Re: [Wikimediauk-l] Membership Fee Cut
I know I would certainly have appreciated some form of written communication through the post on becoming a member, just, y'know, to reassure me you guys knew I existed. Even a welcome letter with a nice letterhead and a little card wouldn't go amiss. While you're there, you could preach to your enthusiastic new member about the sorts of project they could be involving themselves in on behalf of WMUK. This might add a few more man-hours to the project. Incidentally, I should add that I have no particular view on dropping the membership price. All I can tell you is that I paid the discounted rate of £6 and thought nothing of it. Jarry1250 On 25 February 2010 12:51, Bod Notbod bodnot...@gmail.com wrote: On Wed, Feb 24, 2010 at 3:52 PM, James Hardy wikimedi...@weeb.biz wrote: I can not really imagine any tangible benefits that WMUK can provide. After all, our purpose is to make knowledge free, it would seem counter-intuitive to close anything off to be members-only. One that occurs to me is that perhaps WMUK could negotiate with GLAMs that WMUK members get a preferential rate to enter exhibitions and the like. However, I think that would have to be some way off in the future, I don't get the impression that WMUK is big enough or has the spare man hours to try and get that off the ground at the moment. But maybe one day... ___ Wikimedia UK mailing list wikimediau...@wikimedia.org http://mail.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimediauk-l WMUK: http://uk.wikimedia.org ___ Wikimedia UK mailing list wikimediau...@wikimedia.org http://mail.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimediauk-l WMUK: http://uk.wikimedia.org
Re: [Wikimediauk-l] Membership Fee Cut
Still a very smart idea though and definitely one worth keeping on the back burner for a time when we can use it Perhaps for a future discussion for the membership with the Wikimedia UK Board Mark 2 later this year? -- From: Bod Notbod bodnot...@gmail.com Sent: Thursday, February 25, 2010 12:51 PM To: wikimediauk-l@lists.wikimedia.org Subject: Re: [Wikimediauk-l] Membership Fee Cut On Wed, Feb 24, 2010 at 3:52 PM, James Hardy wikimedi...@weeb.biz wrote: I can not really imagine any tangible benefits that WMUK can provide. After all, our purpose is to make knowledge free, it would seem counter-intuitive to close anything off to be members-only. One that occurs to me is that perhaps WMUK could negotiate with GLAMs that WMUK members get a preferential rate to enter exhibitions and the like. However, I think that would have to be some way off in the future, I don't get the impression that WMUK is big enough or has the spare man hours to try and get that off the ground at the moment. But maybe one day... ___ Wikimedia UK mailing list wikimediau...@wikimedia.org http://mail.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimediauk-l WMUK: http://uk.wikimedia.org ___ Wikimedia UK mailing list wikimediau...@wikimedia.org http://mail.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimediauk-l WMUK: http://uk.wikimedia.org
Re: [Wikimediauk-l] Membership Fee Cut
The AGM sets the fee but, in my experience of other organisations, I'd expect it to be a rubber-stamping of a Board recommendation unless the Board went rogue. On 24 February 2010 09:00, Gordon Joly gordon.j...@pobox.com wrote: Membership fees are a matter that concerns the Members. The Board can set the fee(?), and the AGM is an opportunity for Members to express themselves. Gordo ___ Wikimedia UK mailing list wikimediau...@wikimedia.org http://mail.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimediauk-l WMUK: http://uk.wikimedia.org ___ Wikimedia UK mailing list wikimediau...@wikimedia.org http://mail.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimediauk-l WMUK: http://uk.wikimedia.org
Re: [Wikimediauk-l] Membership Fee Cut
I have just paid the fee and applied to become a member this week. The reason I have not joined previously is not the cost, but that finding my cheque-book and buying a stamp would have been way way to much hassle for someone as disorganised as me. I only signed up after discovering through this thread that paypal was an available method allowing an entirely online process. If we a pushing for membership, I think this is something that need to be promoted, I know it costs more, but it is the easiest way to pay, and ease counts for a heck of a lot. Regarding what level it should be at, I disagree with the suggestion that a low fee implies low quality. My family used to have family membership of The National Trust and can heartily recommend it to anyone, as the member benefits are great with free entry to their properties, which while members we took full advantage of - we were out almost every weekend. However in this case it was the benefits that made it truly worthwhile. I can not really imagine any tangible benefits that WMUK can provide. After all, our purpose is to make knowledge free, it would seem counter-intuitive to close anything off to be members-only. There are many charities