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
On Tue, Feb 16, 2010 at 10:46 PM, Tom Holden tom.holden@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?
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-bounces@lists.wikimedia.org [mailto:wikimediauk-l-bounces@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.holden@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 wikimediauk-l@wikimedia.org http://mail.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimediauk-l WMUK: http://uk.wikimedia.org
On 17 February 2010 00:23, Tom Holden tom.holden@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.
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
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-bounces@lists.wikimedia.org [mailto:wikimediauk-l-bounces@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
On 17 February 2010 15:59, Charles Matthews charles.r.matthews@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.
Thomas Dalton wrote:
On 17 February 2010 15:59, Charles Matthews charles.r.matthews@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
On 17 February 2010 22:15, Charles Matthews charles.r.matthews@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?
Thomas Dalton wrote:
On 17 February 2010 22:15, Charles Matthews charles.r.matthews@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.
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.
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). 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.
Charles
How much it costs to join is a somewhat lesser issue for me than some of the other issues (though as one of the great ranks of the part time workers £12 is a lot more to me now than it was when I was working full time). Almost everything else I've joined as a Wikimedian has been free to join, though there was a registration fee for wikimania, I'm not sure why in principle the UK chapter should be different.
As a fairly active Wikimedian who happens to live in the UK I'm a potential chapter member, but not entirely sold yet as to why I should get involved in a geographically focussed chapter when that doesn't relate to my editing activities.
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.
I also am less likely to print out and complete something than I would be to sign up to something online (aside from the fact that my printer is currently hors de combat, I do think snail mail is a deterrent to people who are used to doing stuff online).
Sorry if that comes across as negative, and maybe I'm the only one of your prospects with those particular issues. But if you want to increase your membership one way is to ask people like me why they haven't joined.
Cheers and happy editing.
WereSpielChequers
On 18 February 2010 11:32, Charles Matthews charles.r.matthews@ntlworld.com wrote:
Thomas Dalton wrote:
On 17 February 2010 22:15, Charles Matthews charles.r.matthews@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.
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.
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). 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.
Charles
Wikimedia UK mailing list wikimediauk-l@wikimedia.org http://mail.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimediauk-l WMUK: http://uk.wikimedia.org
I'm afraid becoming a member has legal implications, and for these reasons we need to ask for your real world details. There is no need to link your real name to your editing name though, so the anonymity of your editing name can be preserved. We do now offer online sign-up though at:
http://donate.wikimedia.org.uk/index.php?option=com_civicrm&view=Contrib...
Tom
-----Original Message----- From: wikimediauk-l-bounces@lists.wikimedia.org [mailto:wikimediauk-l-bounces@lists.wikimedia.org] On Behalf Of WereSpielChequers Sent: 18 February 2010 2:21 PM To: charles.r.matthews@ntlworld.com; wikimediauk-l@lists.wikimedia.org Subject: Re: [Wikimediauk-l] Membership Fee Cut
How much it costs to join is a somewhat lesser issue for me than some of the other issues (though as one of the great ranks of the part time workers £12 is a lot more to me now than it was when I was working full time). Almost everything else I've joined as a Wikimedian has been free to join, though there was a registration fee for wikimania, I'm not sure why in principle the UK chapter should be different.
As a fairly active Wikimedian who happens to live in the UK I'm a potential chapter member, but not entirely sold yet as to why I should get involved in a geographically focussed chapter when that doesn't relate to my editing activities.
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.
I also am less likely to print out and complete something than I would be to sign up to something online (aside from the fact that my printer is currently hors de combat, I do think snail mail is a deterrent to people who are used to doing stuff online).
Sorry if that comes across as negative, and maybe I'm the only one of your prospects with those particular issues. But if you want to increase your membership one way is to ask people like me why they haven't joined.
Cheers and happy editing.
WereSpielChequers
On 18 February 2010 11:32, Charles Matthews charles.r.matthews@ntlworld.com wrote:
Thomas Dalton wrote:
On 17 February 2010 22:15, Charles Matthews charles.r.matthews@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.
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.
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). 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.
