We have 4 options: 5 hours/month (people who really just want a mailbox/home) 20 60 100
we don;t monitor - we use atrust system and tell them that 15% over or under doesn;t make a difference... this was based on a fair bit of research...and it works very well for us... you can;t "carry over" your hours - you sign up for a 6 month "lease"... but you can change your package mid-stream if you need to Eli On Oct 7, 8:38 am, Chris Conrey <[email protected]> wrote: > Mike, > I'm glad to see that you have plans and ways to manage some of the issues > that will likely arise. Rather than take up everyone's bandwidth, I think > that it is best to agree that we have two viewpoints and move on. Please > feel free to email me anytime off list at [email protected]. We've > been doing this for a year + now, so we remember what its like having the > first few months of chaos and issues. > > Chris Conrey > chrisconrey.com > Human->Geek Relations at Integrum > @conrey on Twitter > > On Tue, Oct 6, 2009 at 9:08 PM, Mike Schinkel > <[email protected]>wrote: > > > > > Certainly - with the wrong interests in mind this would easily go badly in > > this direction. But what sort of vested interests can really be involved if > > its just open space anyway? > > > The host of the party has a lot of control over the guests who are invited. > > > What happens when a free tenant bids on a project against anchor tenants? > > Are you saying that you will give them every advantage as yourself if they > > are bidding on a project and you really need the project to pay the bills? > > > Long term planning for downturns is an important concern for a community. > > As is, is the anchor tenants fall on hard times everyone looses. > > > Great problem to have. We took advantage of the down real estate market to > > get a bigger space than we would need for this very reason. > > > There are always limits, no matter how big. > > > That's kind of a strawman argument with no data from a model where there is > > no cost to join and the only time anything has ever been stolen here was > > when some junkies broke in and stole our fax machine. > > > It's not a strawman but it is a hypothetical, admittedly. > > > I certainly hope that you don't think I'm judging your model as wrong, I > > just like it differently. > > > Collectively from some comments in email and some tweets directed at us > > from someone at GangPlank, yes that's how it appeared. But I'm glad to learn > > that I misinterpreted and BTW that was the only reason I commented on your > > model. > > > 1) In hard times the person(s) who own and run the space are going to be > > tightening up or exerting undue influence in one way or another (raising > > prices, restricting usage, cramming more people in etc). > > > Since you bring it up I'll address in case the discussion helps others. > > > Yes, but I think a pay model is purer; i.e. the drivers for the survival of > > the space and the community will be in line with the value provided by the > > space for the community. This will make it easier to find an appropriate > > adjustment. In the sponsoring anchor tenant model the success of the anchor > > tenets will only indirectly be related to the overall success of the > > community. Personally I like to align my revenue model with my mission as > > opposed to having it tangential. > > > OTOH, what works for one doesn't always work for another so I respect your > > right and ability to run yours as you see fit. As my dad would always say > > "Different Strokes for Different Folks." > > > 2) In a worst case the model is unsustainable because of a lack of folks > > with an ability to continue paying - much like a gym membership when they > > can run anywhere - their co-working membership when they can work at a > > starbucks or at home. (Yes I know the analogy is flawed in detail but on the > > surface it works) > > > Your making an assumption that there are no innovations to the model. > > We've already identified one innovation which we think will almost ensure > > ongoing sustainability. It will also make it so that the members who can > > least afford it are given the ability to participate. And I'll be happy to > > share that innovation, once we proven it actually works. :) > > > 3) You build a community with a sense of entitlement when things go wrong > > you get the "Well I paid my dues so I am owed my share of time in the > > conference room" or "The bandwidth was down so I want some refund for my > > costs" or etc. When people are monetarily involved in things they behave > > differently (not going to google psychological studies but there are > > plenty). > > > I agree with that in principle but think that most of that can be addressed > > by how the community is managed. First, there is the cultivation of a co-op > > like culture where members are encouraged to help each other and the > > organizers of the community take the lead. > > > Second is the make it clear to members that the space won't be perfect and > > not to expect it to be but instead be glad that it exists. Make them aware > > that their payment goes to support the space and a big percentage of profits > > back to the give the community to use to enhance the space. > > > Third is to keep the price low enough that almost anything they might have > > to complain about is trivial in cost. For example, our unlimited monthly > > plan