who ask for low fees, often as £1 or £2 a month, (so £12 or £24 a year) via direct debits. I would not regard them as small potatoes. In this case the reason for asking is to ensure a continual supply of money for which they can plan with. This is essential in organisations that have ongoing costs (a dog hospital, an aid charity, an organisation digging wells). I believe that that is not (at least yet) the case for us. Most money comes in during the donation drive; most money goes out in grants. One model you may wish to consider is that which I the Liberal Democrats use. They ask for a donation, stating that any donation over £10 (or £6 for concessions) entitles you to membership with a simple tick box to say yes, I wish to join ( https://www.libdems.org.uk/join_us.aspx ). I would imagine the reason for this is to maximise membership (a pool of supporters that they can call upon when things need doing) by allowing people to join cheaply, while simultaniously suggesting that if you can afford more, it would be appreciated by not making the default the minimum (I think the suggested amount is or was £36) Anyway, that is my 2 cents of rambling James ___ Wikimedia UK mailing list wikimediau...@wikimedia.org http://mail.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimediauk-l WMUK: http://uk.wikimedia.org
Re: [Wikimediauk-l] Membership Fee Cut
On Fri, 2010-02-19 at 00:41 +, River Tarnell wrote: Brian McNeil: And this is an argument for what, exactly? No argument; I'm merely pointing out that a direct comparison between WM-UK and the NT might be misleading, since their fundraising methods and goals are quite different. There seems to be little to no 'goals' to WMUK fundraising at the moment. Well, at least beyond getting the organisation stable and passing funds on the the WMF itself. You trimmed all the positive points I made to denigrate the proposal by insinuating I'm advocating sky-high membership fees. I was suggesting where we might seek to get members' benefits - and make it worth paying a slightly more respectable amount. To have the money to do so you can't set membership below the price of two pints of beer. I've read my post again, and I really can't see how you came to this conclusion. I trimmed the rest of your post because it wasn't relevant to the point I was making. I insinuated nothing. I have expressed no opinion on either side of the discussion, so I have no reason to do so. In fact, in the very text I quoted, you indicated that you found the NT membership fee to be a little steep. I find it unlikely that someone would read this text and come to the conclusion that you believe WM-UK should charge as much for membership. I was not suggesting WMUK charge as much as the National Trust, no. This was where I was concerned that suggestions for member benefits to go after was dismissed. PS: Assume good faith might be a little trite, but it's not a bad idea. I've always regarded that as Wikipedia-specific; where you can debate into old age over the content of the project. -- Brian McNeil brian.mcn...@wikinewsie.org Wikinewsie.org signature.asc Description: This is a digitally signed message part ___ Wikimedia UK mailing list wikimediau...@wikimedia.org http://mail.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimediauk-l WMUK: http://uk.wikimedia.org
Re: [Wikimediauk-l] Membership Fee Cut
On Fri, Feb 19, 2010 at 1:10 PM, David Gerard dger...@gmail.com wrote: On 19 February 2010 02:01, Tom Holden tom.hol...@economics.ox.ac.uk wrote: It seems there are quite a few people with quite serious concerns about the low rate. I confess this is not something I envisaged when proposing the rate cut, so my resolve to push for it is rather diminished. Suggestion: reduce it to £6, then it's the same as the present cheap rate and doesn't carry the impression of a fire sale. - d. I second that! Ian [[User:Poeloq]] ___ Wikimedia UK mailing list wikimediau...@wikimedia.org http://mail.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimediauk-l WMUK: http://uk.wikimedia.org
Re: [Wikimediauk-l] Membership Fee Cut
On Thu, Feb 18, 2010 at 4:10 PM, Andrew Gray andrew.g...@dunelm.org.uk wrote: * Demographics. Who are we targeting with reduced memberships? Is there a definable group of people who can't pay the higher fee, and if so, is it not being served by the existing two-tier group? That would be key for me. I think a £5 rate is a good idea for one particular demographic we should be aiming at: students. The other demographic is educated persons who, one hopes, have used their education to secure a pretty good job and I feel they could easily meet, say, £20. ___ Wikimedia UK mailing list wikimediau...@wikimedia.org http://mail.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimediauk-l WMUK: http://uk.wikimedia.org
Re: [Wikimediauk-l] Membership Fee Cut
