Forum
Comments:
-
- on Fri 29 Aug 2008
- 07:09:20 PM UTC
Making money
Wehaveitall, your analysis is correct, we are not making any money now. But as we all know, there is no free lunch. So in the long run we need to implement some business models that let us support ourselves and keep on providing this free service to WOT users. We have two ideas: putting some ads on the website and partnering with the traditional security companies who have anti-virus products but no safe surfing tools. What do ya think? If you were in our shoes what would you do?
-
- on Sat 21 Mar 2009
- 05:07:18 AM UTC
Making money WOT
I think either is a great idea. I can say that if I would have seen a PayPal donation button yelling at me I would have used it a few times.
-
- on Tue 31 Mar 2009
- 03:12:43 AM UTC
A perfect word
LOL! I almost ROFL on reading your word for "yelling"......perfectly on the nail. Yes....it's yelling for money....LOL!
Michael
simurl.com/michael -
- on Fri 29 Aug 2008
- 08:08:17 PM UTC
Re: advertising.
How about a separate section / tab for paid ads? Home - Demo - ... Support - Sponsors
My suggestion - suppose WOT users are invited to recommend and vote for products they have tried and liked. These could be products of all kinds. The top recommended (i.e. trusted) brands would be invited to place paid advertisments on a special shopper's section.
Alternatively, if suppliers wish to place advertisments on WOT pages, a RFC (request for comments) could be posted asking the WOT community for approval.
Any reputable company should be only too pleased to be able to place an advert on WOT by community consensus - the mere ability to place such an advert as a trusted supplier would enhance their reputation.
Further, the community could vote for the adverts, and the top rated advertiser of the week or month would be invited to place a discreet advert on the home page.
My 2 cents. Comments, anyone?
Stay safe! :-)
-
- on Fri 29 Aug 2008
- 08:27:08 PM UTC
Lots of things
Well, I can think of quite a few ways for a popular site like yours that offers freeware and helps people
1. Donations-I'm sure many people would love to donate to help keep wot running.
2. Conduit- If you make a toolbar using conduit and get enough users, you get paid, because of the ads on the search results that conduit gets paid for.
3. Other website-Ads really don't fit anywhere on THIS website that I can think of. Perhaps make another basic site with entertainment, or articles and have some ads there. Link to the site on this site.
4. Sell @mywot.com emails-you should be able to obtain @mywot.com emails. You can sell these to people.
5. gift shop-wot hats, shirts, etc. This is how firefox makes money.
6.Wot exclusive fan pack-a bunch of downloads you can buy that could consist of wot screensavers, pictures, an add-on allowing you to see exactly how much your sole rating counts and how much more it counts as you rate more sites, a wot e-card maybe, and more.Partnering with traditional security companies, like you said, will work as well.
-
- on Sat 30 Aug 2008
- 07:23:20 PM UTC
Supporting WOT
You make good points, Logicman and Wehaveitall. We want to find a good balanced setup that enables WOT to support itself while letting the user community to enjoy the service.
Advertising is only one component in the business logic of Web 2.0 initiatives like WOT, but it still seems to be the most important one. Personally I dislike websites that are loaded with ads, especially such that disturb or interrupt my reading or require some action from me, like clicking on "skip this ad". So we definitely are not going to take that route.
I like the tiny Google text ads that don't catch your eye, especially when there are not too many of those. What makes Google ads popular is that Google Adsense selects automatically ads that match the page content, making advertising possible even for websites that couldn't afford a full time person to manage it. What we would like to do on the WOT website is to filter the ads based on their WOT rating - a function that isn't part of the standard Google functionality, but we will try to find a solution to it. At least we can block named companies and show the WOT rating icon next to the ad.
