|
bartlax
May 1, 2003, 6:42 PM
Post #26 of 61
(7446 views)
Shortcut
Registered: Mar 5, 2002
Posts: 26
|
cXm was indeed one of the sweetest sites around, and while we all sit here and express our sadness in each post, there are few mentions of actually trying to get it back up. As mentioned, a comp would work, but we would need to find out what kind of costs they are incurring and if it is worth it. Does anyone know if we can get Josh Lowell or one of the others on here for a group discussion on finances. With the amount of users online here and for how passionate we are all about the sport I am sure a donation bin can be set up if the overhead costs they are missing the bar by aren't ridiculous. ANy thoughts?????????
|
|
|
|
|
psych
May 1, 2003, 6:56 PM
Post #27 of 61
(7446 views)
Shortcut
Registered: Jan 30, 2002
Posts: 416
|
I have a feeling you're thinking small time, while the money they were putting into it was rather, err...bigtime. Let's see normal bandwidth pricing, at least for my geographical location:
Wholesale cost for ISP: $3/GB, normal cost from ISP to user (ie: climbXmedia), $5-$10/GB.
If I alone have scooped 2.5GB worth of data from them in the past year, I alone have cost them $12 - $25. I'm not the only one, can you imagine how many people goto that site and download all the vids? Specially the big ones like that Quebec Ice Comp last week, 80MB right there, the site was totally tanked because of it.
I don't think it's far off the bar to say they must have done in excess of a couple hundred gigs per month, and that's no small amount of coin.
One comp isn't going to float them forever, even if it could succeed when the visitors of the site don't all live in the same area, or even the same country.
Mike...
|
|
|
|
|
missedyno
May 1, 2003, 6:58 PM
Post #28 of 61
(7446 views)
Shortcut
Registered: Nov 21, 2001
Posts: 4465
|
oh crud that sux.
i liked that site.
|
|
|
|
|
mr.poo
Deleted
May 1, 2003, 7:55 PM
Post #29 of 61
(7446 views)
Shortcut
Registered:
Posts:
|
first of all i want to make clear one thing. Josh Lowell is not in charge of CXM and never was. he made some videos for them but he is not one of the owners/ people that run the site. Many of these last post claim that CXM is Josh Lowell's creation. it is not. all though he does make great films he does not own the site. Mark Russo, Edward Loughran and Mike Call are the real deal owners of that kick ass site. I would just like the real owners to get all the credit. i am planning to get in touch with them and let them see this post and hopefully everybody can contribute to the re-opening of the site.
lets make something happen
|
|
|
|
|
rockram
May 1, 2003, 8:16 PM
Post #30 of 61
(7446 views)
Shortcut
Registered: Oct 2, 2002
Posts: 127
|
no way! :shock: i don't believe it! i'm gonna check!
|
|
|
|
|
rockram
May 1, 2003, 8:20 PM
Post #31 of 61
(7446 views)
Shortcut
Registered: Oct 2, 2002
Posts: 127
|
oh...wow. i guess it really is gone :? :x :cry: what a bummer...
|
|
|
|
|
rockram
May 1, 2003, 8:23 PM
Post #32 of 61
(7446 views)
Shortcut
Registered: Oct 2, 2002
Posts: 127
|
so does this mean no dosage two?! wow, i hope not, but it probably does. it would have been an awsome one too!!! gr! this means no Rumney or Psicobloc on video. Josh Lowell did a really awsome job with those videos. I really haven't seen a climbing video i liked as much as dosage...it was a fun one!
|
|
|
|
|
moeman
May 1, 2003, 8:35 PM
Post #33 of 61
(7446 views)
Shortcut
Registered: Nov 1, 2002
Posts: 1417
|
I'd definately be willing to pay a subscription fee to go on the website
|
|
|
|
|
rockinitinark
May 1, 2003, 10:10 PM
Post #34 of 61
(7446 views)
Shortcut
Registered: Sep 15, 2002
Posts: 105
|
now what am i going to do?!?!?!?!?!?!??!! actually work? wtf?!?! sad day...sad day, i wonder if www.bigupproductions.com is still going to be able to run some stuff?
|
|
|
|
|
psych
May 1, 2003, 11:02 PM
Post #35 of 61
(7446 views)
Shortcut
Registered: Jan 30, 2002
Posts: 416
|
I'm sure Big Up will stay around, and I'm sure there's gonna be more Dosage for everyone, climbXmedia was just a kickass place to GET trailers for this stuff, like a free storefront. The backend businesses are still gonna stay around because they DO make money (errr, well, they generate some sort of monetary exchange, whether they make money is anyone's guess). :lol: :wink:
Mike...
|
|
|
|
|
andy_lemon
May 1, 2003, 11:12 PM
Post #36 of 61
(7446 views)
Shortcut
Registered: Sep 7, 2001
Posts: 3335
|
In reply to: Josh Lowell is not in charge of CXM and never was.
