![[dr. bob]](/dr-bob-sm.gif)
Dr. Bob is Robert Hsiung, MD,
bob@dr-bob.orgShown: posts 10 to 34 of 129. Go back in thread:
Posted by shellie on February 14, 2001, at 11:46:14
In reply to Re: Guest Speakers » Rzip, posted by Cam W. on February 14, 2001, at 6:50:59
Has anyone noticed the new feedback you get on google if you put in any subject that includes depression?
The first line back is now always
"Effective depression treatment with a low risk of sexual side effects" with a little "click here to learn more" under it. It looks just like every other site that is listed (same color, same type) and it turns out if you click it you get an ad for wellbutrin. I wonder how much they paid for that. It blows my mind. Every person that puts in depression (or even depression coupled with anything else) gets an ad for wellbutrin without it looking like an ad. I wonder how much that cost. Perhaps wellbutrin would like a thread-looking ad on psychobabble which would pay for the whole site and all the experts we want. Shellie
Posted by willow on February 14, 2001, at 15:27:06
In reply to Re: -- and other carrots, posted by Neal on February 14, 2001, at 1:09:38
>
> > In my opinion Adam's suggestion is a brilliant one.
>
> I think it's brilliant too, all the more so, because I said the same thing 10 posts earlier.Sorry Neal I missed it!
Posted by willow on February 14, 2001, at 15:33:57
In reply to Re: Guest Speakers » Cam W., posted by shellie on February 14, 2001, at 11:46:14
If advertisement could pay for guests which aren't related to the sponsoring companies perhaps it could be helpful?
Posted by Rzip on February 14, 2001, at 16:45:41
In reply to Re: Guest Speakers » Rzip, posted by Cam W. on February 14, 2001, at 6:50:59
Cam,
> I hate to be a pessimist, because I do like the idea. It's just that we have nothing to dangle in front any experts, to entice them to come.
That is so sad. Perhaps Dr. Bob can still find a way. I hope so.I mean this is an informal site, so perhaps some of the lectuers could use the boards to bounce ideas off. Perhaps when they are preparing for their "official, paid" talks, they can just e-mail to this site for brainstorming sessions or something.
- Rzip
Posted by Rzip on February 14, 2001, at 16:50:55
In reply to Re: Advertisement, posted by willow on February 14, 2001, at 15:33:57
Advertisements would totally ruin the "uniqueness" of this site. IMO, I really do not think advertisements would be a good idea. I wish to see this site remain pure and supportive. Advertisers would be intrusive!!!
Sincerely,
Rzip
Posted by dj on February 14, 2001, at 18:24:54
In reply to Re: Guest Speakers » Rzip, posted by Cam W. on February 14, 2001, at 6:50:59
> Rzip - Unfortunately, most experts are incredibly busy (either doing research or, don't take this the wrong way - "empire building"). It seems no one does this stuff for free, unless they're nobodys ... >
> I hate to be a pessimist, because I do like the idea. It's just that we have nothing to dangle in >front any experts, to entice them to come.
Some truth and some fallacy to your posting Cam as there are no absolutes (other than this one ; ). Busy people are sometime the most willing to plug in some time (or money) for something they believe in or have been personally touched by... which is some of the basis for professional (ie. - multi-million dollar) fundraising and politics amongst other things.Most people have been touched by depression at one time. For instance Michael Wilson, the former federal Minister of Finance in Canada and current head of Dominion RBC Securities, has put time effort and resources into helping raise public and CEO consciousness about the impact and nature of depression. He was touched by this dis-ease, and forced to evalutate his views about it, by his son Cameron's struggles with it, which eventually led to his suicide as he discussed in this speech: http://www.camh.net/CLARKEPages/clarke_news/michael_wilson_speech.html and touched on in other words and deeds some of which will come up when you combine "his name" and the word depression in the google search engine.
One in twenty or so folk dealt with depression and so most folks have been touched by it indirectly if not directly. The right plea, focused in a way that might work for them, at the right time may just score. Off the top I suspect Richard O'Connor, the author of "Undoing Depression" and the recently released "Active Treatment of Depression" might be willing to engage in some dialogue on-line in the appropriate space at the appropriate time as might Everett Koop, the former surgeon general who has a website with various discussion threads on that and other issues.
Al Gore's wife Tipper arranged a big public white house backed discussion of depression as she had dealt with it herself. Dr. O'Connor attended that as noted in an article on his website (http://www.undoingdepression.com) as I believe did Dan Rather, etc...
Here in British Columbia, talkshowhost and former provincial Cabinet Minster, Rafe Mair has dealt with the issue, in public, and his battle with it, as the search engine will also show you.
