|
|
| Author |
Message |
scott
|
|
The Pres speaks out
| 
Oct 13 00:20 UTC 1996 |
I've been playing about with various ideas on how to increase membership, and
therefore revenue. I guess before I mention the ideas, I should mention a
little theory.
Grex has been at the $6 level since its beginning. It's odd to find something
in the computer world that remains the same like that. I'd guess that Grex
is in much better shape than it was maybe 4 years ago. That speaks a bit
about the dropping cost of hardware, but basically Grex remains about the same
perceived level of hardware with roughly the same cost and same numnber of
members as it has for a while. There was the big Sun3-Sun4 change, marked
by horrible service at the end of the Sun3 and then incredible speed and
reliablility when the Sun4 became Grex, but I think that it would average out
the same over the life of both machines. What has changed is the number of
users. More users is both good and bad. I've said before that Grex grows
to cope with growth, but there are advantages to growth. We've got a more
interesting and diverse community. The first Grexstock wouldn't have happened
(at least not when it did) were it not for the Internet link, which at the
time was hotly debated over. Grexstock II was also a result of essentially
uncontrolled growth. So growth is good, since we meet more people that way.
Growth also brings problems. We have a lot of users who we don't really even
know about, since there are too many every day for anybody to really keep
track of. Some appear and then never come back, some just live in the
background using mail, etc. Others find their way into the conferences and
join the community, and often become members.
So Grex is in the position of having a lot of users, a decent amount of
members, and a usually OK budget. The purpose of this conference is to
increase membership, which is (eventually! ;) ) what this item is about.
I'd like to talk about some of my ideas to increase membership. Jim (omni)
has talked a bit about using different price structures to attract membership.
This item is about combining my long-held ideas with the idea of different
price structures.
For instance, we "give away" a lot. E-mail, party channels, Web pages, etc.
It's been discussed often whether or not to restrict certain services to
members, as a way of either increasing membership or else reducing load (or
both). It's the biggest abusers of Grex that are the least likely to be
members. I personally still like the idea of free e-mail, since I consider
that to be the *real* universal application of the Internet. It's not as
immediate as party, or as useful a reference as conferencing, but it *works*,
it's in a convenient, easy to comprehend format, etc. So that leaves party
channels and the Web pages. Party channels I'm a bit ambivalent about. They
don't really cost anything, and they correspond to conferences nicely. I
consider conference FWship to be something I would't want to restrict to
members. Still, as a way to increase *membership* there might be a use...
Web pages I think should be members-only, with the (long awaited!) caveat
that...
Some of these services we restrict to people who are members or else HAVE BEEN
MEMBERS "RECENTLY". That's my new idea, one I subjected you to several
kerouacs worth of text to reveal. Anyway, what if you could have a Web page
if you had been a member at least for a month in the last 6 months? Or a
party channel if you'd been a member in the last year? We'd need to keep it
reasonable, since we don't want to load down partyadm or webmaster with such
details, but if we can sucker another $6 out of somebody now and then, and
*perhaps* put them on the path to being a more regular member (by means of
educating them about how Grex really runs).
So what do you think? (If you just skipped to the end, reread the last
paragraph since it contains 98% of what you really need to know to respond
meaningfully).
|
| 79 responses total. |
ajax
|
|
response 1 of 79:
|
Oct 13 04:20 UTC 1996 |
Regarding your first paragraphs, I agree with pretty much everything.
In general, prices for computer stuff falls over time. With Grex, the
price has remained the same, but more has generally been offered over
time (like Internet access, web pages, and more people to party/write/
conference with online). Modem-based online services also drop less
in price because the cost of operating phone lines doesn't necessarily
drop over time.
Regarding your proposal at the end, interesting idea. It's one I
haven't seen before, so it scores points for originality :-). My first
impression is a bit luke warm, but part of that is because I'm luke
warm to charging for these things at all, not just in the way you suggest.
Charging for these is a controversial point for a lot of Grexers no matter
how you do it, and I think in co-op and on the board, there's a slight
majority of people who are against such added fees. From the member
opinion survey I did earlier, it seems the majority of members also
favor leaving things as they are.
>14. Grex members have few capabilities that non-members have
> (primarily voting, and being able to telnet *from* Grex).
> Do you feel Grex should...
> A) allow even non-members to telnet from Grex.
> B) leave this as it is.