Thomas Dalton: The idea is that members join to support us with their time, their ideas, their moral support, etc. People that want to support us financially do so by donating. I don't really follow this. You want to charge people to let them support you with their time? Why can't they donate their time to you without joining? - river. pgphzSEsU7hJ2.pgp Description: PGP signature ___ Wikimedia UK mailing list wikimediau...@wikimedia.org http://mail.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimediauk-l WMUK: http://uk.wikimedia.org
Re: [Wikimediauk-l] Membership Fee Cut
WereSpielChequers: However I have gone through your form, and got as far as realising that unusually for a wikimedia project you want to know my real life identity. Now I understand that I'd have to disclose that if I wanted to be a check user, Arb or boardmember but I don't see why I should disclose that to you. There are very few charities that don't require at least a name and address from people who join. Joining WM-UK is not the same as creating an account on Wikipedia; you're paying real-life money to join a real-life charity. Asking for your real-life identity doesn't seem like too much to ask. - river. pgpGe7TQDnLfG.pgp Description: PGP signature ___ Wikimedia UK mailing list wikimediau...@wikimedia.org http://mail.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimediauk-l WMUK: http://uk.wikimedia.org
Re: [Wikimediauk-l] Membership Fee Cut
You are completely right River. We want as many people as possible to become members in order for our membership to better represent the community of UK Wikimedians. By becoming a member you get a democratic say in the running of the chapter, which gives you the power to influence what we spend our money on, what we do, who we vote for for the chapter board seat etc etc. -Original Message- From: wikimediauk-l-boun...@lists.wikimedia.org [mailto:wikimediauk-l-boun...@lists.wikimedia.org] On Behalf Of River Tarnell Sent: 18 February 2010 2:29 PM To: wikimediauk-l@lists.wikimedia.org Subject: Re: [Wikimediauk-l] Membership Fee Cut Thomas Dalton: The idea is that members join to support us with their time, their ideas, their moral support, etc. People that want to support us financially do so by donating. I don't really follow this. You want to charge people to let them support you with their time? Why can't they donate their time to you without joining? - river. ___ Wikimedia UK mailing list wikimediau...@wikimedia.org http://mail.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimediauk-l WMUK: http://uk.wikimedia.org
Re: [Wikimediauk-l] Membership Fee Cut
On 18 February 2010 14:28, River Tarnell ri...@loreley.flyingparchment.org.uk wrote: Thomas Dalton: The idea is that members join to support us with their time, their ideas, their moral support, etc. People that want to support us financially do so by donating. I don't really follow this. You want to charge people to let them support you with their time? Why can't they donate their time to you without joining? They can donate their time without being a member, but they wouldn't get a say in how the charity is run (at least, not directly). A lot of people would like to have a vote if they are going donate their time, and that is what requires membership. We charge for membership because we want people to so at least some commitment before they to vote, and getting their chequebook out does that. We could waive the fee for people that are already donating their time and really can't afford the fee, but if the fee is only £5 then that won't be many people. ___ Wikimedia UK mailing list wikimediau...@wikimedia.org http://mail.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimediauk-l WMUK: http://uk.wikimedia.org
Re: [Wikimediauk-l] Membership Fee Cut
On 18 February 2010 11:32, Charles Matthews charles.r.matth...@ntlworld.com wrote: Thomas Dalton wrote: On 17 February 2010 22:15, Charles Matthews charles.r.matth...@ntlworld.com wrote: The logic of soliciting donations is always that if there is more money, more can be done. Money doesn't make the world of the WMF go round, but in the real world money tends to be given to those who show they know the value of it. Did you have a point? It is not obvious to me that a fee cut will affect membership much. I'm concerned that cutting fees is not actually a membership drive that will increase membership and participation, but a soft option. I'm concerned if there is unanimity that this move is a good thing. While having a lower fee may not affect it much, the act of cutting it probably will because it gives us an excuse to publicise membership. And I'm also concerned about your continuing rudeness on this list. I have some experience in club organisation and a national voluntary organisation, and I've been through the let's cut membership/people don't join because of the fee discussion and its consequences in two other contexts. I'm pretty busy on a project at the moment, and my interest in participating as an active member of WMUK is not a given. I'm sorry if you interpreted my question as being rude. I simply wanted to know what your point was, since you hadn't made it. You had just made some general comments that did not have an obvious conclusion. If an organisation underprices itself in terms of