is 40 cents per hour given an 8 hour day, or 13 cents per hour given a > > 24 hour day. "So the Internet was down for an 1/2 hour and you want your > > money back? Fine; here's 20 cents." (You see how silly that is? But in the > > case of bandwidth, get a backup connection and that issue all but goes > > away.) > > > Fourth, build a true community so that people know each other. Encourage > > them to make their complaints in a public forum. Then we'll either address > > it because it needs to be addressed or the community policies itself of > > petty behavior. People are much more likely to be petty one-on-one than if > > they know everyone will see their pettiness. > > > Lastly we don't have long term contracts. If someone is unhappy they can > > just leave; if they are really unhappy we'll refund their last month. But > > then they loose all the benefits of the environment and community so that > > further helps moderate the petty behavior. > > > Of course, we've only been doing this or a month now so I could be wrong on > > all this. Time will tell... > > > Again, I don't think your model is any worse than mine - just different > > angles that I'm trying to share. > > > Ditto! > > > -Mike Schinkel > > Ignition Alley Atlanta Coworking > >http://ignitionalley.com > > > On Oct 6, 2009, at 11:21 PM, Chris Conrey wrote: > > > On Tue, Oct 6, 2009 at 2:33 PM, Mike Schinkel <[email protected] > > > wrote: > > >> As a counter, we looked at anchor companies that would gift the space to > >> people and we found too many problems with it. > > >> 1.) The anchor companies are too likely to introduce vested-interest in > >> the space if and when the fall on hard times and don't have the benefit of > >> being so altruistic. > > >> Certainly - with the wrong interests in mind this would easily go badly in > > this direction. But what sort of vested interests can really be involved if > > its just open space anyway? > > >> 2.) We have more people interested than we have space to accommodate. > >> Setting a price allows us to manage that with supply and demand. > > > Great problem to have. We took advantage of the down real estate market to > > get a bigger space than we would need for this very reason. > > >> 3.) We want a community where we have people who value the community and > >> where we have people we can trust. Those who pay value more on average than > >> those who don't, and without fee it will be much more likely someone would > >> join just to steal from our members. > > > That's kind of a strawman argument with no data from a model where there is > > no cost to join and the only time anything has ever been stolen here was > > when some junkies broke in and stole our fax machine. > > >> With that I completely agree. That's why we have simply Occasional (5 > >> calendar days) and Unlimited. We don't want people thinking "Am I about > >> out > >> of paid time?" Reminds me of my MacBook's damn battery vs. my Dell > >> laptops. > >> On the former I'm always watching the battery meter but with the later I > >> almost completely forget about it and the latter makes my life so much > >> nicer. :) > > >> -Mike Schinkel > >> Ignition Alley Atlanta Coworking > >>http://ignitionalley.com > > > I certainly hope that you don't think I'm judging your model as wrong, I > > just like it differently. I'm glad that it is working for you (and nearly > > everyone else on this list who runs a space). My concerns with your model > > are very similar to yours with mine. > > 1) In hard times the person(s) who own and run the space are going to be > > tightening up or exerting undue influence in one way or another (raising > > prices, restricting usage, cramming more people in etc). > > 2) In a worst case the model is unsustainable because of a lack of folks > > with an ability to continue paying - much like a gym membership when they > > can run anywhere - their co-working membership when they can work at a > > starbucks or at home. (Yes I know the analogy is flawed in detail but on the > > surface it works) > > 3) You build a community with a sense of entitlement when things go wrong > > you get the "Well I paid my dues so I am owed my share of time in the > > conference room" or "The bandwidth was down so I want some refund for my > > costs" or etc. When people are monetarily involved in things they behave > > differently (not going to google psychological studies but there are > > plenty). > > > Again, I don't think your model is any worse than mine - just different > > angles that I'm trying to share. > > > Chris Conrey > > >> On Oct 6, 2009, at 11:25 AM, Chris Conrey wrote: > > >> This is one reason why we avoided the pay to play model entirely at > >> Gangplank. Once people start tracking minutes and space it becomes a real > >> estate transaction rather than a community building action. I realize that > >> not everyone can have anchor companies that cover the extra costs, but it > > ... > > read more »- Hide quoted text - > > - Show quoted text - --~--~---------~--~----~------------~-------~--~----~ You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups "Coworking" group. To post to this group, send email to [email protected] To unsubscribe from this group, send email to [email protected] For more options, visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/coworking?hl=en -~----------~----~----~----~------~----~------~--~---
