moderated Re: Samuel's Paid User Proposal #suggestion
What’s good about Drew’s is that the space doesn’t warp around groups. Member fees are completely independent of groups. The member is not paying to be in a particular group: they’re paying to participate in groups.io generally. Individual groups are not charging for membership. Members woukd not be paying to receive the “services” of a particular group (this avoiding potential legal, and other problematic, issues).toggle quoted messageShow quoted text
Group owners could be charged or not, but that would be independent of their group members or of how many there are. Of course larger, popular groups, by attracting members, woukd *indirectly* contribute to revenue.
I actually like a plan where either members or group owners are charged, but not both. (By “members” here I of course mean “groups.io account holders”.) Of course if members are charged, group owners would be charged like any other account holder. In this scheme, group owners would be considered some kind of “providers” (running a group) and would not be charged for running a group, no matter what the size.
It doesn’t tie fees up in knots with groups. It is clean, easy, and level. Nobody trying to get comp’d in with a coveted, limited, free pass to a group when their neighbor in the next seat paid for their membership (airline ticket analogy). Nobody expecting special treatment from any individual group because they paid for it. Etc.
You would probably still need a free trial period. And I’m not sure how many people would be willing to pay it, given their lack of personal investment in groups.io, which is why I still favor charging only owners, Mark’s original proposal, even if that needs tweaking.
On Jan 12, 2021, at 3:07 AM, Jeremy H via groups.io <jeremygharrison@...> wrote:
Messages are the sole opinion of the author, especially the fishy ones.