On 18 February 2010 15:35, Thomas Dalton thomas.dalton@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.