So there are folks out there who are approachable and very possibly open to some sort of arrangement. The challenge is having someone who has the time, energy, committment, persistance, creativity and resources to follow up and develop and organize such. That is the core challenge.
sante!
dj
Posted by Dr. Bob on February 14, 2001, at 20:38:20
In reply to Re: Advertisement, posted by willow on February 14, 2001, at 15:33:57
> If advertisement could pay for guests which aren't related to the sponsoring companies perhaps it could be helpful?
> Advertisements would totally ruin the "uniqueness" of this site. IMO, I really do not think advertisements would be a good idea. I wish to see this site remain pure and supportive. Advertisers would be intrusive!!!
I've also liked being ad-free, plus drug companies have resisted being associated with the promotion of "off-label" uses, plus it just never seemed that ads would bring in very much, but now that I'm paying to be hosted, and the site gets lots of hits, and advertising direct to the public has become more accepted, who knows...
Bob
Posted by shar on February 14, 2001, at 23:17:09
In reply to Re: Advertisement, posted by Dr. Bob on February 14, 2001, at 20:38:20
Maybe you could get sponsors like for shampoo or shoes or clothing or something that doesn't really hint at supporting a particular drug, or any vested interest on your part. Or, a music site.
I would be fine with a discrete banner, but remember, we might go nuts if we get stimulus overload.....8-)
Shar
Posted by ms. b. on February 15, 2001, at 0:46:18
In reply to Re: Advertisement, posted by Dr. Bob on February 14, 2001, at 20:38:20
Please, Dr. Bob, no drug company ads! It's too much to hit on people who might not be in a position to assess their own needs. Is it a good idea to encourage people in pain to rush to their doctors and demand a scrip for Wellbutrin, or Neurontin, or whatever? Also, your review board at Univ. of Chicago might not appreciate it, either. I'd suggest going over the idea with them before you do anything rash (or anything that might *cause* a rash!)...
Banner ads, though, to other non-drug related sites, such as search engines, for example, like google, might be cool. Would organizations like NAMI pay you something to link to their site? Also, ever do any grant-writing? There a lots of foundations out there with lots of money to spend. That in itself could be a research project for someone so inclined. (maybe me?)
Also, I actually don't like the idea of an old-timers board, being something of a new-timer myself. Isn't it possible for people to ignore the postings on P-Babble (meds) that you don't want to read, and do a search every so often on the meds you are concerned about? Also, if some old-timers suffer from burnout, that may be part of the group-therapy dynamic we get on this web site -- learning from the interaction of the group when and how to say no, or when to simply ignore, in order to save oneself from doing too much. Perhaps a lesson that needs learning?
However, I really do like the idea of "chat with the expert" or, "submit your questions, and an expert will answer a few" type of addition to the site. I think Dr. Bob has enough contacts who would do a little pro-bono work to keep it interesting, and give the old-timers something new to participate in, because the "experts" could be encouraged by Dr. Bob to answer the esoteric or more highly informed questions. For newbies with basic "Will Celexa cause me to gain weight?" questions, the moderator can simply refer them to the "search" function on P-Babble. Right?
Just my thoughts, here, I don't mean to offend anybody. Thanks for listening...
B.
Posted by shellie on February 15, 2001, at 12:32:57
In reply to NO ADVERTISEMENTS PLEASE !, posted by Rzip on February 14, 2001, at 16:50:55
> Advertisements would totally ruin the "uniqueness" of this site. IMO, I really do not think advertisements would be a good idea. I wish to see this site remain pure and supportive. Advertisers would be intrusive!!!
>
> Sincerely,
> RzipActually I was being facetious when I mentioned google's ad. I really don't like that google has put placed an ad under the guise of it being part the list of sites. I feel like my search is compromised when I put in "depression narcotics" and come up with a first option that has nothing to do with what I was looking for AND is an ad. So far just one; but where will it stop. Suppose the first ten are ads that look like sites.
Shellie
Posted by allisonm on February 15, 2001, at 18:19:18
In reply to Re: Advertisement, posted by Dr. Bob on February 14, 2001, at 20:38:20
I'm not wild about ads. Besides, most of them blink or change or move and they drive me to distraction (pun intended). Is there a way to have ads that aren't like that?
How much does it cost to have this site hosted?
You've talked now and again about charging a small fee for joining and met with resistance. From time to time, there also have been suggestions that people make donations. Maybe there's a way to be more upfront about the costs and that donations are very welcome? I wonder how many people don't realize that this site isn't on a university server anymore...
I think the grantwriting is interesting, but I recall we've talked about this before too. You don't have time, right? So you'd need someone who with experience who could do it.