Affiliate advertising lets you select advertisers one by one, making it easier to control whose adds you will shown on your pages. This suits the WOT philosophy better. Since our topic is security, WOT would make a good platform for various security products: anti-virus, anti-spyware, firewall etc. I like the idea combining advertising with WOT users feedback on these products - this would turn plain advertising into crowd sourced product recommendation. We need to remember that ads as such don't create revenue - they need to drive some real sales to be profitable in the long run.
-
- on Fri 26 Sep 2008
- 11:11:38 PM UTC
On a security site? I don't know..
I don't know about putting ads on this website. Since it is all about security, it makes it look bad, Perhaps making a seperate site if you want ads, or you could have items with wot printed on them for sale like firefox. The wot exclusive fan pack might be a good idea too. And having an option to donate should be available.
Wot rocks
-
- on Sat 27 Sep 2008
- 12:23:53 AM UTC
Just a note .....
From experience, I can tell you that donations isn't gonna work ;o) Most site ops will tell you (myself included), unless your users are extremely generous (excluding those that would like to be generous but can't afford to be), you'll be lucky to have a handful of donations in a year.
With respect to the "Lots of things" post above, 2 = major no-no (conduit = spyware), 3 = unviable, 4 = unviable (unless they're gonna offer something no other e-mail provider is doing), 6 = unviable. IMHO, 5 is the only option I'd personally suggest, and thats gonna bring you back to the problem with donations - some would like to, but can't afford it, and most simply won't pay for a free product.
A much better option, would be a commercial version of WOT that provides the same as the free version provides now, along with a couple extra features (in much the same way as SiteAdvisor and SiteHound do).
Regards
Steven Burn
Ur I.T. Mate Group / hpHosts
it-mate.co.uk / hosts-file.net -
- on Sat 21 Mar 2009
- 06:21:44 AM UTC
WOT Pro
I know I've been the main advocate of donating before, however, I originally thought WOT was asking about ways to make money if they were to keep the add-on free. But really, charging would make things run more smoothly.
You really have to step in WOT's shoes. As many people who have said they would donate (including myself), how many of them are actually going to donate? How much will they donate? And even if they do, how many will donate. As much as people use WOT, people often don't get to donating, partly because they don't feel it's necessary. Offering a pro version of WOT just makes people reminded of why they should pay, and makes it feel a little bit more of a necessity. Plus, a donations are usually very small. Will some five or ten dollar donations really cover the costs of WOT? No. But if lots of people buy a pro version for more like twenty dollars, then maybe it will.
Bottom line:Unless we're able to mimic Wikipedia's way of insisting that you donate, WOT should offer a pro version.
But, if donating ever DOES become available
We rate the websites, the WOT staff creates, and advertises the add-on, and together, we make it all happen. -
- on Thu 29 Jan 2009
- 04:17:38 AM UTC
bump
sorry to bring up an old post, I just discovered this.
Small idea...
Ratings condensed versus expanded.
A free WOT would offer the security as it does now against malicious sites.
this free WOT would have a simple ratings category set where users may cast their votes and include their comments - as is now.A "pro" or "commercial" version of WOT that offers more [expanded] ratings and with that more warnings.for these sites. The user can vote/rate sites and make comments as well. However, the "Pro" WOT vote has a sllightly "higher weight" for the rating and the "Pro user" comments rank above in list from us "freebie users."
This may be controversial, but as an example I'll use adult web sites.
Lets look at Playboy's scorecard
It's rated green for all categories except child safety., that one's red.
As a free WOT user playboy.com opens for me just fine.
As a "Pro WOT" user WOT could display a warning page on that site and hide the "white list" and the "go to site" links.
So... Say I have a family PC and I have a child with their own Windows user login.
I install WOT onto that child's browser and restrict sites where Child Safety falls below "green" That child now is protected from maliscious sites and is also restricted from adult content.just a thought...
-
- on Thu 29 Jan 2009
- 05:52:05 AM UTC
I don't think this is a good
I don't think this is a good idea. I've made very bad experiences with sites operating like that, and security should be available for everyone.