Yeh, the letter was signed by Mark, Edward, and Mike.
|
|
|
|
|
bluelip
May 2, 2003, 1:30 PM
Post #37 of 61
(7446 views)
Shortcut
Registered: Apr 23, 2003
Posts: 102
|
psych
[Post] Posted: Thu May 01, 2003 10:56 am Post subject: Re: climb X media...gone!
I have a feeling you're thinking small time, while the money they were putting into it was rather, err...bigtime. Let's see normal bandwidth pricing, at least for my geographical location:
Wholesale cost for ISP: $3/GB, normal cost from ISP to user (ie: climbXmedia), $5-$10/GB.
Where'd you come across those price? They seem excessive to me? do you work for an ISP? If so, what size?
|
|
|
|
|
rockprodigy
May 2, 2003, 2:39 PM
Post #38 of 61
(7446 views)
Shortcut
Registered: Sep 10, 2002
Posts: 1540
|
You all better get used to stuff like this....
That is, cool sites, services, stores, companies closing down. The economy is in the toilet, and the first people to get hit are the "luxury" items like climbing gear. Have you been supporting cXm's sponsors lately? If not, then how do you expect them to support cXm?
For all you cheapskates who buy your gear off of European internet sites, this is your fault too. You think you're saving money, but now you may have to pay for cXm, if you get to see it at all.
40% markup may seem like a lot, but the reality is that NO body is getting rich off of climbing gear (with the possible exception of TNF who can market their stuff to skiers and everyday Joes). That 40% just barely pays the bills.
It was quite optimistic for those guys to think they could stay afloat just on advertising. They misjudged the dirtbag factor. All the people out there downloading away, but never BUYING anything.
We lost an awesome climbing shop in town a couple years ago because people would go in and window shop, then go buy it online...then they'd have the gall to bring the $hit into the shop to get it serviced or fitted properly!
|
|
|
|
|
deafclimber
May 2, 2003, 2:53 PM
Post #39 of 61
(7446 views)
Shortcut
Registered: May 4, 2002
Posts: 653
|
would it be saved if Climbxmedia.com asked us for donation/contribution ? it hadnt asked us since then. maybe i am wrong.
luckly rc.com gets a lot of helps from us. we should be thankful for rc.com. :)
|
|
|
|
|
slopasqueeza
May 2, 2003, 3:14 PM
Post #40 of 61
(7446 views)
Shortcut
Registered: May 2, 2003
Posts: 2
|
modump.com
|
|
|
|
|
sandoz
May 2, 2003, 5:14 PM
Post #41 of 61
(7447 views)
Shortcut
Registered: Apr 17, 2003
Posts: 11
|
In reply to: For all you cheapskates who buy your gear off of European internet sites, this is your fault too. You think you're saving money, but now you may have to pay for cXm, if you get to see it at all.
Oh yes, let's blame the consumers for not shopping enough! Perhapes you should be writing speaches for G.W. Bush and Co.
Maybe, just maybe, we should start thinking about the fact that this administration is sucking the economy dry to benefit a few large multi-national corps, and the 1% of Americans who are multi-millionairs...
No, it's easier to blame barrabes.com - those lousy euros, it's alltheir fault!
|
|
|
|
|
rockprodigy
May 2, 2003, 6:13 PM
Post #42 of 61
(7447 views)
Shortcut
Registered: Sep 10, 2002
Posts: 1540
|
did barrabes.com support cXm?
|
|
|
|
|
sandoz
May 2, 2003, 6:38 PM
Post #43 of 61
(7447 views)
Shortcut
Registered: Apr 17, 2003
Posts: 11
|
In reply to: did barrabes.com support cXm?
No, I think I was refering to them as an example of "the European internet sites" all of us "cheapskates" are shopping at.
Climbing shoes are like $45 there, BTW.
|
|
|
|
|
xanx
May 2, 2003, 6:47 PM
Post #44 of 61
(7447 views)
Shortcut
Registered: Aug 6, 2002
Posts: 1002
|
i think we should have an option where users here could pay an additional fee for "advanced membership" that would allow full access to videos. this would require a few assumptions to be met, however (which could easily be verified with a good old SRS poll...)
1) enough people would pay to actually support it so if the price is X dollars and n people would pay it, where n decreases as X increases, the product n*X must be greater than or equal to the cost of allowing n people access to the videos (if x is the cost of supplying videos, n*X>n*x)
2)the download would be fast enough and would allow enough people at a time to download it that speed would not be a limiting factor for most prospective consumers - people with cable modems shouldn't be turned away due to slow downloads. again, this is a cost/benefit relationship - more bandwidth costs more, so we would have to find the perfect balance between reasonable costs and fast bandwidth.
