Date   

moderated Re: Samuel's Paid User Proposal #suggestion

Samuel Murrayy
 

On Tue, Jan 12, 2021 at 04:07 PM, Samuel Murrayy wrote:
Free members get exactly the same access as paid members.
I must add that it has been suggestion by others (including Mark, I think) that there could be some future possibility of giving paid members extra benefits, but that is somewhere in the future, and nothing prevents Mark from applying such a scheme currently (i.e. give certain members extra privileges based on various characteristics).  This isn't part of my original suggestion.


moderated Re: Samuel's Paid User Proposal #suggestion

Samuel Murrayy
 

On Tue, Jan 12, 2021 at 02:35 AM, monamouroui wrote:
Owners don't even know how to help their members log into their accounts, let alone advise them how to pick from a menu of tiered prices for the privilege of joining a group, and then what? You want to read archives? Pay this. You want to post, not just read what others post? Now pay this. You want access to the files? Pay more.
I have no idea how many additional tiers will be introduced by Mark in future, but my proposal does not introduce additional tiers into the groups themselves.

It is not part of my suggestion that members would be required to pay for access to various services in the group.  One payment gives you access (unless you're a free member) to all of the facilities the owner decides to give you.  Free members get exactly the same access as paid members.  The owner gets no money from Groups.io based on how many free or paid members he has, so there is no incentive or disincentive for him to deny or allow access to services that he would not otherwise have denied or allowed.  In my proposal, it would not be possible for an owner to e.g. give paid members access to e.g. Files but deny free members from accessing it. 

From the owner's day-to-day perspective there is no difference between paid and free members: the only time when it matters whether someone is a free or a paid member, is when a new member tries to join, and the group's free slots are close to filled, or when an existing paid member informs the owner that he is going to stop paying.

(Granted, my proposal does include an exception for paid members whose membership have lapsed, or for free members who want to wait for a free slot to open up, that those people can have reduced access (e.g. they can read messages, but not post), but that is not a core part of the suggestion.)


moderated Re: Subscribers leaving before pricing change #misc

Peter Cook
 

On Tue, Jan 12, 2021 at 10:03 AM, Leeni wrote:
She told my members she was leaving because Groups IO was going to be charging owners who have more then 100 members in their group.
Now you've got me wondering whether I should issue a pre-emptive reassurance to my members. I'm going to take this over to GMF.

Pete


moderated Re: Subscribers leaving before pricing change #misc

Leeni
 

That person wrote to my group saying she was leaving and going over to MeWe and gave the link to her group there.  
She told my members she was leaving because Groups IO was going to be charging owners who have more then 100 members in their group. What I said to myself, how does my group concern her? Her group only had 13 members at the time. But by writing this to my group, it caused panic. Members were writing to me asking me if I heard anything. Members were leaving thinking they were going to be charged. So to nip it in the bud, I had to say something to my groups, showing them Mark's email as well.
 
What this woman left out  was that this would be happening after January 18th and all older groups would be grandfathered in.
 
She left all the IO groups she was in and moved to MeWe. She also told my members to go to MeWe and join her group there.
 
I wrote to this member and I also wrote to my groups.
Now after she panicked everyone, I see her back in many of the IO groups she left.
 
Now it is a good time to bring me to the point that if Members are going to end up being charged to belong to a group, many, many, many of them, in the circles I travel,  would leave groups IO and go elsewhere
 
Leeni
 
 
 
 
 

-------Original Message-------
 
Date: 1/12/2021 8:28:37 AM
Subject: Re: [beta] Subscribers leaving before pricing change #misc
 
I have also had a person leave for this very reason.  I have not made any announcements to the group.  This person left all io groups she had been in and wrote to say why.
Barbara

On Tue, Jan 12, 2021 at 2:14 PM RCardona <genealogy1750@...> wrote:
If a change doesn't affect your group, why would you bother your group with this information until such time that it would?   You're creating anxiety and panic for yourself and your group members without benefit.   I don't get why you did this and then are putting this back on Mark when it doesn't affect your group.

Robert


On 1/12/21 1:37 AM, SP4149 wrote:
Ever since the Jan18th pricing increases were announced, one, two, three subscribers leave the list each day.  Prior to the announcement of the price increases,
one or two subscribers would leave each month.
I shared Mark's announcement in total.
Told the list where it would be classified under the guidelines for fee per member pricing.
I told the list that the price increases would not affect us immediately but that we could be vulnerable in a couple of years when the cost of an upgrade would be excessive.
I did not tell subscribers that I would be collecting a fee per member; instead I told them that I would not collect a fee from each one of the 1900+ members.
Enough sponsors have promised support for the next few years aa a Premium list.


I also told the list that Mark would be making a final analysis last week; but nothing has been provided, with the pricing increases less than a week away.
I haven't had any updates to pass to the list and the exodus of members appears to be due to the uncertainty around fee per member pricing.  We are still getting new members
but the number leaving is ten times greater.  Other list owners have been asking about Mark's update.  While I don't think Mark can afford to grandfather large
free lists of 2000 subscribers for much longer; the delay from last week is creating a lot of anxiety.

ken

 


moderated Re: Subscribers leaving before pricing change #misc

Peter Cook
 

I have to agree with Robert. Considering the amount of confusion that ensued after Mark's original post, I wouldn't consider saying anything to my members until I knew if, when, and exactly how they'd be impacted individually.