membership, it affects expectations (of what it will do for the members, of what the members can agitate to have happen). We don't do anything for members. We're a charity, we have to benefit the public at large, not members. Members are supposed to do something for us. There was some talk of hiring admin help, which is the first step in developing a more solid structure that can actually fulfil tasks that involve more than a bit of emailing around and wiki editing. If WMUK needs such support, which I would say was the case, then dropping the fee is undermining the idea that funds can be raised that can be hypothecated to having administration and routine work done. If say 400 hours a year staff work is to be done, on behalf of things the members would like to see move forward, then this needs to be funded sensibly, and money should not be waved away. The reciprocal relationship of members paying into an organisation, and things happening, is actually healthy. Membership fees are never going to be a significant proportion of our budget. Even if we charge £12 and have 500 members, that's only going to be about 10% of our budget, and that's assuming we don't raise more in future fundraisers than we did this year (and we almost certainly will). The thought process that the board went through was to realise that it doesn't actually make any real difference to our finances what the membership fee is, so we should choose a membership fee that is likely to get us the best membership (which is a balance between numbers and commitment). We thought £5 was a good choice for that. ___ Wikimedia UK mailing list wikimediau...@wikimedia.org http://mail.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimediauk-l WMUK: http://uk.wikimedia.org
Re: [Wikimediauk-l] Membership Fee Cut
On 18 February 2010 15:35, Thomas Dalton thomas.dal...@gmail.com wrote: I'm sorry if you interpreted my question as being rude. I simply wanted to know what your point was, since you hadn't made it. You had just made some general comments that did not have an obvious conclusion. It was in response to a response to a comment of his; read in that context, it makes perfect sense. Setting a price below a typical cinema ticket isn't really a claim on anyone's respect. ... in the real world money tends to be given to those who show they know the value of it, ergo, asking for less money with the hope of getting more people may actually lead to you receiving even less overall because it may suggest a lack of seriousness or of ambition. I'm not sure I agree with it entirely, but it's a legitimate concern. A few related points which are worth bearing in mind here: * Elasticity. There's plenty of people who'd pay half what they're paying now happily, but would also pay *twice* quite happily. Lowering it to the lower end of that band won't bring in more of the people whose decision to join or not in the first place isn't simply purely monetary - and I don't think it's that unusual a group. Tom says we're planning to email donors asking if they'd become a member at a reduced rate - do we know they wouldn't have become a member at the current rate if asked? * Demographics. Who are we targeting with reduced memberships? Is there a definable group of people who can't pay the higher fee, and if so, is it not being served by the existing two-tier group? * Efficiency. If we can raise a sufficient amount from memberships to cover our predicted operating costs, this is a pretty good thing - it means we can say, clearly and upfront, that all donations received will be spent *entirely* on productive projects, that there's no cut for administration from donated funds. Good fundraising selling point, there. -- - Andrew Gray andrew.g...@dunelm.org.uk ___ Wikimedia UK mailing list wikimediau...@wikimedia.org http://mail.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimediauk-l WMUK: http://uk.wikimedia.org
Re: [Wikimediauk-l] Membership Fee Cut
Brian McNeil: Look at National Trust membership fees: http://www.nationaltrust.org.uk/main/w-trust/w-support/w-jointoday/w-jointoday-categories_costs.htm In my opinion, a little steep - but I believe they've secured a rather nice members benefits package. But the NT, as far as I know, do not have regular public fundraisers like WM does (meaning a large part of their income is from memberships), and since NT membership waives the entrance fee for NT properties (which is often quite high), it's not impossible for them to *lose* money on memberships. NT also has much higher unavoidable overhead; WM-UK could operate on almost nothing without going bankrupt. - river. pgpz5fUj1vuGV.pgp Description: PGP signature ___ Wikimedia UK mailing list wikimediau...@wikimedia.org http://mail.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimediauk-l WMUK: http://uk.wikimedia.org
Re: [Wikimediauk-l] Membership Fee Cut