Charles
Wikimedia UK mailing list wikimediauk-l@wikimedia.org http://mail.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimediauk-l WMUK: http://uk.wikimedia.org
-- WereSpielChequers
_______________________________________________ Wikimedia UK mailing list wikimediauk-l@wikimedia.org http://mail.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimediauk-l WMUK: http://uk.wikimedia.org
Tom Holden:
We do now offer online sign-up though at:
http://donate.wikimedia.org.uk/index.php?option=com_civicrm&view=Contrib...
You might want to link to this a little more prominently on the Membership page. Currently it says "Please print the application form provided on the right and post back to the address on the form", which is likely to put people off before they notice the "online form" at the top of the page.
Also, is there any reason not to accept POs as well as cheques for postal applications?
- river.
On 18 Feb 2010, at 15:44, River Tarnell wrote:
Tom Holden:
We do now offer online sign-up though at:
http://donate.wikimedia.org.uk/index.php? option=com_civicrm&view=Contributions&Itemid=57
You might want to link to this a little more prominently on the Membership page. Currently it says "Please print the application form provided on the right and post back to the address on the form", which is likely to put people off before they notice the "online form" at the top of the page.
I've modified the page to make the online form more prominent. Please let me know if you think it needs further refinement.
BTW, a number of pages on the WMUK wiki are protected to avoid vandalism. However, we're always open for trusted members interested in helping maintain/improve the website to become administrators. If you're (speaking generally - not just to River) interested in that, please let me know.
Also, is there any reason not to accept POs as well as cheques for postal applications?
Primarily simplicity and time demands, I believe. In order to cash a postal order you need to go to a post office, then onwards to the bank. There's no certainty that they are anywhere near each other. When it's volunteer time (and most volunteers tend to be busiest at the times when post offices are open), then that becomes more of a problem.
Mike
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.
On 18 February 2010 11:32, Charles Matthews charles.r.matthews@ntlworld.com wrote:
Thomas Dalton wrote:
On 17 February 2010 22:15, Charles Matthews charles.r.matthews@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.
Thomas Dalton wrote:
On 18 February 2010 11:32, Charles Matthews charles.r.matthews@ntlworld.com wrote:
<snip>
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.
Wikimedians work on various WMF projects (I'm active on two) and if the chapter's work supports a project on which a member is active, that is certainly doing something for the member. No dichotomy here, therefore. In fact your argument is fairly horrible unless enWP is supposed to be the dominant project, because "Joe Public"'s interest is very largely in that site. And also would seem to undermine, say, having a newsletter. Please reconsider how you have framed this.
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.
Well, I was talking about people who know the value of money, and calling 10% of the budget insignificant doesn't qualify. The option chosen is basically a registration fee.
Charles
On 18 February 2010 15:57, Charles Matthews charles.r.matthews@ntlworld.com wrote:
Thomas Dalton wrote:
On 18 February 2010 11:32, Charles Matthews charles.r.matthews@ntlworld.com wrote:
<snip> >> 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. > Wikimedians work on various WMF projects (I'm active on two) and if the chapter's work supports a project on which a member is active, that is certainly doing something for the member. No dichotomy here, therefore. In fact your argument is fairly horrible unless enWP is supposed to be the dominant project, because "Joe Public"'s interest is very largely in that site. And also would seem to undermine, say, having a newsletter. Please reconsider how you have framed this.
I edit the projects. I don't benefit from that. The people that read what I write benefit. I do it as an act of charity. A newsletter helps me benefit others better, it doesn't benefit me.
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.
Well, I was talking about people who know the value of money, and calling 10% of the budget insignificant doesn't qualify. The option chosen is basically a registration fee.
10% was an absolute maximum. Realistically, it won't be anywhere near that much. Realistically, I would say reducing the membership fee will, at worst, reduce out budget by 1%.
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.
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).
On 18 February 2010 16:16, Thomas Dalton thomas.dalton@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?
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-bounces@lists.wikimedia.org [mailto:wikimediauk-l-bounces@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.dalton@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.gray@dunelm.org.uk
_______________________________________________ Wikimedia UK mailing list wikimediauk-l@wikimedia.org http://mail.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimediauk-l WMUK: http://uk.wikimedia.org
On 19 February 2010 02:01, Tom Holden tom.holden@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.
