From britdisc-owner@csv.warwick.ac.uk Fri Jun 11 10:51:20 1999 Received: by pansy.csv.warwick.ac.uk (8.9.3/8.9.3) id KAA28537 for britdisc-outgoing; Fri, 11 Jun 1999 10:49:42 +0100 (BST) Received: from daffodil.csv.warwick.ac.uk (daffodil [137.205.192.30]) by pansy.csv.warwick.ac.uk (8.9.3/8.9.3) with ESMTP id KAA28526 for <britdisc@csv.warwick.ac.uk>; Fri, 11 Jun 1999 10:49:40 +0100 (BST) Received: from baby.kbw.co.uk (baby.kbw.co.uk [193.133.242.75]) by daffodil.csv.warwick.ac.uk (8.9.3/8.9.3) with ESMTP id KAA20666 for <britdisc@csv.warwick.ac.uk>; Fri, 11 Jun 1999 10:49:39 +0100 (BST) Received: by baby.kbw.co.uk with Internet Mail Service (5.5.2448.0) id <L95TB7SM>; Fri, 11 Jun 1999 10:29:46 +0100 Message-ID: <1DBF2E3701DFD211A65300902728A91B3ECF46@baby.kbw.co.uk> From: Roger Thomson <roger.thomson@oyster.co.uk> To: BRITDISC <britdisc@csv.warwick.ac.uk> Subject: RE: Ultimate Growth Date: Fri, 11 Jun 1999 10:29:45 +0100 MIME-Version: 1.0 X-Mailer: Internet Mail Service (5.5.2448.0) Content-Type: text/plain; charset="iso-8859-1" Content-Transfer-Encoding: 8bit X-MIME-Autoconverted: from quoted-printable to 8bit by pansy.csv.warwick.ac.uk id KAA28530 Sender: owner-britdisc@warwick.ac.uk Precedence: bulk > Tiering the membership fee depending on whether someone > receives printed > copy is a possibilty. Glad that you are open to suggestions Ben. Please give it serious consideration. I think it could save money for everyone (and trees!). I'd be happy to work with Paul Hurt and/or yourself to model the costs more explicitly and accurately in order that you were making an informed decision. > In fact if we doubled the print run > the total cost > of the newsletter might only increase by say, 20%. Del is > correct, once > you're printing above a certain number (of order 1000 > according to Paul) the > printing costs rapidly diminish. You are failing to recognise that the print run is only 50% of the distribution costs. Automated online distribution saves that 50% as well. It's almost free no matter how many times you do it! If there's noone at the BUF capable of doing so I'd be happy to advise on how it may be done. I can't help feeling you're falling into the 'can't do, won't do' trap. > However at this early stage we need to charge everyone a > proportion of the > production costs however they receive the newsletter (just as > we do now > through team affiliation fees). A proportion, yes, but not necessarily the same proportion no matter what proportion of those costs you are responsible for. Communist Russia fell apart because it was a centralised bureaucratic economy with no incentive for cost-minimisation. Even if the fee differential is as small as £3 you will have a large body of people who will take online delivery, thus saving both the marginal print costs and post costs. These amount to no less than 85p per copy (even if you assume marginal printing costs are 30% of what I originally said - 20p (generous estimate!)), thus saving £5.95 per annum (on the assumption of 7 issues/year). £2.95 would therefore be a direct subsidiation of those people who wanted the newsletter mailing. A subsidisation, a gift to the BUF, a freebie, a bonus, a grant, something for nothing. Life is not a zero sum game. What you give to computer users does not get taken away from others, it gets given to them too! Wow! I like that, don't you? > However at this early stage If I had a pound every time a client had said that to me I'd be a very rich man. They all say it; later on they all admit they were wrong. In New Media there are hundreds of examples of companies moving too slowly, hardly any of companies moving too quickly. BT moved too slowly on free internet access, Freeserve is now floating for £2bn. Ouch, that hurts. BT were one of my clients, they didn't take our advice. > Sorry if my maths appears confusing but trust me we do need a > good sign up > rate to make this thing viable. Confusing? There was no maths in your response at all!!!! Oh, sorry - just noticed the vague reference to 20% of an unspecified number:-/. Trust you? Not if you're going to make an important decision based on an utterly inadequate decision framework. Not now, not ever. I proved Newsletter production and distribution costs were likely to cost the BUF, us, at least £17K a year. I'd like to see at least a proportion of that spent on something more valuable if it can be saved. Wouldn't you? This is the era of democracy and open government: if your idea of a good sign-up rate is 100%, and you're convinced that you need that in order to make this thing viable - PROVE IT. I bet you you can't - your arguments hold very little water. In fact, in the more normal spirit of debate on Britdisc, I'm prepared to bet you five pints of beer you can't. Maybe Laura, as BUF pres, would act as judge (Laura?). > Keep talking - I think we're getting there... Your initial willingness to listen made me think so, but the unfounded conviction with which you continued made me doubt it. Cy'all PieBoy > -----Original Message----- > From: Ben Ravilious > Sent: 10 June 1999 18:24 > To: BRITDISC > Subject: Re: Ultimate Growth > > > Dear all, > > Tiering the membership fee depending on whether someone > receives printed > copy is a possibilty. > > However at this early stage we need to charge everyone a > proportion of the > production costs however they receive the newsletter (just as > we do now > through team affiliation fees). If we put the newsletter > online and people > *don't* pay for it through their fees then we're in trouble. > We might then > have to broaden the requirement for membership at tournaments (e.g > membership required for ALL tournaments not just National > events). Otherwise > we end up with loads of people getting a 'freebie' and being > excluded from > just the National events. > > Because of the need to communicate, I strongly believe that *everyone* > should receive the newsletter one way or another. If players > are able to > opt-out then those that do choose to receive the newsletter > might have to > pay nearly twice as much - at least at this early stage. > > I think these teething troubles would only occur in the first > couple of > years of the association where we would be relying on a significant > proportion of players to sign up. Given twice as many > members, we *could* > afford to have less newsletter subscribers and economies of > scale would make > it much cheaper anyway. In fact if we doubled the print run > the total cost > of the newsletter might only increase by say, 20%. Del is > correct, once > you're printing above a certain number (of order 1000 > according to Paul) the > printing costs rapidly diminish. > > Sorry if my maths appears confusing but trust me we do need a > good sign up > rate to make this thing viable. > > > What I would like people to consider next is the employment of the > administrator which is going to be more difficult than hiring > a freelance > newsletter editor. Does anyone out there have any knowledge > of employment > law? Would it be sensible/cheapest/necessary to declare ourselves as a > company or charity? Is there a legal precedent for sports > organisations > governing bodies? Or can we just pay someone a cheque and let > them worry > about the taxman? Discuss... > > Keep talking - I think we're getting there... > > Ben > PS "Please Miss!, the big boys are fighting in the playground." >