Brian McNeil: And this is an argument for what, exactly? No argument; I'm merely pointing out that a direct comparison between WM-UK and the NT might be misleading, since their fundraising methods and goals are quite different. You trimmed all the positive points I made to denigrate the proposal by insinuating I'm advocating sky-high membership fees. I've read my post again, and I really can't see how you came to this conclusion. I trimmed the rest of your post because it wasn't relevant to the point I was making. I insinuated nothing. I have expressed no opinion on either side of the discussion, so I have no reason to do so. In fact, in the very text I quoted, you indicated that you found the NT membership fee to be a little steep. I find it unlikely that someone would read this text and come to the conclusion that you believe WM-UK should charge as much for membership. - river. PS: Assume good faith might be a little trite, but it's not a bad idea. pgpQ2SWYf0uAX.pgp Description: PGP signature ___ Wikimedia UK mailing list wikimediau...@wikimedia.org http://mail.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimediauk-l WMUK: http://uk.wikimedia.org
Re: [Wikimediauk-l] Membership Fee Cut
On 18 February 2010 16:16, Thomas Dalton thomas.dal...@gmail.com wrote: monetary - and I don't think it's that unusual a group. Tom says we're planning to email donors asking if they'd become a member at a reduced rate - do we know they wouldn't have become a member at the current rate if asked? They were already asked, although maybe not very prominently, and most of them didn't join. Comment on the donation form, I guess? Optional stuff on a donation form is usually ignored regardless of the fine print of what it says, and I suspect you'd have had virtually the same takeup if it said £5 or £10 or £15 - of course, this is practically untestable in any useful way. Do we have figures for the distribution of our donors to hand? What proportion gave: a) up to £5 b) £5 to £12 c) £12 or more The proportions here might tell us something interesting about the prospective takeup at any given price point. Relatedly: how many members do we have at £6, and how many at £12? -- - Andrew Gray andrew.g...@dunelm.org.uk ___ Wikimedia UK mailing list wikimediau...@wikimedia.org http://mail.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimediauk-l WMUK: http://uk.wikimedia.org
Re: [Wikimediauk-l] Membership Fee Cut
It seems there are quite a few people with quite serious concerns about the low rate. I confess this is not something I envisaged when proposing the rate cut, so my resolve to push for it is rather diminished. There are two options as I see it then. Either we just wait for the AGM and discuss there, or we make the cut, but we treat it strictly as an experiment. When it got to the AGM we could then ask the new members who paid £5 if they would have joined had the rate been £12, and then we could make an informed decision on that basis. (You can't easily perform the reverse experiment, as those who didn't join because the rate was £12 are unlikely to be at the AGM.) Would any of you who objected to the rate cut be OK with an experimental low rate between now and the AGM? If not I guess we should probably leave it where it is. Tom -Original Message- From: wikimediauk-l-boun...@lists.wikimedia.org [mailto:wikimediauk-l-boun...@lists.wikimedia.org] On Behalf Of Andrew Gray Sent: 19 February 2010 1:47 AM To: wikimediauk-l@lists.wikimedia.org Subject: Re: [Wikimediauk-l] Membership Fee Cut On 18 February 2010 16:16, Thomas Dalton thomas.dal...@gmail.com wrote: monetary - and I don't think it's that unusual a group. Tom says we're planning to email donors asking if they'd become a member at a reduced rate - do we know they wouldn't have become a member at the current rate if asked? They were already asked, although maybe not very prominently, and most of them didn't join. Comment on the donation form, I guess? Optional stuff on a donation form is usually ignored regardless of the fine print of what it says, and I suspect you'd have had virtually the same takeup if it said £5 or £10 or £15 - of course, this is practically untestable in any useful way. Do we have figures for the distribution of our donors to hand? What proportion gave: a) up to £5 b) £5 to £12 c) £12 or more The proportions here might tell us something interesting about the prospective takeup at any given price point. Relatedly: how many members do we have at £6, and how many at £12? -- - Andrew Gray andrew.g...@dunelm.org.uk ___ Wikimedia UK mailing list wikimediau...@wikimedia.org http://mail.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimediauk-l WMUK: http://uk.wikimedia.org ___ Wikimedia UK mailing list wikimediau...@wikimedia.org http://mail.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimediauk-l WMUK: http://uk.wikimedia.org
Re: [Wikimediauk-l] Membership Fee Cut