On Fri, Feb 19, 2010 at 1:10 PM, David Gerard dgerard@gmail.com wrote:
On 19 February 2010 02:01, Tom Holden tom.holden@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]]
On Thu, Feb 18, 2010 at 4:10 PM, Andrew Gray andrew.gray@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.
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
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.joly@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 wikimediauk-l@wikimedia.org http://mail.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimediauk-l WMUK: http://uk.wikimedia.org
On 24 February 2010 02:02, James Farrar james.farrar@gmail.com wrote:
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.
That is certainly how the last AGM intended things to work when the membership rules were approved. The board does (implicitly) reserve the right to change the fee itself, however, given the comments here, I would oppose us doing that (I was abstaining previously).
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.
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-bounces@lists.wikimedia.org [mailto:wikimediauk-l-bounces@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.
On 18 February 2010 14:28, River Tarnell river@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.
On Thu, 2010-02-18 at 15:19 +0000, Thomas Dalton wrote:
On 18 February 2010 14:28, River Tarnell river@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.
I joined at the cheaper, £6 rate - or whatever it was during the fundraiser. That's when unemployed and on minimum benefits. Yes, I thought about it somewhat before spending the money when I did - but I made the commitment because I want to see WMUK a funded and *influential* UK charity. When it's up for renewal I'd like to think having some say is easily worth the £12 full fee.
There's a variety of issues to deal with around membership fees. For a start, yes, you want the "join" message far more prominent during fundraisers.
Then, to expand on Charles' point, adding my own thoughts, I would want a mechanism to automate the payment - as would most people who might be persuaded to leave the default fundraiser page, go to a Wikimedia UK donate page, and add on a membership fee to join WMUK. You want it to recur, and *this is the point you offer a discount - right down to the unemployed rate*. You offer an option to take a one-year membership, and get some sort of e-newsletter (plus a welcoming email) *OR* you can pick an option to auto-renew at the full rate and fill out a direct debit mandate.
In itself, this adds administrative cost overheads; you have to comply with the Data Protection Act.
So, politely, I'd say please don't do any special membership promotions until there is infrastructure to keep the money flowing in.
I'm mostly active on Wikinews; I know Paul Williams - recently resigned WMUK VolCo - did a lot of work there too. Wikinews would really like to have low-cost, if not free, access to an ID printer card for accredited reporters.
Such equipment has, in my opinion, a possible longer-term benefit to any Chapter's members. I'm sure a number of the Commons shutterbugs would love to have something to help negotiate 'more privileged' access to museum collections. For example, out-of-hours access with a tripod and/or lights; access to collection material not normally or currently on display.
It all costs money, and it won't happen overnight. I'd rather see the board talk things over with the WMF and perhaps invest some money in improving the core WMF fundraiser system to better help chapters promote themselves and maintain income. At the same time you want benefits for members. As WMUK builds relationships with other groups &c in the UK there will be an opportunity to offer privileges to members because museums or such want to help us show them in the best light. Too cheap, too many people could game it.
Of course, that'd leave us a little under a year to work out how to really jump membership on the back of the WMF main fundraiser. Beforehand you need to work out how to manage some sort of "privileged" membership card; the Blue Peter Badge for Wikimedians! ;-)
On 18 February 2010 19:39, Brian McNeil brian.mcneil@wikinewsie.org wrote:
*OR* you can pick an option to auto-renew at the full rate and fill out a direct debit mandate.
We do intend to allow people to pay by direct debit, but there are a few hoops to jump through with the bank first. It wasn't an option for the last fundraiser, but hopefully will be for the next one.
Such equipment has, in my opinion, a possible longer-term benefit to any Chapter's members. I'm sure a number of the Commons shutterbugs would love to have something to help negotiate 'more privileged' access to museum collections. For example, out-of-hours access with a tripod and/or lights; access to collection material not normally or currently on display.
I have been thinking about membership cards which get you benefits are various places, perhaps we should give that some more consideration.
It all costs money, and it won't happen overnight. I'd rather see the board talk things over with the WMF and perhaps invest some money in improving the core WMF fundraiser system to better help chapters promote themselves and maintain income.
