UKC

How do I get rid of this thing at the top of my screen? The blue questionnaire asking about news letter confirmation. It's really annoying and it's there on  every photo or topic.

Tick the box that says you don't want the newsletter or any updates! Thats what I did and it stopped.

Thanks Wanderer, I tried that but it didn't work.

Bump, it's still happening, just getting more annoying.

Apologies for this.

Can you give us a bit more information. Are you logged on with the same profile all the time? Are you looking at UKC from a different device? 

Also, have you tried force refreshing before ticking anything?

Alan

Hi Alan, I'm logged on as I usually do, I've tried logging out etc, Martin.

and have you tried force refreshing when the page loads?

are you on the same machine all the time?

Do you have any cookie blockers running?

Alan

Sorted now, thanks Alan.

I am having a similar problem - same mobile phone, same profile, I've told it 3 times I would like to have the newsletters ... perhaps next time I should say No? 

Same issue here. I kept accepting both sets of newsletters until it went away (3-4 times?). Standard IOS Safari browser being used from a static IP. 

Do you know what you did to solve it?

Alan

Can you confirm if force refresh without ticking anything works or not?

Hi Alan, the pop up disappeared after the 3rd or 4th attempt, I had reset my device between goes having lost charge completely.

Accidently let the battery go flat, when I plugged the mains lead in again normal service was resumed. 

We think we have solved this now. Please let us know if you see the message appearing after you have already confirmed it.

Can I also stress how important it is for us that people do confirm their Newsletter preferences and preferably opt-in. The Newsletter has become a significant communication tool for us and vitally important for us to keep the site running. Even if you don't want to receive it, please consider opting-in as something you can do to help keep the site free to use.

Thanks

Alan

I opted out as I rarely read it, but how does receiving a newsletter I don't read help you ?

The word 'rarely' is significant there. Doing it at all is a benefit to us.

We have very impressive receive and open rates for our newsletter - almost 50% of the people who receive it go on to open it. That may sound relatively low level but believe me, compared to most newsletters, that is an astonishingly good open rate. This makes it a very useful method to tell people about our great new content, and a very popular place for our advertisers. 

The new GDPR regulations are welcome, but they will have a big effect on the figures we are able to present to advertisers. We are doing okay at building the numbers back up onto the new GDPR-approved system but we are still someway short of the numbers we have had previously, although there is still more than a month to go.

However, what I would like to ask is that users who have opted out consider opting back in, and once a week, taking a quick look at the newsletter. If we were able to boost the number of people who did this  it would be incredibly useful to us to help improve the reach of the site and the appeal to advertisers. It is a free-to-use site, and we don't ask much, but this is something that every user could help with for relatively little effort and, you never know, you might actually spot something you had missed in the newsletters.

Alan

Are you suggesting that this a 'for profit' site, Alan?  I mean, on the one hand you say it's for the benefit of all, but then the advertisers come in and it all gets very confused.

Sorted now - I don't think I did anything, but it went away.

Don't worry, the BMC 30 will soon expose the fact that Alan is in fact running a PLC and conspires with various other companies in making money.

I mean, what a disgusting man:

http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-2156014/Alan-James-Australian-Macqu...

I'll bite here even though I think you are jesting, but mainly because it is a question that I think needs airing and I am interested in what people mean when they say 'for profit business' and 'not for profit business'.

What are the differences, in your opinion, between the following three?

1) A 'for profit' business

2) A 'not for profit' business

3) A small employee-owned business

It could be me in virtually all respects, expect I am only 54!

Alan

Running a website isn't free, you have to fund it somehow.

Most businesses

Is business the right word here? A not for profit organisation has primary aims other than making money for its owner/shareholders/partners.  E.g. charities, Network Rail.  Any surplus is put back in to the organisation directly.

A subset of 1)

Ok, but if we limit ourselves here to discussing just small employee-owned businesses, then what in reality is the difference between the three? 

You produce stuff, you sell it, you pay your suppliers, you pay your staff, you may contribute to a good cause, you use any surplus to further the business/organisation. 

This could easily be spinned as 'not for profit', and often is, but in reality most small businesses/organisations behave in exactly this way. The degree to which they 'contribute to good causes' may vary, which usually depends on how much they leverage the good causes for marketing, in which case the good cause becomes a production cost to an extent.

For example, we could easily label UKC as 'not for profit' since we provide a free service and make contributions to various funds. We don't do this though since I think it is nonsensical, however we are also not what some people mean by a 'for profit' business since this usually refers to companies with external third party share holders who want a regular dividend.

Alan

I wouldn't believe you if you did!  Presumably you pay yourself and other owners dividends in some form, and look to increase that payment - i.e. aim to make profit?

There is only one owner and I pay equivalent to a salary. This is my point - most small businesses do exactly this. They have one or two owners who pay themselves the equivalent of a salary by some means. Whether they use the small tax efficiencies offered by the dividend system, or not, is irrelevant. 

If an organisation claiming 'not for profit' status also states that it will never increase the salaries of its owner-employees even if it started making more money, then that would be a difference, but I don't think that happens. 

So both the profit and not-for-profit doing much the same thing with the money they make. I realise there may be subtle differences, like a NFP might invest proportionately more in the good cause off they start doing well, but it doesn't seem a given. 

Alan

Probably correct.  I assume if UKC suddenly increased its income tenfold for the same costs, you would pay yourself more.  If so I'd say you are  "for profit", if not, then "not for profit".

Well on a more realistic 10% to 20% growth then, yes, I may well increase my pay, but then so would the 'not for profit' as you have just acknowledged. Still not much difference really when you look at it with real world figures.

Alan

I said no to the newsletter but now you have told me this I have subscribed and will open it when it comes in 

Thanks very much.

Alan