Tom Holden wrote: Hi all, We are considering cutting the membership fee to £5 flat. (It is currently £12 waged, £6 unwaged.) We would like to expand membership before the AGM and we feel cutting the membership fee will help with this. It will also simplify our administration. We are planning to email everyone who donated during the fundraiser asking if they would like to become a member at this reduced rate, as well as emailing all current members asking if they would like to renew their membership at the new rate. Does anyone object to this? So, what signal does this send? For me, nothing very positive about the organisation. Setting a price below a typical cinema ticket isn't really a claim on anyone's respect. Charles ___ Wikimedia UK mailing list wikimediau...@wikimedia.org http://mail.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimediauk-l WMUK: http://uk.wikimedia.org
Re: [Wikimediauk-l] Membership Fee Cut
Well, but it should nonetheless be sufficient to reduce the chance that people sign up for a joke or similar. Particularly when combined with the cost of getting to the AGM etc. How strongly do you feel about this? Is £12/£6 actually any better? -Original Message- From: wikimediauk-l-boun...@lists.wikimedia.org [mailto:wikimediauk-l-boun...@lists.wikimedia.org] On Behalf Of Charles Matthews Sent: 17 February 2010 3:59 PM To: wikimediauk-l@lists.wikimedia.org Subject: Re: [Wikimediauk-l] Membership Fee Cut So, what signal does this send? For me, nothing very positive about the organisation. Setting a price below a typical cinema ticket isn't really a claim on anyone's respect. Charles ___ Wikimedia UK mailing list wikimediau...@wikimedia.org http://mail.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimediauk-l WMUK: http://uk.wikimedia.org
Re: [Wikimediauk-l] Membership Fee Cut
On 17 February 2010 15:59, Charles Matthews charles.r.matth...@ntlworld.com wrote: So, what signal does this send? For me, nothing very positive about the organisation. Setting a price below a typical cinema ticket isn't really a claim on anyone's respect. The idea is that members join to support us with their time, their ideas, their moral support, etc. People that want to support us financially do so by donating. ___ Wikimedia UK mailing list wikimediau...@wikimedia.org http://mail.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimediauk-l WMUK: http://uk.wikimedia.org
Re: [Wikimediauk-l] Membership Fee Cut
Thomas Dalton wrote: On 17 February 2010 15:59, Charles Matthews charles.r.matth...@ntlworld.com wrote: So, what signal does this send? For me, nothing very positive about the organisation. Setting a price below a typical cinema ticket isn't really a claim on anyone's respect. The idea is that members join to support us with their time, their ideas, their moral support, etc. People that want to support us financially do so by donating. The logic of soliciting donations is always that if there is more money, more can be done. Money doesn't make the world of the WMF go round, but in the real world money tends to be given to those who show they know the value of it. Charles ___ Wikimedia UK mailing list wikimediau...@wikimedia.org http://mail.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimediauk-l WMUK: http://uk.wikimedia.org
Re: [Wikimediauk-l] Membership Fee Cut
On 17 February 2010 22:15, Charles Matthews charles.r.matth...@ntlworld.com wrote: The logic of soliciting donations is always that if there is more money, more can be done. Money doesn't make the world of the WMF go round, but in the real world money tends to be given to those who show they know the value of it. Did you have a point? ___ Wikimedia UK mailing list wikimediau...@wikimedia.org http://mail.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimediauk-l WMUK: http://uk.wikimedia.org
[Wikimediauk-l] Membership Fee Cut
Hi all, We are considering cutting the membership fee to £5 flat. (It is currently £12 waged, £6 unwaged.) We would like to expand membership before the AGM and we feel cutting the membership fee will help with this. It will also simplify our administration. We are planning to email everyone who donated during the fundraiser asking if they would like to become a member at this reduced rate, as well as emailing all current members asking if they would like to renew their membership at the new rate. Does anyone object to this? We appreciate that some of you will have recently paid membership fees at the full rate, but if we are to make such a cut it is inevitable that some people will have paid the full rate in the months before the cut, and in the long-run everyone will benefit from it. If it is any consolation, all three of us board members who have been on the board from the start have already paid our dues for the year at the higher rate. All comments are appreciated, Thanks in advance, Tom Holden Treasurer, Wikimedia UK ___ Wikimedia UK mailing list wikimediau...@wikimedia.org http://mail.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimediauk-l WMUK: http://uk.wikimedia.org
Re: [Wikimediauk-l] Membership Fee Cut