We don't use the WMF's fundraiser system. They just direct donors to our fundraising system, which I consider preferable. We want to keep control of our money.
On Thu, 2010-02-18 at 19:51 +0000, Thomas Dalton wrote:
<snip>
On 18 February 2010 19:39, Brian McNeil brian.mcneil@wikinewsie.org wrote:
It all costs money, and it won't happen overnight. I'd rather see the board talk things over with the WMF and perhaps invest some money in improving the core WMF fundraiser system to better help chapters promote themselves and maintain income.
We don't use the WMF's fundraiser system. They just direct donors to our fundraising system, which I consider preferable. We want to keep control of our money.
Yes, but as I assume you're aware, there was some discontent over the fundraiser. At least with regard to sister projects. Equally, the system could better support local chapter membership drives. That does not mean ceding control of funds to the WMF - a point I find strange to raise as I'd expect you to trust them and the WMUK board to draw up reasonable agreements.
There is talk of geolocation improvements to the central sitenotice and related use for fundraising. Why not have input on that development? Possibly even pay for the development of a system for the WMF to handover donation information to WMUK for them to process and possibly add a "top up" for membership, or a direct debit.
Basically, I'd say concentrate on bringing in the more dedicated Wikimedians - hopefully the people who have ideas on how WMUK can facilitate creation, collection, and dissemination of Free knowledge and culture.
I'd think very long, and very hard, before offering a "too cheap" membership fee - especially if auto-renewed at that rate.
Look at National Trust membership fees:
http://www.nationaltrust.org.uk/main/w-trust/w-support/w-jointoday/w-jointod...
In my opinion, a little steep - but I believe they've secured a rather nice members benefits package.
So, where's the tipping point? And, as you're stuck with a relatively small base to try and recruit from, or required to "beg" from donors to the WMF - look at what all you need in place, and how it fits into the bigger WMF picture. There is a checken-and-egg issue; WMUK needs the id/credentials points in place as a negotiating point with potential partners. You'd need a fairly regular newsletter as most people won't sign up to mailing lists or turn up in IRC (working with the MWF and non-UK-resident Wikimedians) you could employ a variety of distribution mechanisms, such as iPlayer (Wikinews used to do this for the print edition), have invite-only verified Facebook group(s), &c. Even if initially all you're doing is sending members an update on the last month's UK-related featured content you have to be giving people something reminding them you've not forgotten about them.
Build from that - offer a £25/quarter donation and membership fee at the next fundraiser. Then, work on newsletter content to draw in people who sign up and convert them into content contributors.
Brian McNeil:
Look at National Trust membership fees:
http://www.nationaltrust.org.uk/main/w-trust/w-support/w-jointoday/w-jointod...
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.
On Thu, 2010-02-18 at 21:34 +0000, River Tarnell wrote:
Brian McNeil:
Look at National Trust membership fees:
http://www.nationaltrust.org.uk/main/w-trust/w-support/w-jointoday/w-jointod...
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.
And this is an argument for what, exactly?
You trimmed all the positive points I made to denigrate the proposal by insinuating I'm advocating sky-high membership fees.
Ridiculously cheap or just free isn't practical. You can't comply with the Data Protection Act and such without incurring a cost.
I would rather see a membership that understands there is medium to long-term work to gain advantages to membership. Giving it away requires no such commitment yet incurs voting rights in who are board members, and the general direction of WMUK.
Do people want virtually free membership, and a toothless WMUK; or, a membership they might think about a bit before taking, and a WMUK that's got some clue where it would like to position itself?
Being organised has worked extremely well for WMDE. Efficient German jokes aside, they certainly seemed to have a direction and get results that got mainstream press coverage. That's not The Daily Mail having "collect the coupons this week and we'll pay a year's WMUK membership for you".
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.
On Fri, 2010-02-19 at 00:41 +0000, 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.
On 22 February 2010 12:54, Brian McNeil brian.mcneil@wikinewsie.org wrote:
On Fri, 2010-02-19 at 00:41 +0000, 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.
