Steve Miller 09 Oct 2006

Only 700 paying members? wow! Maybe give some priority to the first page images to the paying members? That might increase subscriptions...

*steve

Linda Eades Blackburn 10 Oct 2006

If you only have 700 paying members, it seems that too many people re just using this site as a gateway to their main web site. A small increase for paying members would be fine, but then limit non paying to One image, retroactive and let them choose the images they will keep. I don't care to pay for them to show their work. If an account has been inactive for a year, no new uploads, email the member and if you don't get any responce within a reasonable time, delete the free account. Some people just list with a site so they will show up on google. No images after 3-6 months, delete account. They can always reapply when they have something to upload. You could have a seperate category for those who just want to use the boards, maybe a patron account.

So maybe like this

Patron account -free or donation- no portfolio

Novice- free or donation- 1 image per month

Student-$19 a year - up to 6 images a month

Artist- $44-$49 a year- unlimited uploads

This way you can get rid of many images that are cloging up the system. By that I mean a lot of people who have dumped work or snaps here and moved on. People not actively using this site. Those portfolios need to go.Paying members should not have to pay more so non paying members can continue to upload images.

Patrick, I do understand your point, but I still believe that AW has a right to decide what they want to do with their site. We do not have a right to impose our will on them. That's what freedom is. We all have it, inclucing AW. Their site, their rules. I love to paint nudes too, but it is simply their choice.

10 Oct 2006

DebraAnn Kasimakis 10 Oct 2006

Hmmm...I think...if I was actually "selling" artwork...from this site...I would definitely pay. Otherwise it is a hobby....mmm, don't like to pay for fun.

Selling is the key for me. Even if it was just an art card or 2........

Terry Bassett 10 Oct 2006

Linda.....

"By that I mean a lot of people who have dumped work or snaps here and moved on. People not actively using this site. Those portfolios need to go.Paying members should not have to pay more so non paying members can continue to upload images. "

I couldn't agree more..

You also have to wonder about the 10,000 accounts with _empty portfolios_..???

Anne Vis 10 Oct 2006

Thank you, appreciate your efforts!

Mike Finley 10 Oct 2006

raising the fees is likely to lead to some people leaving, reducing the agin in income. If 95% are 'feeeloaders', then making the free service less attractive, and making the changes retrospective with a couple of months notice should either convert some to payers or reduce the storage burden. I'd suggest leaving the 3 images per month, but limiting the membership to three months. Thats long enough to get an idea of whether the service is valuable to you. The current rates aren't high.

and yes, I'm currectly a freeloader.

Marty Yokawonis 10 Oct 2006

wow there's only 700 payers? that's only 20,993.00 a year. approximately. Art societies where you have to compete to get your work shown even once a year charge about the same. So It's about 30.00 a year to maybe if you're lucky get into one show a year or show your work 24/7 365 days a year. hmmm...... have to think about this....is it worth it???? gee there's freeloaders on this site.....maybe I should just stay at artnet or absolutearts where all I get is a few uploads for free or maybe just put everything on photobucket. and hope somebody stumbles across it by chance.

maybe we should dump 10,000 people because they opened up a free page that AW invited them to do to "join" the site. yeah why should anybody get invited here for free. Why not a big fat sign that says you don't belong here. of course the webcrawlers respond better to sites that have lots of pages and get lots of hits but that's besides the point.......

c'mon P. This is a pretty good environment overall. I've met and talked with people from all over the country even from around the world. I've had my work viewed by people from the other side of the planet. And it only costs me about the same as a magazine subscription annualy.

quit griping.

DebraAnn Kasimakis 10 Oct 2006

Still wanna sell stuff..................

Linda Eades Blackburn 10 Oct 2006

Exactly Debra Ann, and if the dead weight is gone, and potential buyres don't have so much to wade through, your chances of selling will be MUCH better.

10 Oct 2006

Sheila Chambers 10 Oct 2006

Yep Linda way more room for those involved ,totally agree ! My piggy bank is starving too, gotta spend money to make money ....

joan warburton 10 Oct 2006

Another issue to address is the number of uploads. Sites that charge double the yearly fee of AW also limit the number of uploads.