We all seem to keep touching on the same solutions, none of which are agreeable to a majority... wish I could think of a good one.
Posted by Dr. Bob on February 17, 2001, at 2:49:06
In reply to Re: Advertisement » Dr. Bob, posted by allisonm on February 15, 2001, at 18:19:18
> I'm not wild about ads. Besides, most of them blink or change or move and they drive me to distraction (pun intended). Is there a way to have ads that aren't like that?
Ideally, it would be an acknowledgement of support rather than an ad. And if it has to be an ad, it will be as tasteful as possible.
> How much does it cost to have this site hosted?
For 650 MB, it's $275/month.
> I think the grantwriting is interesting, but I recall we've talked about this before too. You don't have time, right? So you'd need someone who with experience who could do it.
Right...
Bob
Posted by Rzip on February 17, 2001, at 9:14:31
In reply to Re: Advertisement, posted by Dr. Bob on February 17, 2001, at 2:49:06
> Ideally, it would be an acknowledgement of support rather than an ad. And if it has to be an ad, it will be as tasteful as possible.
> For 650 MB, it's $275/month.Wow! That is a significant amount of money, in sum per year. And I assume you are paying out of pocket?
Why couldn't you use the University server anymore?
- Rzip
Posted by allisonm on February 17, 2001, at 10:15:42
In reply to Re: Advertisement, posted by Dr. Bob on February 17, 2001, at 2:49:06
> > Ideally, it would be an acknowledgement of support rather than an ad. And if it has to be an ad, it will be as tasteful as possible.
>
> > How much does it cost to have this site hosted?
>
> For 650 MB, it's $275/month.
>
Wow. Well then, maybe advertisements will have to be the way to go if people don't make donations and no one steps forward to try to get a grant...I think charging should be the last option. And I wonder if you did start charging, whether you could block folks as easily. I suppose everyone joining would have to agree to certain terms upon paying that if they were uncivil, they'd forfeit the fee and that would be it. Ick. I don't like the idea. Too much potential hassle.
Posted by Noa on February 17, 2001, at 14:21:23
In reply to Re: Advertisement, posted by Dr. Bob on February 17, 2001, at 2:49:06
I could see sponsorship, ala NPR, but not ads. This is one of the few places where we are not bombarded by overstimulating ads.
Posted by Dr. Bob on February 18, 2001, at 0:31:43
In reply to Cost to have this site hosted. » Dr. Bob, posted by Rzip on February 17, 2001, at 9:14:31
> Why couldn't you use the University server anymore?
It died. And no adequate replacement server was available. And it would be easier to have ads and to charge a fee here -- if in fact I do try anything like that.
> I think charging should be the last option. And I wonder if you did start charging, whether you could block folks as easily.In fact, I've been thinking for a long time that a fee would make it *easier* to block people -- because it's harder to get a new credit card number than to get a new email address.
Bob
Posted by shellie on February 18, 2001, at 0:45:43
In reply to Re: Cost to have this site hosted., posted by Dr. Bob on February 18, 2001, at 0:31:43
> > Why couldn't you use the University server anymore?
>
> It died. And no adequate replacement server was available. And it would be easier to have ads and to charge a fee here -- if in fact I do try anything like that.
>
>
I think charging should be the last option. And I wonder if you did start charging, whether you could block folks as easily.
>
> In fact, I've been thinking for a long time that a fee would make it *easier* to block people -- because it's harder to get a new credit card number than to get a new email address.
>
> BobI think charging a fee would be a bad idea. First of all I think it would stop a lot of new posters from starting to participate. In the beginning I would not have known if it was worth it to pay when I had no idea what I would get from the board.
If you want money from us you could have a fund drive like WETA or PBS twice a year with pledges (rather than a fee). I don't know if I'd pay a set fee to listen to NPR (since it's available for free on the internet), but I have no problem pledging a generous amount each spring.
Second, if you continue to write articles on us, then I will wonder if it's fair to charge us AND use us as subjects.
Is the university now not paying for the site at all? I think if you really need money for the site then perhaps discrete advertising or pledge drives is the way to go. Shellie
Posted by Lorraine on February 18, 2001, at 11:24:03
In reply to Re: Cost to have this site hosted. » Dr. Bob, posted by shellie on February 18, 2001, at 0:45:43
I would favor the sponsor spot myself or fund raising, but fund raising seems like such a hassel. What about receiving funding through a grant, like NPR? I don't know how feasible the latter is. Don't professors apply for grants frequently? Who has expertise is this area? I'd be willing to help (I've never done it before though).