On Tue, Feb 16, 2010 at 10:46 PM, Tom Holden tom.hol...@economics.ox.ac.uk wrote: Does anyone object to this? We appreciate that some of you will have recently paid membership fees at the full rate, but if we are to make such a cut it is inevitable that some people will have paid the full rate in the months before the cut, I paid at the £6 rate but even had I paid the full rate I don't think I'd be too upset. Are you sure price cutting is the answer? As I understood it WMUK was already a bit peeved if people paid the lower rate via PayPal because of PayPal taking a cut, so presumably the £5 rate will cause any Paypal sign-ups to be virtually counter-productive, yet it would be my argument that Paypal's probably the single biggest area ripe for growth in garnering funds. I probably wouldn't have got my arse in gear to sign up if there had been no Paypal or at least debit card option. So I'll ask the question; if you decide to make the rate £5 are you going to remove the Paypal payment option? ___ Wikimedia UK mailing list wikimediau...@wikimedia.org http://mail.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimediauk-l WMUK: http://uk.wikimedia.org
Re: [Wikimediauk-l] Membership Fee Cut
We did not discuss PayPal in the meeting actually. The PayPal fee on £5 is 27p at the lower fee rate, though I expect we'll shortly be moved back up to the higher rate at which it's 37p. I don't think there's any question of us removing the PayPal option, and it would also be counter-productive to charge a different rate for PayPal memberships, particularly since our CRM system cannot handle different rates depending on payment method, which means we have to manually edit transactions for people who sign up online but then pay by cheque. That we lose a few quid in change is a little unfortunate, but I think it's worth it for a simple, transparent system (and for the increase in membership). What we decided in essence was that in light of our earnings in the fundraiser, we would no longer be looking to membership as a way of generating revenue. Thus instead of looking at it as a required contribution to us (which justified charging extra for PayPal) I guess we are looking at it as a required level of commitment (which justifies charging everyone the same amount). Tom -Original Message- From: wikimediauk-l-boun...@lists.wikimedia.org [mailto:wikimediauk-l-boun...@lists.wikimedia.org] On Behalf Of Bod Notbod Sent: 16 February 2010 11:35 PM To: wikimediauk-l@lists.wikimedia.org Subject: Re: [Wikimediauk-l] Membership Fee Cut On Tue, Feb 16, 2010 at 10:46 PM, Tom Holden tom.hol...@economics.ox.ac.uk wrote: Does anyone object to this? We appreciate that some of you will have recently paid membership fees at the full rate, but if we are to make such a cut it is inevitable that some people will have paid the full rate in the months before the cut, I paid at the £6 rate but even had I paid the full rate I don't think I'd be too upset. Are you sure price cutting is the answer? As I understood it WMUK was already a bit peeved if people paid the lower rate via PayPal because of PayPal taking a cut, so presumably the £5 rate will cause any Paypal sign-ups to be virtually counter-productive, yet it would be my argument that Paypal's probably the single biggest area ripe for growth in garnering funds. I probably wouldn't have got my arse in gear to sign up if there had been no Paypal or at least debit card option. So I'll ask the question; if you decide to make the rate £5 are you going to remove the Paypal payment option? ___ Wikimedia UK mailing list wikimediau...@wikimedia.org http://mail.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimediauk-l WMUK: http://uk.wikimedia.org ___ Wikimedia UK mailing list wikimediau...@wikimedia.org http://mail.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimediauk-l WMUK: http://uk.wikimedia.org
Re: [Wikimediauk-l] Membership Fee Cut
On 17 February 2010 00:23, Tom Holden tom.hol...@economics.ox.ac.uk wrote: We did not discuss PayPal in the meeting actually. The PayPal fee on £5 is 27p at the lower fee rate, though I expect we'll shortly be moved back up to the higher rate at which it's 37p. I don't think there's any question of us removing the PayPal option, and it would also be counter-productive to charge a different rate for PayPal memberships, particularly since our CRM system cannot handle different rates depending on payment method, which means we have to manually edit transactions for people who sign up online but then pay by cheque. That we lose a few quid in change is a little unfortunate, but I think it's worth it for a simple, transparent system (and for the increase in membership). What we decided in essence was that in light of our earnings in the fundraiser, we would no longer be looking to membership as a way of generating revenue. Thus instead of looking at it as a required contribution to us (which justified charging extra for PayPal) I guess we are looking at it as a required level of commitment (which justifies charging everyone the same amount). We should have thought of Paypal fees! I agree, though, the idea behind the reduction means changing extra for Paypal payments doesn't make any sense and we should just absorb the fees. ___ Wikimedia UK mailing list wikimediau...@wikimedia.org http://mail.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimediauk-l WMUK: http://uk.wikimedia.org
