groups.io, as was Yahoo, revolves around a very large number of totally
informal groups whose members have only one thing in common - an
interest in the subject of the group. I am in 21 of those (which puts
paid to Samuel's suggestion of an average of 5. A few of those are very
active. Many are less active but I remain subscribed for historical
reasons and some of those I have set to 'special notices' as they are
for past interests but want to keep a passive interest. A few were
joined for a specific interest which came up, like information on a
particular type of software, which I joined at the time that interest
appeared but could probably leave. Around half of my groups have over
100 members, some well into the thousands.
A very few of those groups are tied in with a national
club/organisation which has an annual membership fee. To some extent a
Premium or tiered Free subscription could be absorbed in that. There
again one of these national organisations is indirectly responsible for
many groups to cover all its interests, 50 or so as a finger in the
air. No way could a reasonable annual fee for all these diverse groups
be done that way, the membership fee would increase above that which
most members could justify - result, a reduced membership of the
national organisation as people decide it is too much.
Remember also that membership of GIO groups is a dynamic variable, with
people coming and going all the time. Is it fair to charge for those 50
or so who happened to have joined on the eve of a billing date who
leave a week later?
I appreciate that Mark has to cover his costs but the model of free
sponsored by the relatively few Premium and even less Enterprise groups
is not going to work. This is very clear in that the proposed rates are
totally out of the question for most non-commercial enthusiast groups
that must make up most of their market.