I think charging may not be commercially feasible. How many recurrent users do you have? How many of them would you lose by charging? How many posters do you need for critical mass? Some posters, like Cam and Anthony (sorry I don't know the group well enough to highlight all) seem to be more "giving" than "receiving" so charging them wouldn't make sense. To me, it just seems problematic.
Posted by shellie on February 18, 2001, at 14:03:08
In reply to Re: Cost to have this site hosted., posted by Lorraine on February 18, 2001, at 11:24:03
> I would favor the sponsor spot myself or fund raising, but fund raising seems like such a hassel. What about receiving funding through a grant, like NPR?
I don't think that NPR gives out grants; I think it receives grants. For fund-raising. Just put a red sign that says...remember to donate to psychobabble this week. For a $50 pledge, you are essentially paying only 14 cents a day. (Is that right?) That's how NPR puts it and it seems to work for them.
Also, Lorraine is right. There are thousands of grants out there, just waiting to give money away. But for that it takes research and the time to write an application. shellie
Posted by Dr. Bob on February 18, 2001, at 23:46:38
In reply to Re: Cost to have this site hosted. » Dr. Bob, posted by shellie on February 18, 2001, at 0:45:43
> I think charging a fee would be a bad idea. First of all I think it would stop a lot of new posters from starting to participate. In the beginning I would not have known if it was worth it to pay when I had no idea what I would get from the board.
What if your first few posts were free, so you could try it out?
> If you want money from us you could have a fund drive like WETA or PBS twice a year with pledges (rather than a fee).
Hmm, there's an idea. Although there probably aren't as many regulars here as at a radio or TV station...
> Second, if you continue to write articles on us, then I will wonder if it's fair to charge us AND use us as subjects.
I think the general idea would (continue to) be that no one has to participate...
> Is the university now not paying for the site at all?
Nope.
> How many recurrent users do you have?From that article: Between January and August 2000, there were 21,230 (an average of 94 per day) posts by 1,516 members. Forty-eight per-cent of posters posted just once... One percent of posters posted 35% of all posts.
> How many of them would you lose by charging? How many posters do you need for critical mass?
Those are the big questions. Maybe there's only one way to find out?
> Some posters, like Cam and Anthony (sorry I don't know the group well enough to highlight all) seem to be more "giving" than "receiving" so charging them wouldn't make sense.
I know, that's something I've been thinking about...
Bob
Posted by Lorraine on February 19, 2001, at 11:48:02
In reply to Re: Cost to have this site hosted., posted by Dr. Bob on February 18, 2001, at 23:46:38
> > I think charging a fee would be a bad idea. First of all I think it would stop a lot of new posters from starting to participate. In the beginning I would not have known if it was worth it to pay when I had no idea what I would get from the board.
>
> What if your first few posts were free, so you could try it out?Bob: The people who would pay a fee are your regulars. I don't know how large that number is. (Is is 50% of 1516= all posters less the one time posters?) I doubt it's that high. When I look at your site it seems to have two purposes. One is a general public service where people can dip in for a quick shot of info. The other is for a community of people who post for the support, friendship and ability to help others. If you charge, the "public service" part of the site will take the hit and this will change the nature of the site. You should think about that because the public service part of the site is actually a bright shining thing in a dull world.
Let's consider the idea for funding one by one with the pros and cons. I'm going to start with the most feasible--which I think is sponsorship.
Sponsorship:
Pro: Provides the funding. Doesn't affect nature of the site. Probably is easy to obtain?
Con: Some members won't like.Applying for Grant money:
Pro: Probably can obtain. Doesn't affect nature of the site.
Con: Probably a pain to get in terms of man hours of labor in applying.Fund Drive:
Pro: May work. Won't affect site.
Con: Probably a pain to orchestrate and do. May not work (the problem of freeloaders.)Charging:
Pro: Is equitable--everybody pays their way. May raise funds.
Con: May result in the critical mass necessary to support the site leaving and end of site. Will harm public service part of site.To me, sponsorship seems like the surest least objectionable approach. Are there downsides to that that I am unaware of?
Posted by Dr. Bob on February 19, 2001, at 18:52:32
In reply to Re: Cost to have this site hosted., posted by Lorraine on February 19, 2001, at 11:48:02
> To me, sponsorship seems like the surest least objectionable approach.
I agree!
> Are there downsides to that that I am unaware of?
Just that I don't think it's actually that easy to obtain. If you have any contacts, please let me know...
Bob
Posted by Lorraine on February 20, 2001, at 10:22:32
In reply to Re: Cost to have this site hosted., posted by Dr. Bob on February 19, 2001, at 18:52:32
> Just that I don't think it's actually that easy to obtain. If you have any contacts, please let me know...
