be great and something all of us can enjoy. Plus, if a revenue stream can help eliminate the stress and worry about how to get the money to keep the site open, and not being totally dependant on donations, which are rather sporadic, then go for it.

Honestly, I would rather go with Keith's proposal than risk losing SMC altogether at some point down the road. Believe it or not, it could happen.

Would any of us be willing to run the site with all the headaches and worries associated with it? Would any of us be willing to put in all the extra time to keep this going? I sure as heck wouldn't be able to. So if the guys that are doing all this have an idea to make things easier and to offer something cool in a new site, and they promised not to let it interfere with the current enviornment at SMC, seems to me we should support them.

Dan

[tod evans]

I guess in my mind I can't see where any advertiser would be able to complain about the content of our Forums if they don't advertise here, assuming our content is perfectly legal. .

keith,
we both know that legal action has been threatened in the past. and it`s my opinion that if advertising is the only way you and aaron can be rewarded for your efforts that those who advertise understand that not everybody views their products in the same light. so by having advertisers sign a release or agreement it would serve to protect the integrity of the forum......hopefully the agreement would never be brought to bear but given the track record of companys threatening suit over folks opinions and the subsquicent editing of posts regarding this particular vendor i believe it would be wise of you to consider instituting just such an agreement should you find it necessary to accept advertising in the shop-tours section......02 tod

[Jim Becker]

Speaking as an individual, I am fully in favor of what Keith is thinking about and don't have any of the worries that are being expressed. I have full faith that Keith and Aaron have the best interests of both SMC and any future ventures in mind at all times. Keith has already demonstrated that to me by taking the personal risks he has in order to insure that SMC stays non-commercial on his watch.

[Matt Warfield]

so, Matt. Is what you are suggesting sort of a franchise situation? The franchise capitalizes on the name of the parent business, but is separate and soley responsible for it's OWN product? That is an interesting thought, and could be incorporated into the TOS of each site. People joining each site should have to read and "sign" the TOS, and therefore would know that each is a separate "entity". I don't even know if the "owners" of each site would have to be different people.

Or would the franchise connotation make SMC a for profit company? and therefore negate the status it holds now, whether any funds were paid by shop tours to SMC or not??

Jim, I honestly hadn't thought it out in real fine detail but this is the only scenario in mind which didn't get the immediate reject vote. I wasn't really thinking along the lines of a francise. I'm aware of a few companies in my area that have mistakenly used a protected business name and resolved it by licensing the right to use that name. This wouldn't fall under the franchise laws that I'm aware. The non-profit status would only be jeopardized if the fees were exhorbitant. I was thinking along the lines of $1000.00/yr or merchandise for free stuff giveaways. That's more of a question for a well versed lawyer than myself.

[Frank Pellow]

With all due respect Ken, are you reading the same thread as I am?

...

- Marty -

My thought exactly Marty. Ken, I think you are off base to say that anyone has either said or implied anything negative about Keith in this thread.

[Steve Wargo]

There is no forum on the internet I frequent more than SMC. The group we've assembled here is certainly the cream of the crop. So much knowledge from so many individuals here, and we've got more guys that build, and not just talk about it, than anywhere online. The job that our moderators and operators do is simply top notch. With that said, I'm not sure what I'd do if the creek ran dry. If Keith feels it's necessary to ad google ads to a seperate website then I fully support him. Heck, if he needed to add them to this site, I'd still support him. I'd click through, order from them and help out any way I can. But... I'd really like them to not show up on this forum. We've got a special place here, and there is no reason that the owner shouldn't prosper a little from his years of hard work. Thanks for all of your hard work and keep at it, regardless of the means.