True. We had virtually no information prior to the recent fundraiser on which to base any goals. We'll have proper targets in future.
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.
Member benefits is something worth discussing. There is only a link between member benefits and membership fees if the benefits cost money (which is far from certain) and we aren't willing to spend money from donations on the benefits (which is a discussion we would need to have). There are lots of benefits we could get for members without spending significant money and, if we are willing to spend money from donations on benefits, then the revenue from membership fees becomes insignificant.
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.
I disagree. It's a good general rule, particularly online where it is easy to misunderstand people due to the lack of visual and auditory cues.
On Wed, Feb 24, 2010 at 8:21 AM, Gordon Joly gordon.joly@pobox.com wrote:
I spoke for lower fees (way back when), paid 13 quid a week ago via PayPal, and now you tell me it is a fiver....
Sheesh!
Aw, never mind: all in a good cause, eh?
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
On 24 February 2010 07:52, James Hardy wikimediauk@weeb.biz wrote:
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"
We did consider that approach for the recent fundraiser and rejected it because we weren't sure we wanted lots of members that hadn't made a concious decision to join and had just blindly ticked a box. Having large numbers of active members would be absolutely fantastic, but having large numbers of inactive members can make things difficult (eg. it would be difficult to get 50% of members to sign a written resolution, so any emergency business that requires a resolution of members would have to take place at a physical emergency general meeting with all the expense and hassle that goes with that).
On Wed, Feb 24, 2010 at 3:52 PM, James Hardy wikimediauk@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...
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 bodnotbod@gmail.com wrote:
On Wed, Feb 24, 2010 at 3:52 PM, James Hardy wikimediauk@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 wikimediauk-l@wikimedia.org http://mail.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimediauk-l WMUK: http://uk.wikimedia.org
On 25 February 2010 05:33, Jarry 1250 jarry1250@googlemail.com wrote:
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.
You should have received a welcome email. We don't send things by post very often because we view it as an unnecessary cost. A letter and a little card would probably cost about £1.50 - that's 25% of your membership fee.
I've contacted Jarry off list.
-----Original Message----- From: wikimediauk-l-bounces@lists.wikimedia.org [mailto:wikimediauk-l-bounces@lists.wikimedia.org] On Behalf Of Thomas Dalton Sent: 25 February 2010 4:27 PM To: wikimediauk-l@lists.wikimedia.org Subject: Re: [Wikimediauk-l] Membership Fee Cut
On 25 February 2010 05:33, Jarry 1250 jarry1250@googlemail.com wrote:
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.
You should have received a welcome email. We don't send things by post very often because we view it as an unnecessary cost. A letter and a little card would probably cost about £1.50 - that's 25% of your membership fee.
_______________________________________________ Wikimedia UK mailing list wikimediauk-l@wikimedia.org http://mail.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimediauk-l WMUK: http://uk.wikimedia.org
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" bodnotbod@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 wikimediauk@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 wikimediauk-l@wikimedia.org http://mail.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimediauk-l WMUK: http://uk.wikimedia.org
On 24/02/2010 15:52, James Hardy wrote:
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.
Yes, zero income (a person who does not join) is rather different from the net gain. Unless the fee is silly figure.
(Membership Fee - PayPal charges = Net Gain)
Gordo
This was issue we were aware of but we realised that unfortunately whenever a change to the membership fee occured, it was going to result in some people paying a higher rate just before the reduced rate came into effect
Seddon
Date: Wed, 24 Feb 2010 08:21:18 +0000 From: gordon.joly@pobox.com To: wikimediauk-l@lists.wikimedia.org Subject: Re: [Wikimediauk-l] Membership Fee Cut
On 16/02/2010 22:46, Tom Holden wrote:
We are considering cutting the membership fee to £5 flat. (It is currently £12 waged, £6 unwaged.)
I spoke for lower fees (way back when), paid 13 quid a week ago via PayPal, and now you tell me it is a fiver....
Sheesh!
Gordo
_________________________________________________________________ Tell us your greatest, weirdest and funniest Hotmail stories http://clk.atdmt.com/UKM/go/195013117/direct/01/
wikimediauk-l@lists.wikimedia.org