Remember that making the vote count more if someone pays, this is not only un-democratic but could also easily be abused by scammers. They could buy themselves a good rating, and according to the WOT FAQ this is will never be the case.
So I think that there are ways to get money with less risk. I think Esa's suggestion, working together with antivirus companies, is a very good option because the user would not get any disadvantages such as popups or prices to pay, but on the other hand internet safety would even be improved much more by WOT since antivirus programs would be much more quickly informed of new threats.
-
- on Thu 29 Jan 2009
- 10:58:50 AM UTC
security should be available for everyone
Security wouldn't change between my idea of "free" versus "pro"
Just that "pro" would have more features.Now for the idea of security software being free.
Show me one link - not a startup site / software - that offers *only* a free version.
Some security software vendors offer free software, but is is limited in it's scope and operability. Why should WOT be any different?Do you realize how much it costs to operate the bandwidth required by WOT?
The cost for a dedicated server?
The hours spent on programming, tweaking, and improving?We're fortunate to get what we have now, for nothing.
Some have suggested that WOT advertise in magazines or other forms of "pay for space" media. Imagine how much WOT would have to cost if that were being done. -
- on Thu 29 Jan 2009
- 03:08:20 PM UTC
more means more
Maybe I din't phrase the intended thought correctly, it makes sense to me but to put it in other words...
If a Pro version had more ratings (extended categories) from the free version, then it only makes sense that the Pro version would have more "voting power"
If free has 4 categories - as it does now - it gets 4 "votes".
if a Pro version had 6 or 8 categories, then it gets 6 or 8 "votes"So yeah... Pro would get more voting power.
-
- on Thu 29 Jan 2009
- 02:47:33 PM UTC
Pro counting more?
I don't think so. If paying is all you need to have a high weight over other ratings, then everything in the system would be ruined. A pro version is certainly possible, but having the pro users make more of a difference by default should not be on the top of their features list.
I really think that WOT should be completely free, and pro features shouldn't be offered...
There are plenty of other ways to make money, as I mentioned in an earlier post.If you've also read my recent post on making a corporate version of WOT, you could sell that version-not the free version. That is what most security companies make most of their money from, is corporations. (see this post http://www.mywot.com/en/forum/1899-wot-in-a-corpor...
In addition to the corporate version, you could also incorporate Firefox's shop idea.
Or you could allow donations.
And if you want to team up with security companies, consider Avira :)
A big thank you to all the WOT staff
-
- on Thu 29 Jan 2009
- 04:09:05 PM UTC
I did read it, just didn't reply
*** If you've also read my recent post on making a corporate version of WOT
Aight, first of all Firefox does not have an Enterpriseversion out yet, and by looking at the Firefox3/Product Requirements Document the :
* OSPI-001a
Build system should create a MSI/MSP bundle (Windows only)
* OSPI-003a
Allow IT administrators to create group profile policies via the Windows Group Policy Object (GPO)
both have been CUT.So I wouldn't expect an official Firefox Enterprise edition out soon.
Now for WOT.
WOT is a browser add-on / extension.
Network Administrators control browser installations and any extensions that they decide are OK. It is not up to WOT as to how it is installed, or if in fact it is installed at all. As an extension to the browser, it is up to the browser as to what options are given to their extensions for use by the Administrator.WOT does not want to go Enterprise and then have to worry about various network configurations and the extended support they would have to offer these configurations. Keep it simple and have less headaches.
*** most security companies make most of their money from, is corporations
I disagree.
Corporations have their own IT dept. and with that their own chief security officer / technician.
There is a vast customer base out there made up of home users and small businesses having from 1 to 5 computers on a simple network that purchase anti virus software, etc.
