On 18 February 2010 16:10, Andrew Gray <andrew.gray(a)dunelm.org.uk> wrote:
* 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?
They were already asked, although maybe not very prominently, and most
of them didn't join.
* 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?
I think it is more those who would rather not pay the higher fee. As
you say, those who can't pay it would only be paying £1 more under the
current system.
* 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.
Yes, that would be lovely, but it is never going to happen. Our
predicted admin costs for the next year about just under £10,000. At
the current membership fee structure, that would require about 1,100
members. While we might get that many members in the long run, we
won't get them in the next year and, by the time we do get them, admin
costs will have significantly increased (because of total budget will
have significantly increased).