3)the videos would be of high enough quality (both film and content quality) that people would continue to subscribe and get the videos. if the only stuff we have is bad, not many people will be willing ot pay.
4)we will have enough quanitity of good videos to warrent the cost.
perhaps people could "donate" their cxm videos? i have about 1 gig, mostly recent stuff, and some clasics like dreamtime, the last 3 doses, the sloper pro tip, and a few others, but i don't have realization or a lot of earlier stuff because i was a bit late in getting in the game so to speak. with all the users here we could probably get just about all of the videos that were on cxm in like the last few years if we wanted to.
simple polling techniques could easily determine the required fees for this (if we have a good idea of the costs - conservative estimates would be recommended....) and could quickley determine feasibility.
i would certainly be willing to pay extra for good videos, if they are of the caliber of cxm. but we would need to find people who actually climb with and know the pro's enough to shoot vids of them and who are also really good photographers... that would be the biggest obstacle, IMO. the doses were, to me, the heart of cxm. we gotta have a bunch of new stuff with people like loskot, zangerl, sharma, graham, ect... (i only know the big boulderers unfortunatly...) and cover new developements/ professionals in aid, trad, sport, bouldering and ice.
any feedback? support?
|
|
|
|
|
psych
May 2, 2003, 6:57 PM
Post #45 of 61
(7447 views)
Shortcut
Registered: Jan 30, 2002
Posts: 416
|
In reply to: psych [Post] Posted: Thu May 01, 2003 10:56 am Post subject: Re: climb X media...gone! I have a feeling you're thinking small time, while the money they were putting into it was rather, err...bigtime. Let's see normal bandwidth pricing, at least for my geographical location: Wholesale cost for ISP: $3/GB, normal cost from ISP to user (ie: climbXmedia), $5-$10/GB. Where'd you come across those price? They seem excessive to me? do you work for an ISP? If so, what size?
Yep, for the last 3.5 years I worked at an ISP, not a small one, largest independant ISP in western canada. These are Canadian prices, and short of any special bandwidth deals for clients specific needs, this was the pricing scheme...
Mike...
|
|
|
|
|
tim
May 2, 2003, 6:59 PM
Post #46 of 61
(7447 views)
Shortcut
Registered: Apr 4, 2002
Posts: 4861
|
In reply to: perhaps people could "donate" their cxm videos
This, unfortunately, is illegal. The same criteria for submission as we use for photos would have to be applied -- it would need to be original content that the submitter has copyright over.
The business model that my previous company worked on was free-to-view, pay-to-host (ego based -- catering to corporations and gov't/nonprofit institutions with large budgets). If people are willing to compensate providers for the marginal benefit obtained from viewing their works, then we can set up a market-based system to meter viewing, but most likely we would charge for hosting initially, viewing later on (if it in fact turned out to be viable).
I believe you may be overestimating the market for these works, or underestimating the cost of time/labor to produce quality works, but if it is a viable revenue stream, we will support it.
|
|
|
|
|
boretribe
May 2, 2003, 8:11 PM
Post #47 of 61
(7447 views)
Shortcut
Registered: Jan 17, 2002
Posts: 208
|
It's pretty funny how six people, so far, have mentioned that they would have donated money or subscribed to cXm if asked yet none of them have donated a penny to support this site.
I will also miss cXm but after the 5-10min video every other day there wasn't much else. I bet a lot of you spend more time than that on this site. Maybe you will think a little more about how you can help out Trevor, Tim and the other guys that bring you this community.
Where would you go to discuss your grief and dissapointment if Trevor decided that RC.com wasn't worth the effort? boldering.com? Now that would be funny!
~Geoff
|
|
|
|
|
czarcastic
May 2, 2003, 8:42 PM
Post #48 of 61
(7447 views)
Shortcut
Registered: Apr 16, 2003
Posts: 64
|
And here I was putting together a video to enter into the Smack contest..most of those video blew, I would have definitley won this month!! haha.
Really sad to see ClimbX go, top-notch site. Would be willing to pay a monthly/yearly fee to view videos, the content on that site was unbelievable.
|
|
|
|
|
deafclimber
May 2, 2003, 9:28 PM
Post #49 of 61
(7447 views)
Shortcut
Registered: May 4, 2002
Posts: 653
|
boretribe, i did donate some money to this site last jan, but they put wrong id on list. it was old id, deafcragger. dunno why they did. it didnt bother me.
|
|
|
|
|
|