100,000 customers at 40 bucks per year is more income than 100 customers having 1000(+) users at 5,000 bucks per year. -
- on Thu 29 Jan 2009
- 08:23:32 AM UTC
Not a good idea
I totaly agree with FlyAqua,if you have free and pro version and differences in what they get as a service.The ones with the free version may be less inclined to work for WOT,rating sites etc.I do what I do for WOT because I like there democratic approach and also I feel like I am giving something back.Would I feel the same way if I was paying?Esa,s suggestion sounds about right to me.Working with anti virus companies feels right as in a way we are on the same side.
-
- on Thu 29 Jan 2009
- 11:48:37 AM UTC
Pro Ughhh...
If you guys release a pro version im quitting wot
-
- on Thu 29 Jan 2009
- 12:52:32 PM UTC
Re: Pro Ughhh...
So, what's your plan for paying the bills then if selling more features is out of the question?
-
- on Thu 29 Jan 2009
- 12:02:46 PM UTC
Pro Ughhhh
I would not worry Greenaces.WOT has never indicated it would go down this route and I personaly do not think it ever will.
-
- on Sat 31 Jan 2009
- 09:11:46 AM UTC
Pro Ughhhh
i think ads would be a better solution its just that if wot had a pro version it would lose one thing that made it so much better than site advisor, being free i think ads would be a good solution
-
- on Thu 29 Jan 2009
- 03:34:47 PM UTC
Making Money
I think advertising should not be a problem.like you at WOT say you have to pay the bills.But why not either use the right side of this page wich is empty to advertise or have a seperate page with advertisers on it under something like WOT approved sites.At least then the people who want to respond to advertisements will know they are safe and not scammers.WOT could even have direct links to advertisers.I am sure WOT approved would appeal to many that want to advertise.Especially with the growth in numbers.Bleeping computers has a good approach to advertising.If you are not logged in or not a member you see loads of adverts but as soon as you log in as a member you dont see so many adds.Thats my 2 cents worth anyway.
-
- on Thu 29 Jan 2009
- 04:43:41 PM UTC
Security != Google Ads
*** But why not either use the right side of this page wich is empty to advertise
Symantic
CA
AVG
Zone Alarm
LavaSoftenough links...
What do all these sites have in common?
They all offer computer security products
None contain click-through advertising, Google Adsense or other third-party software.
They do contain references to products they offer.
They are business in competition with one another.
They would die if they depended upon donations (charity), selling t-shirts or mugs (BTW cafepress makes most *all* the revenue - my old gaming clan checked into them 'bout 7 years ago)*** have a seperate page with advertisers on it under something like WOT approved sites
Let me see...
WOT approved sites categorized by "type" or "product" or some other mechanism for grouping in a similar way...
So let's say AVG paid for advertising for their products and above their ad all the other links I posted above are display as "WOT Approved"
Why would AVG want to pay to advertise CA or ZA?So let's say there's no grouping what-so-ever - use random instead.
We'll have CBN (the 700 Club) pay for advertising and above them are "WOT Approved" Playboy links...
See what kind of trouble that could cause?
WOT click-through advertising just died before it started.A Donations button?
OK, say 1% offer a min. 10 dollar donation.
well say 100 thousand WOT users and 1 thousand of them donate 10 bucks,
10,000 dollars sounds like a lot. but the user feels that for their donatin they should get a lifetime of upgrades. LOL so lets say 1 dedicated server operating cost - initial hardware, hardware upgrades, a fiber-optics line for required bandwidth, housing, electricity costs, maintenance time, and it takes people to set these things up and keep them going... so everyone is at minimum wage...
10,000 dollars might cover 3 months time (a quarter). to "break even" no profits accrued.Like it or not WOT is a business, and a business of more than 1.
Businesses do not exist to give product away for free, or to "break even."
WOT has put a great deal of time and personal investment into this, we as initial users should not only understand this but strive to help spread the word so that WOT's popularity increases so that they *can* yield rewards for their hardships and labours.sorry.. ranted off topic.
