Quote from Batterup:
...My contention is simply to not provide the FORUM ITSELF as the ad space...
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 sponsor...it 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...
http://www.elitetrader.com/vb/showthread.php?s=&threadid=65627
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...
http://www.elitetrader.com/vb/forumdisplay.php?s=&forumid=10
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...
http://www.hardrightedge.com
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.
Ok...so 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.
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 services...like allowing gasoline to be thrown into the fire.
Just something to think about.
Mark