> C) consider limiting some minor capabilities of non-members
> (e.g., only members could add party noises)
> D) consider limiting some major capabilities of non-members
> (e.g., deny e-mail, or make some phone lines "members only")
>
> A 1 (2.6%)
> B 23 (60.5%)
> C 9 (23.7%)
> D 5 (13.1%)
>
> There were a *lot* of comments on this. Several people put B or C,
> except "make phone lines members-only." Asking about specific
> restrictions may have been a better question. See the outtakes to
> see what people wrote.
A drawback of your specific proposal is that it adds more things for
the treasurer to track. We view a treasurer's time as "free," but it
seems like a fair amount of added record-keeping to get $6 once every
six or twelve months. Now the treasurer just sends out a reminder or
two when the membership expires. With the proposal above, they should
send membership reminders, then after six months send out a web page
expiration reminder, then after twelve months send out a party channel
expiration reminder, and update access privileges on-line the three
different times that things can expire.
|
scott
|
|
response 2 of 79:
|
Oct 13 11:46 UTC 1996 |
Right, I mentioned the added complexity. It could be useful not as an
iron-clad schedule, but as a "spring cleaning" sort of thing. Webmaster
starts seeing a whole lot of hits on user xxx's page, and if user xxx hasn't
been a member recently enough...
|
chelsea
|
|
response 3 of 79:
|
Oct 13 13:06 UTC 1996 |
It would be a real shame to take a system that took a big chance by going
online as a place to support because you liked the idea of an open system
without perks, and then BECAUSE THE CONCEPT WORKED SO WELL and the system
grew, paid it's bills, and collected a wonderful community of diverse
users, then, in an attempt to make it bigger and better you change it to a
"you get what you pay for" deal. (I should have taken a breath in there.)
I my humble opinion - you guys really don't get what Grex is about.
We aren't broke. We've a whole slew of low-key fundraisers yet to be
tried. Yet folks are itching to charge more (elsewhere) and tie it to
perks (here).
I'll also admit I think this is a losing battle. The more we foster
the concept of service and perks the more we'll appeal to those
looking for cheap service. I can see a time within not too long
when those of us who supported the original concept will be not much
more than a romantic minority. And you folks will be free to
develop into a mediocre ISP.
|
scott
|
|
response 4 of 79:
|
Oct 13 13:47 UTC 1996 |
"you" folks? Well, not being a founding member, I do have a different
perspective. I'm not necessarily "itching" to make changes, either.
Mary, I could make a snide comment about "lost in the past", but I agree with
you on a lot of topics and don't consider that to be a fair (or polite) thing
to say. I'm not looking to change Grex, I'm looking for ways to reduce
periperhal users who put a big strain on resources. OK, we don't really
*need* to be dropping ballast, since Grex is in pretty good shape, but I would
like to have some basic ideas in place in case we do. Web pages are an
example. Most of our members have reasonable Web pages, and most of the users
that have Web pages have perfectly reasonable (for Grex's resources) pages
also. Then there are the abusers, who just see Grex as more free space they
can use. Even if we don't make any real money off such users, I think it
would be good to either discourage them slightly or make them more cognizant
about where all that "free" stuff on the Internet actually comes from.
(I also find it pretty disturbing that I've goaded Mary into making a
statement like "you guys really don't get what Grex is about".)
|
ajax
|
|
response 5 of 79:
|
Oct 13 22:22 UTC 1996 |
I'm a bit irked if I'm supposed to be among those "guys" too (I'm
the only other guy in this item who'd responded yet, but I'm not sure
where that was directed). That's a rather insulting in any case.
Historically, did all of Grex's founders favor never offering any
extra services, other than voting, to members? If so, it surprises
me that it wasn't reflected explicitly in Grex's bylaws or "declaration
of principles." (I'm not saying original intent should necessarily be
obeyed anyway; policies are democratically controlled by *current*
members, and that *was* the original intent).
Refresher "declaration" excerpt: "This is an open-access system; the
public is welcome. However, regular users are encouraged to become
members and help support the system financially. Voting on system
policy matters is restricted to members."
|
remmers
|
|
response 6 of 79:
|
Oct 13 23:17 UTC 1996 |
I just found this item and read it rather cursorily -- I'll read
and respond more carefully when I've more time. I'd suggest that
it be linked to Coop, since it's got definite policy implications.