[/end]
-
- on Thu 29 Jan 2009
- 06:09:09 PM UTC
"Web 2.0" applications
"Web 2.0" applications (well WOT is kind of "web 2.0") in general are just big black holes for funding. Probably the only way for WOT to get into the black would be to sell up to a responsible security company who can promote WOT as either an extension to an existing product or as a means of marketing their product range to an ever increasing audience.
PS: I hate the term "web 2.0" as much as you do
-
- on Thu 29 Jan 2009
- 09:46:23 PM UTC
Advertising
Bleeping Computers survives totaly on advertising.Different security apps lumped together.Well if I was in the anti virus game and I saw 8 names on WOT advertising and I was not there I would want to be there.There have been a lot of ideas floated around for a long time and just because you rate yours g7w it does not mean its the best in town.If my idea is useless so be it I know there are better ones out there.But I do not rubbish everyone else,s idea,s thinking mine is best.
-
- on Thu 29 Jan 2009
- 10:39:49 PM UTC
Pro version.
I think a Pro version is a good idea. But it would be difficult to find a balance - leaving enough with the standard version so it's still useful, while providing something totally new and improved to pro users - for example adult site blocking. People pay for stuff like NetNanny or CyberSitter (or at least they used to) so having the option to block adult sites would put WOT into competition with the above mentioned titles as well as firewall applications like DansGuardian.
It should go without saying that WOT should avoid using spyware (Conduit?) and not advertise unless it's the last option.
-
- on Fri 30 Jan 2009
- 07:35:58 AM UTC
Pro version
I do not have a problem with a pro version,only the form it takes.Lets see now.We give the pro version more votes.Well a lot of people do not want to vote,make a comment or do naf all.So explain to me how people that want to pay for something would find that a good idea.Maybea we should charge people that want to do nothing.Its a small core that keep the forums active.Its a small core that go out there checking sites constantly.That give there time freely for something they believe in.I do not equate wanting to pay to wanting to do more work for most people.I am sure WOT allready has a business plan in place and when they want to reveal it they will.
-
- on Fri 30 Jan 2009
- 03:52:09 PM UTC
McAfee
SA has a "pro" version, doesn't it? Perhaps the business model that they use would work.
Though I agree that simply "paying" should not be a criteria for "weight", but I'm not sure that was what g7w meant. Actually, I'm not real sure what g7w IS saying.
Sorry for being so dense, g7w, but could you sort of rephrase your suggestion? I think I agree with some of what g7w is saying, but will hold off on "voting" 'till I get my arms around this better.
-
- on Sat 31 Jan 2009
- 03:34:05 AM UTC
basic vs. pro
most software that I've come across that offer free [basic] versions versus pay [pro] versions are that the basic versions have limitations.
WOT is a site rating software.
I could only assume that a "Pro" version would have more features or abilities.What these would be, I truly do not know - I am merely a user and not involved with WOT.
What I would imagine for a "Pro WOT" would be one that has more control over how sites are rated, than what we have available now, and also more control over how sites are filtered for warnings. Also, if a higher rating system would be in place for a pro version, then it is logical to conclude that the pro version has more "weight" in ratings simply because the basic / free version wouldn't have the capacity.I'm not inferring that a free version is "less important" to site ratings - that is something mentioned in replies to my posts, but I've never once said "free equals unimportant or inferior."
I think that this discussion has become a bit personal with some users who feel that my ideas may "cheat" them or something... that was never my intention and if anyone feels that way, please accept my apologies.
I merely was trying to suggest a method other than advertising, online shops, or selling out to another [security] company <- if that were to happen, then *everyone* would have to pay.
As for NetNanny, etc. many of them rely upon FOSI / IRCA and ChildSafe / WatchDog
(both of which my homepage is registered with, BTW)
How does wot make money
I just had a question, how does wot make money? After all, there's no ads, and the add-on is free...
We rate the websites, the WOT staff creates, and advertises the add-on, and together, we make it all happen.