The reason Drew’s proposal (although possibly bad for business?) seems ok to me is that it is level. Member fees are not tied to any particular group, or “trying to get into” any pop articulate group. It’s a flat, rather than warped, space. If feels fair and simple.
toggle quoted messageShow quoted text
On Jan 11, 2021, at 6:02 PM, Drew <email@example.com> wrote:
The issue has been raised several times that if subscribers were charged directly by Groups.io they would demand extra customer support for their payment (however small that payment, I guess...).
But if group owners are the ones to collect the funds, and owners are dependent on subscribers to pay for the group, doesn't the expectation of extra "support" shift to the owners? And not necessarily technical support...
I wouldn't like to be in the position of an owner whose group receives "donations" from subscribers, knowing that some of them might well expect extra consideration in, say, posting an off-topic message or two, or otherwise bending the group's rules. That is going to happen as sure as human nature. Or, if a factional riff of some sort should develop and half of your group's donors decide to pull out or demand their money back...
That's why a small subscriber fee billed directly by Groups.io for a strictly defined benefit (i.e., access to "X" number of groups of the subscriber's own choosing; nothing more), such fee not tied to any particular group, seems like a better way to go: no subscriber could reasonably expect extra customer support from corporate for a $5 or $10 per year fee; and group owners would not have to go begging among their subscribers for dollars, which puts them in an inferior position with the donors as far as being able to manage group activity equitably.
Messages are the sole opinion of the author, especially the fishy ones.
My humanity is bound up in yours, for we can only be human together. - Desmond Tutu