When I endorsed the idea of a "membership" conference, I thought
it was primarily to be a place for the membership chair and his
committee to discuss fundraising strategies. Seems to have expanded
its scope. Maybe that was inevitable.
(One thing that the founders *did* have a concensus on, as best I
can recall, is that there should be *one* conference to discuss
running the system, and I think it's a concept worth preserving.
I realize that Coop tends to get large -- and that can be a problem
-- but it would also be a problem for users to have to guess where
significant policy discussions are taking place. We've already had
fragmentation with the Move and now the Membership conference; I
hope we can get back to the idea that there's one forum for
discussing how to run the system.)
Scott -- since this is your item -- would you be amenable to having
this linked to Coop and requesting that TS do so?
|
robh
|
|
response 7 of 79:
|
Oct 14 02:28 UTC 1996 |
I hate to derail an actual conversation about something - but
remmers, did you post that last response from Backtalk? I ask
because my pager is blanking out the line at the bottom of each
screen when I try reading it, and I've seen this in a few other
responses today too. In my experience, this happens when someone
uploads a text file from their PC without stripping line feeds,
but it seems bizarre that so many people would have started uploading
small responses...
|
chelsea
|
|
response 8 of 79:
|
Oct 14 02:32 UTC 1996 |
The "you guys" was directed at anyone who feels growing the
system and bringing in more money is as important or more
important than keeping Grex available as a community service
without turning into a tiered access club. If you find that
offensive, so be it.
The "no perks" concept seemed to be shared by a whole lot
of the founders but I'm not sure it was consensus or how
dedicated some were to the idea. It was the primary
reason I was part of it all. It wasn't hard-wired into
the Bylaws because things like perks were going to have
to be decided by the members. The founders simply
jump-started the thing - it was always the intention
the users decide how Grex should be structured.
But it has worked so well. It has made Grex a jewel of
a conferencing system. And, I'll be real honest here,
I think it bugs some people to death to see others
using the system "for free". It's like they feel personally
used or taken advantage of that they pay their share and
others don't. What nerve! I don't know what to say to
these individuals. We are from different planets.
|
omni
|
|
response 9 of 79:
|
Oct 14 03:34 UTC 1996 |
Speaking as one who has not been in a position to pay, I have felt extreme
guilt at using Grex when I know that there are others who do pay for the
privilege, But I am extremly grateful that Grex has tolerated my not paying
for so long. I only hope that in the future that I will be in more fluid
situation with regard to donations.
|
remmers
|
|
response 10 of 79:
|
Oct 14 12:41 UTC 1996 |
(Re #7: Yes, I did enter that response from Backtalk, but I
typed it directly into Netscape's text collector, not a local
file. You're the second person to mention this problem in
reading responses that I'd entered in Backtalk, so maybe it's
a problem either with Netscape or with Backtalk. (This response
is being entered in the "old" way, so hopefully you won't have
the problem...)
|
robh
|
|
response 11 of 79:
|
Oct 14 15:51 UTC 1996 |
(Re 10 - Yep, that one looks just fine.)
|
scott
|
|
response 12 of 79:
|
Oct 14 16:23 UTC 1996 |
Linking to Coop would be fine with me.
Mary, I'm not looking to change Grex into a tiered access system over just
keeping it running. Sorry if I gave the impression otherwise.
It does bug me to see some people using Grex for free, but please recheck my
comments on Web pages. Most non-member pages are OK, I'm bugged by the "as
large as I can get away with" pages some people are just looking for free
places to house. I'd like to see ways of getting more peripheral users into
the community. So I don't think your "you guys" hits me either.
|
ajax
|
|
response 13 of 79:
|
Oct 14 17:15 UTC 1996 |
Mary, I don't think there's a single view of "what Grex is
about," so I disagree with your opinion about who does and doesn't
"get" that view. We've had tiered access for a while now, so
I think it's strange to make that a part of "what Grex is about."
I don't think a web page incentive will do much to encourage
memberships. If you want to curb abuse of web pages, I think
that's better handled as a separate matter. I haven't noticed
much problem with that, and I've browsed web usage stats in
the past. But if you think it is a problem, I think a better
approach is to educate people about why not to suck up tons of
bandwidth on Grex. You could add some info on this in the
mkhomepage menu, for example, and list other places that can
provide better free web page hosting there.
|
chelsea
|
|
response 14 of 79:
|
Oct 14 17:49 UTC 1996 |
According to the vote that initiated outbound telnet for members only -
that was based on our limited bandwidth. As soon as bandwidth allows that
restriction should be removed or re-voted as a membership perk.