>
> BobI will research this if you like. I don't have industry experience or contacts (although I was offered a job running an ezine right before the market crashed), but I do have an MBA and know how to do the research. Call me off if you don't want me to do this. Otherwise, I'll report back after I've scouted the trail ahead.
Posted by Lorraine on February 21, 2001, at 14:18:53
In reply to Re: Cost to have this site hosted., posted by Lorraine on February 20, 2001, at 10:22:32
Here's what I found out in my digging around. There are a two (actually, I think three,but I'll get to that later) ways to do advertising and there are affiliated programs. The first is to do a traditional advertising campaign, which typically requires that you have 500,000 impressions per month. The process of selling, running and billing for ads, however, can be cumbersome for small sites (that's us). In addition, you need ad tracking software, which can be simple or complex.
The way small sites do their ads is by using an ad network that aggregates the ad space on individual sites and sells it to advertisers. They provide the ad tracking software and do the billing and so forth and send you a check less 40-50% or so commission that they snag. When you go this route, you have no control over how your page looks or where they place the ads, the nature of the ads (although they usually limit them to non-porno etc), the effectiveness of the ad campaign, or the number of ads placed. So your site can look pretty cluttered with ads. Not an elegant look to be sure. Plus, the big ad repackagers want larger sites and the smaller ad repackagers may have "liquidity issues". They are all slow payers--60-90 days isn't uncommon and have fairly complicated formulas (based on click throughs,thousands of page views, number of unique viewers etc) to determine what you get.
The advertising campaign stuff sounds like to much for this group to handle and the network approach involves you giving up a fair amount of control of the look and feel of your site. Let me know if you want me to look into either of these further.
Affiliated programs were initiated by Amazon and there are several more out there now. They pay some sum of money for click through. I believe you already have Amazon and I think you posted here somewhere what you net from it--which I believe was a pretty small amount. Does it make sense to beef up the book referral section and display a link to it prominently on the site to beef up revenues here? Also does it make sense to pursue other affiliates?
The other way to go about advertising might be to selectively target a few advertisers whose content match your goals with this site and pursue them individually. That might make sense. Let me know if this interests you and I will check out some depression sites and see who they are using as sponsers (if anyone.)
Another approach would be to look for a web hoster who will give you free hosting or a discount based on being a charitable organization. Again, let me know if you want me to explore further.
Regardless of which direction you want to pursue, you may want to place a banner on the page soliciting contributions from members now on a voluntary basis to help fund the site. This would be a good "stop gap" approach if it doesn't pan out for full site support. You would need to consider how you will collect the money--eg secured server for credit cards and the administrative details of that.
Let me know what you think of all this.
> > Just that I don't think it's actually that easy to obtain. If you have any contacts, please let me know...
> >
> > Bob
>
> I will research this if you like. I don't have industry experience or contacts (although I was offered a job running an ezine right before the market crashed), but I do have an MBA and know how to do the research. Call me off if you don't want me to do this. Otherwise, I'll report back after I've scouted the trail ahead.
Posted by ShelliR on February 21, 2001, at 17:09:36
In reply to Re: Cost to have this site hosted., posted by Dr. Bob on February 18, 2001, at 23:46:38
> What if your first few posts were free, so you could try it out?
Probably not. I'd probably be a stalker for quite a while. I have never been asked to pay for participating on a board, so I think I would have felt strange about it. I listened to NRP for a long time and then it hit me that I should be contributing, and now I contribute a generous amount each year. But if they had made me pay in the first six months, I don't think I would have joined.
>
> > If you want money from us you could have a fund drive like WETA or PBS twice a year with pledges (rather than a fee).
>
> Hmm, there's an idea. Although there probably aren't as many regulars here as at a radio or TV station...
>Yes, but psychobabble doesn't have the budget of a radio or tv station. I think having only several target dates a year would remind people to contribute. And of course, not everybody would contribute, that's a given. I think if you just had a banner all the time to contribute, people would think "I already did," even though it was over a year ago.
Who are the big non-profit depression groups besides NIMH? NIMH gives away a lot of money but I'm not sure if they respond to outside ideas.
And I guess I'm surprised with a large university and a large budget, they won't lend any support to PB even if it's not on their server. Have they been approached with a proposal?
Shelli
Go forward in thread:
Psycho-Babble Administration | Extras | FAQ
Dr. Bob is Robert Hsiung, MD,
bob@dr-bob.org
Script revised: February 4, 2008
URL: http://www.dr-bob.org/cgi-bin/pb/mget.pl
Copyright 2006-17 Robert Hsiung.
Owned and operated by Dr. Bob LLC and not the University of Chicago.