Elsewhere in this forum you will find posts from the owners that seem to contradict this claim. Please read the bottom post, compare the dates and then decide, truth or not? Denial in 2009 yet a claim in 2008 that Invicta was the sponsor or "underwriter" of the forum. And were taxes paid on this money?
04-03-2009, 09:02 PM meijin WatchGeeks Owner True WatchGeek Join Date: Feb 2008 Location: Atlanta, GA Posts: 10,002 Real Name: Michael
Concerning Invicta and their involvement here ________________________________________ Since, in another thread, Invicta and their role was brought up here due to people accessing incomplete and private communications amongst the owners, I'd like to address that directly in a separate thread.
This very topic is exactly what we were talking about with regards to taking things out of context.
Yes, at one point, we were looking at Invicta to be a paid advertiser as a means to cover the costs of the forum. With that said, let's put everything into context.
When we first set up WatchGeeks, we did so on a very inexpensive shared server using free software. So, costs were minimal. It became apparent to us very, very early on that this might not be the way to go if the forum had good growth. To move into comercial software and a dedicated server, the costs go up quite a bit. And, by quite a bit, I mean that the costs go into the thousands of dollars per year just for the server. If anyone doubts that, there are plenty of people here that operate in those realms that can verify this for you.
With that being said, we were looking for different ways of funding the site and a variety of things were looked at. They were, in no particular order:
#1. Partnering with Invicta. This was an obvious choice as Invicta came "on board" with us as a supporter before the forum went live.
#2. Charging any vendor that wanted to participate a fee to do so.
#3. Opening up a Paypal donation option for members to make voluntary contributions and when someone did contribute, they would get some sort of "special" access to things that non-contributing members would not.
#4. Going to a vendor and getting a very high end watch at cost and then selling raffle tickets to the members with the proceeds going to the cost of running the site.
There were probably a few more that were considered, but these were the main ones.
In the end, we shot them all down.
No vendor here (Invicta or otherwise) pays to be an advertiser here. If you doubt that, just ask Larry Magen, Wing, George Fox, Richard Corbo, David M., Marianne Chase or any of the other vendors represented here. None of the vendors here have ever been asked to be an advertiser here. We (WatchGeeks) suppoort these vendors because they are a part of the forum and "give back" to the members here. When we set up the recent 1 year anniversary, most of the vendors here gave, free of charge, product to be given away. If we were supported by just Invicta (or anyone else), that would not have happened.
So, the bottom line is this. Invicta is NOT a paid advertiser here. ShopNBC is not a paid advertiser here. Nor is any other vendor on or off of ShopNBC.
The reason why I said this particular topic is a perfect example of taking things out of context is this...part of the discussions about how to fund the site took place in a private area of the forum that only the owners have access to. Part of it took place via email between the owners and part of it took place via 3-way phone calls between the owners. So, you only get a small piece of what is said in the private messages that folks are trying to put out there. Additionally, they only talk about part of the information. They leave out all of the messages about me telling my two partners the total amount due that I paid for out of my pocket and what their share of that was. They leave out Bruce sending me a message telling me when he would have the check out to me. They leave out the part that the check that Jim sent to me got lost in the mail and he had to send a second one. They leave out the part where we our server crashed in the fall of last year and we had to hire someone to come fix it. When that happened, I had to send them messages as to the cost of that and what their share would be. Why leave all of that out? Because there are other motives behind what they are doing and putting out information that shows that the costs were covered by the three of us does not fit into that model. It is easier just to take a couple of posts that, when read out of context, make the situation look alot
different.
When people have an agenda for the actions that they take, you never get the full message or all of the information and that is the case when it comes to this topic.
And I would like to say something about Invicta and what their involvement on the forum.
Eyal stepped up to the plate to support this site even before we went live with it. Over the course of the last year, Invicta has provided us with some where around 15 watches or so at no cost as various different prizes. A number of those watches were Reserve pieces. A number of these watches were given to members before the watch was even released to ShopNBC. As HondaLover about his Akula. Ask Duff about his SAS quartz. So, because of that support, we do give a sort of a preference to Invicta. It is only fair. It has always been that way and we have always stated that. We broke out Invicta into their own section on the forum because of that level of support (and also because they are the most popular vendor on this site). All of the vendors know this. It has never been a secret around here.
The decisions about this forum are made by myself, Bruce and Jim. Brad, as an admin, is included on many of those decisions. And, whenever we can, we bring the mod team in to speak up on various things. We do not contact Invicta or ShopNBC or any other vendor in regards to what we do here.
Again, when you get incomplete information and then ignore other information and then mix in antagonistic motives, you get a completely skewed picture of what reality actually is.
