On 18 February 2010 16:10, Andrew Gray andrew.gray@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).