On Tue, Jan 5, 2021 at 12:20 PM, Chris Jones wrote:
For many the absence of advertisements and tracking was a key reason for migrating to groups.io in the first place; both absences were "trumpeted" by Mark.The lack of adverts and tracking was also a key motivator for my club to switch to Groups.io.
I would be deeply dismayed if there was a move to monetise Groups.io (or any part thereof).I am not suggesting adverts if that's what you mean by monetise? What I am saying that the lack of adverts and tracking is a saleable feature so make Basic groups chargeable. if you don't want to pay anything then there are other platforms that claim to be free, Of course, they're not really free, the price you pay is having to suffer advertising and tracking.
I take it that means you are not in favour of trial periods?Have a trial period by all means but after that, people should pay for the level of service they use.No and yes in that order. :)
But perfectly doable and will give group owners the ability to create a group with the functions that meet their needs.The planned pricing structure change from 18-Jan does mean there is a big step from Basic (I'll avoid the 'F' word) to Premium group. Some level of intermediate group may be preferable and I would also look at splitting the Collaboration Suite. There are currently 7 features in that (Polls, Calendar, Chat, Database, Photos, Files & Wiki) so perhaps split them into two sets with one of the more popular features in the set attached to Premium groups to entice people to upgrade. A more flexible approach may be to price each of the features separately to allow a fully customisable set with the most popular features attracting a higher price.
Then let the group be downgraded and see what the members think. Perhaps when they lose features they may start to appreciate the value of what they had. If an owner keeps paying then there's no incentive for anyone else to do anything. If nobody does then you have to question the value and reason for doing it in the first place.At the end of the day, I believe that group owners are those that should be liable to pay for their groups. If an owner has created a group for others (because they have the technical skills to do that) and doesn't want to be on the hook for the cost then a simple solution would be to promote someone else to owner and demote themselves to a Member or a Moderator.That assumes that they can find someone willing to pony up to meet group costs. Big assumption IMHO.
if subscribers had to pay a small fee for their Accounts (as I have previously suggested) the question of a groups such as GMF attracting a charge simply doesn't arise. What could arise is owners and moderators who have second accounts for test and "as the members see it" purposes finding themselves paying for their second accounts, but that is not insurmountable.I think having members pay for their accounts would create utter confusion. My group members already pay (in effect) as they pay club membership fees and the club then pays for a premium group (or reimburses me to be exact). I'm sure a good many wouldn't even consider they had an account at Groups.io as they just use email. Then we get into how many groups can account belong to and complex solutions such at that suggested by Samuel Murrayy (with two Ys since the start of last year I noticed) earlier in this topic.
I say keep it simple, let the the group owners pay and charge for basic groups. I'd much rather see charges for Basic groups than higher prices for Premium and Enterprise groups to subsidise them. As Mark has already confirmed, he's pretty much on his own apart from Nina doing the documentation. The less time he needs spend on finance admin, the more time he can devote to Groups.io features and extras like the Apps (and I would expect there to be a nominal fee for those too after all time and effort being invested in them).