I've always felt (and argued the point) that rationing resources based on
who pays and who doesn't wasn't the way Grex should go. If the size of
Web pages are a problem there should be limits placed on all Web pages,
not just on those who aren't members.
If we start treating those who pay to a different level of service then
they will have every right to expect service for their dollar. Also,
don't kid yourself, when you entice people to become members to get extra
service you are no longer able to say you are a donation based open-access
community service.
We should focus on getting members who want to be part of
deciding how Grex goes and thanking anyone who sends in money
for their generous *donation*. We don't want to encourage a
lot of the "what's in it for me" types. They have AOL.
|
ajax
|
|
response 15 of 79:
|
Oct 14 19:14 UTC 1996 |
(Aside: is it "perk," "perq," or "perque?" I think it's considered slang,
derived from "perquisite," but my aging dictionaries don't list the term).
Bandwidth shortage is a reason against opening telnet up to everyone.
It is not a reason in support of opening it up to members. In fact, it's
a reason against such a policy. So I view the current policy as an
incentive/reward for membership. You suggest what would happen if we
started to offer a different level of service to members; to me, that
ignores the fact that we already do!
Also, something to think about: almost half the members who responded to
the survey I did recently said that outbound telnet access was a factor in
their initially becoming members.
|
chelsea
|
|
response 16 of 79:
|
Oct 14 21:28 UTC 1996 |
Rob, outbound telent was rationed and the members were
the group allowed to use the limited resource. I'd be
curious to see how you see this as an intended membership
incentive after reading the proposal vote. It's in
/usr/local/grexdoc/archives/prvote. Not sure which of
the votes it was but I believe there are only three to
check-out.
|
chelsea
|
|
response 17 of 79:
|
Oct 14 21:38 UTC 1996 |
Also, I'm not saying I don't think Grex will go the way of tiered access,
membership perks, extra services, maybe even rewarding those who pay with
access to a closed conference or members-only get togethers, all of which
would make lots of people feel special and anxious to be part of The
group. Gawd, can you imagine how much money Grex would be raking in?
It will happen. I just think it's a shame.
I'll even wager a bet (dinner out at the restaurant of your
choice) that within two years we'll have additional lines
and mail perks for members only. Anyone think it won't happen?
Thought so.
|
chelsea
|
|
response 18 of 79:
|
Oct 14 21:40 UTC 1996 |
I'm on vacation, starting today, for 2 weeks. Which is why
I've got all this extra time to spend whining about Grex.
Won't you be glad when I go back to work. ;-)
|
omni
|
|
response 19 of 79:
|
Oct 14 22:27 UTC 1996 |
re 17
It will happen only if we let it.
|
chelsea
|
|
response 20 of 79:
|
Oct 15 12:54 UTC 1996 |
You won't have any control over it. It will be up to the
membership. If there is any one factor that must
be carefully guided it is the kind of member we
attract. We need donors not clients to avoid such
changes.
|
scott
|
|
response 21 of 79:
|
Oct 15 16:14 UTC 1996 |
"If there is any one factor that must be carfully guided it is the kind of
member we attract".
Talking about "us vs. them" attitudes...
|
chelsea
|
|
response 22 of 79:
|
Oct 15 20:34 UTC 1996 |
This response has been erased.
|
chelsea
|
|
response 23 of 79:
|
Oct 15 20:40 UTC 1996 |
Out of context and without the next sentence that sounds
nasty. Is it still nasty in context?
And I've been thinking about ajax's response back there.
It was wrong to say something like "you guys just don't
get what Grex is about". It is indeed my concept of
Grex that is losing ground. I'm afraid this may
very much be my crusade and not supported by many
others. I apologize for being rude and emotional
about this issue. But I reserve the right to say
"I told you so". ;-)
|
scott
|
|
response 24 of 79:
|
Oct 15 23:31 UTC 1996 |
Well, in context it isn't too bad. It *still* caught my eye, though.
I think this is turning into a tempest in a teapot.
I'm concerned about the future also. But it's still really hard to balance
these things out. I'd still consider it important to do something about
participation. The only way to stop growing now is to turn off newuser.
|