We have told the members here that we would keep the forum up with no paid advertisers and their related banners cluttering up the site and we have held to that. __________________ Michael
Argument is meant to reveal the truth, not to create it. ~ Edward de Bono
jb182 View Public Profile
Send a private message to jb182
Find all posts by jb182
#3 04-03-2009, 09:18 PM meijin WatchGeeks Owner True WatchGeek Join Date: Feb 2008 Location: Atlanta, GA Posts: 10,002 Real Name: Michael
________________________________________ Quote: Originally Posted by jb182 You may not want to answer this question, but who does pay for the cost of running the site? The only conclusion I can draw is that the owners foot the bill and I don't think that is fair. I think some sort of paypal system where members couold make anonymous donations would be perfectly apporpriate. I spend many hours a week here and would be willing to make donations for the privelege, as my personal finances allow. As was stated in the original message, we looked at a variety of options to cover the cost and decided that we did not want to charge members in any way. So we have not. We also decided that we did not want to take on paid advertisers. So we have not. It is the responsibility of the owners here to ensure that the costs are covered.
In the future, will that change? Maybe. After all, there is a limit as to what can be spent on the cost of a "hobby" like this. But, at this point, we are happy with the current situation and will always be open to addressing a different means if the situation warrants it. __________________ Michael
Argument is meant to reveal the truth, not to create it. ~ Edward de Bono #24 04-04-2009, 09:43 PM
srebo70 WatchGeeks Moderator True WatchGeek Join Date: Mar 2008 Location: Antioch, IL Posts: 6,468 Real Name: Scott
________________________________________ Quote: Originally Posted by VWfox first: I for one don't believe in removing pot stirrers. They in fact, are the ones that keep you honest. We all know that the truth will always come to the surface. In fact everyone here must agree that a breach in security is a breach, and it's undebatable. The fact that no one's personal info was accessed is a good thing. The fact of what "was" released and the result thereof can only make the administers question, "were we acting as real professionals, and do we need to change our policy and ethics"? Time will only tell until the next breach whether this "bad thing" resulted in a "good thing" for the future.
second: I firmly believe in the capitalist system. If Invicta wants to spend money to make money in an oligopoly why should the public care. It only forces the competition to prove "their worth" in product. I for one dont want unrequested banners and video jamming up my memory as I search forums, but there could be a separate section for manufacturers to run commercials. This way everyone wins. Manufacturers that want exposure get it, Geek gets paid, and members get updates on new products only when they click and want to see them. No bias..... and no bullsht. VW you have three points I would like to address as there may be some need for clarity here:
1) "Potstirrers" do not get banned here, we have plenty of them. The individuals that have been banned have blatantly disregarded the rules numerous times, been advised of the infraction, and chose to continue to break the rules, respond in a disrespectful manner. This forum is all about the open conversation, but that does not indicate it is "Thunderdome". The rules set up were done so in an effort to be as fair as possible to all members, including watch compny representatives that participate here, TV show hosts and the general watch-loving "Geek" population.
2) As far as no ones personal information getting comprimised, that is incorrect. There was a section
where the team shared their contact information in the event one of the other team members needed to get a hold of them. (Here's an example: one Mod handles the Hot Shot of the Week contest, he is unable to start it and needs to get a hold of someone to start it for him). Now as to the information shared, it was not Soc. Sec. Number or any of the ridiculous statements made elsewhere.
3) The reason there was a need for this thread is that from Day One the owners stated that this forum would be privately funded to avoid the exchange of free speech to not interfere with the cashflow coming in fom the sponsors. There is information that has been sent out that is meant to show that Invicta funds this site. As stated by Michael and then echoed by Bruce, if the expense to maintain this site become too enormous for the owners to continually privately fund, they will examine every possible option and do what is best in the best interest of the forum and its members!
Thanks! __________________ Look Up, Get Up, and Don't Ever Give Up meijin WatchGeeks Owner True WatchGeek Join Date: Feb 2008 Location: Atlanta, GA Posts: 10,002 Real Name: Michael
________________________________________ While I appreciate all of the offers of donations (as do Jim and Bruce), they really are not necessary. We are all taken care of for now and it is our intention to not have to rely on the membership to cover any of the costs for the site. We are paid up to date for a while now and should the situation change in the future, we will figure it out. However, we prefer not to ask you (the members) for money to support the site.
Thanks! __________________ Michael
Argument is meant to reveal the truth, not to create it. ~ Edward de Bono
NAYTH WatchGeeks Owner Super Geek Join Date: Feb 2008 Posts: 2,485
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
I'll back up my friend and partner Micheal on this and say that if we ever need to solicit funds for this Forum's operation, we will do what has to be done and try to do it correctly.
As of now, even with the new upgrade, we are fine on $'s and just want to continue growing and improving the site.
Additionally, I sincerely appreciate everyone's concern about the recent developments on the internet.
Bruce
So what is this?
09-03-2008, 09:10 PM
meijin WatchGeeks Owner
True WatchGeek Join Date: Feb 2008 Location: Atlanta, GA Posts: 8,197
Re: Ok, looks like Invicta is our official sponsor
Fundamentally, I don't have a problem with that as it looks as though Eyal is being reasonable...
As to the contract...there isn't one....it is all done online and via my credit card...I don't have anything to send them. And after looking at the website, I don't see any options for that. Is that going to be a problem? __________________ Michael