The paying members are paying for the bandwidth of the free members and the paying members that have 1,000, 2,000 and 3,000+ images in their portfolios.

I think there should be a limit- 1500 or so and the people who want to upload more can purchase a second portfolio.

I think there should be a limit.

Gayla Drummond 10 Oct 2006

Hmm...I just checked the first 20 listed artists whose names start with the letter A.

OUt of those 20, 13 of them haven't uploaded anything since 4/25/1999 to 7/29/2005.

Total of 87 images in their 'non-active' portfolios. Roughly 6MB of space, just images...no idea how much space an account itself takes up in the database/server.

A tiny sample, of course, but that's 65% non-active 'dead weight' being carried.

Of the other 7, 2-3 haven't uploaded anything in the past 6 months.

Just food for thought. =)

Gayla Drummond 11 Oct 2006

Mmm, make that 178 peeped at, and 100 without a single upload this year.

Saw about 8 or 10 premium members in that 178.

I seriously think the 'dead weight' needs to be deleted. I don't want to be paying for people who can't even be bothered to upload new art or participate in any other way. =(

Sarah-Lynn Brown 11 Oct 2006

It all comes down to allocation of resources. Those who pay should get the most resources.

It seems like the original intent of the Free membership was to let a person join and see how nice the site was and then join up.... Like a sample. If you like the product then you can buy it.

I work at a retail store and I really dislike the cheap customers that want to hit me up for free samples or product info and only buy a drink or a tea. (people actually come in take all our "free" literature, ask me a ton of questions and then head over to Walmart to buy) I was told by my boss to make no effort on the "parasite customers" as she calls them. My best customers come in and drop $100-$300 at a time on supplements and vitamins and never ask for a sample. Samples cost money, to us or the company, nothing is REALLY free.

I had to tell this lady "no" when she would come in and keep asking for a sample of a fish oil over and over again and I told her the retail price and that I had plenty on the shelf... she was steadfast that she wanted the sample. I told her a sample is to try once... pissed her off. Though I really don't care I spend more in a day on drinks and snacks than she does on a box of tea. Because of her and others like her I don't have samples of many products for customers that really want to try the product before buying a box. If 95% of the customers were that way we would have no store.

Seems like common sense to me, if you've tried it, like it then you can pay to have it. If not go somewhere else to get the freebie. The fact remains that the site isn't making any money on free accounts so who really cares if sanctions like limits and caps piss them off. Gotta be a taxpayer to have a voice.

I agree about a trial period. And if that cuts down on the number of members...great! A small effeciant site that makes money is better than one that has everyone on it and losses money. Cut the fat... one person can't keep another 19 going.

Lee Wilde 11 Oct 2006

Has the idea of incorporating auction software been considered?

Increase premium membership and only premium members can list items for auction. With store owners leaving eBay in droves, there is an opportunity here.

The only thing is (I have managed large websites also)...a sudden increase in traffic would present a whole other set of issues. I don't envy your predicament.

Roy Boobyer 11 Oct 2006

Thanks AW for the prompt response. All things considered AW gives a fine service.It would be unfortunate if it were to be curtailed in any way due to lack of funds.Personally I would not be averse to a small hike in premium fee.Many good ideas to reduce costs have been suggested here.Any thing that might discourage new members should of course be avoided but I agree that dormant sites should be dumpted.Perhaps after the artist has been given a chance to put a case. Maybe a time limit to asess the site on a free basis has some merit too

Lee Wilde 11 Oct 2006

Another idea (yeah, I'm full of it)...

Look into the feasibility of selling art supplies. Hell, we all have to buy stuff...why not from here?

Linda Eades Blackburn 11 Oct 2006

I personally don't mind a small rate increase, but it would be insulting to have a rate increase for paid members and not do something about the "Dead" accounts as well as the "Free" accounts. I will not pay extra so they can have a free account.