Pete


moderated Re: Subscribers leaving before pricing change #misc

Bärbel Stephenson
 

I have also had a person leave for this very reason.  I have not made any announcements to the group.  This person left all io groups she had been in and wrote to say why.
Barbara

On Tue, Jan 12, 2021 at 2:14 PM RCardona <genealogy1750@...> wrote:
If a change doesn't affect your group, why would you bother your group with this information until such time that it would?   You're creating anxiety and panic for yourself and your group members without benefit.   I don't get why you did this and then are putting this back on Mark when it doesn't affect your group.

Robert


On 1/12/21 1:37 AM, SP4149 wrote:
Ever since the Jan18th pricing increases were announced, one, two, three subscribers leave the list each day.  Prior to the announcement of the price increases,
one or two subscribers would leave each month.
I shared Mark's announcement in total.
Told the list where it would be classified under the guidelines for fee per member pricing.
I told the list that the price increases would not affect us immediately but that we could be vulnerable in a couple of years when the cost of an upgrade would be excessive.
I did not tell subscribers that I would be collecting a fee per member; instead I told them that I would not collect a fee from each one of the 1900+ members.
Enough sponsors have promised support for the next few years aa a Premium list.


I also told the list that Mark would be making a final analysis last week; but nothing has been provided, with the pricing increases less than a week away.
I haven't had any updates to pass to the list and the exodus of members appears to be due to the uncertainty around fee per member pricing.  We are still getting new members
but the number leaving is ten times greater.  Other list owners have been asking about Mark's update.  While I don't think Mark can afford to grandfather large
free lists of 2000 subscribers for much longer; the delay from last week is creating a lot of anxiety.

ken


moderated Re: Subscribers leaving before pricing change #misc

RCardona
 

If a change doesn't affect your group, why would you bother your group with this information until such time that it would?   You're creating anxiety and panic for yourself and your group members without benefit.   I don't get why you did this and then are putting this back on Mark when it doesn't affect your group.

Robert


On 1/12/21 1:37 AM, SP4149 wrote:
Ever since the Jan18th pricing increases were announced, one, two, three subscribers leave the list each day.  Prior to the announcement of the price increases,
one or two subscribers would leave each month.
I shared Mark's announcement in total.
Told the list where it would be classified under the guidelines for fee per member pricing.
I told the list that the price increases would not affect us immediately but that we could be vulnerable in a couple of years when the cost of an upgrade would be excessive.
I did not tell subscribers that I would be collecting a fee per member; instead I told them that I would not collect a fee from each one of the 1900+ members.
Enough sponsors have promised support for the next few years aa a Premium list.


I also told the list that Mark would be making a final analysis last week; but nothing has been provided, with the pricing increases less than a week away.
I haven't had any updates to pass to the list and the exodus of members appears to be due to the uncertainty around fee per member pricing.  We are still getting new members
but the number leaving is ten times greater.  Other list owners have been asking about Mark's update.  While I don't think Mark can afford to grandfather large
free lists of 2000 subscribers for much longer; the delay from last week is creating a lot of anxiety.

ken


moderated Re: Samuel's Paid User Proposal #suggestion

 

On Tue, Jan 12, 2021 at 05:49 AM, Duane wrote:
and is NOT a proposal.
Excuse me. Mark's "plan." However, everyone seems to be going off the deep end here proposing alternatives. So forgive me for weighing in.
 
--
J

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


moderated Subscribers leaving before pricing change #misc

SP4149
 

Ever since the Jan18th pricing increases were announced, one, two, three subscribers leave the list each day.  Prior to the announcement of the price increases,
one or two subscribers would leave each month.
I shared Mark's announcement in total.
Told the list where it would be classified under the guidelines for fee per member pricing.
I told the list that the price increases would not affect us immediately but that we could be vulnerable in a couple of years when the cost of an upgrade would be excessive.
I did not tell subscribers that I would be collecting a fee per member; instead I told them that I would not collect a fee from each one of the 1900+ members.
Enough sponsors have promised support for the next few years aa a Premium list.


I also told the list that Mark would be making a final analysis last week; but nothing has been provided, with the pricing increases less than a week away.
I haven't had any updates to pass to the list and the exodus of members appears to be due to the uncertainty around fee per member pricing.  We are still getting new members
but the number leaving is ten times greater.  Other list owners have been asking about Mark's update.  While I don't think Mark can afford to grandfather large
free lists of 2000 subscribers for much longer; the delay from last week is creating a lot of anxiety.

ken


moderated Re: Samuel's Paid User Proposal #suggestion

Duane
 

On Tue, Jan 12, 2021 at 07:18 AM, J_Catlady wrote:
I still favor charging only owners, Mark’s original proposal
My understanding of this is that the new fee schedule with limited members, will happen on the 18th and is NOT a proposal.  This proposal for optional site memberships is totally separate and may or may not happen.  I believe some people are using the assumption that it's an either/or situation, but it's not.

Duane


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). 

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:

The difference being that under Drew's proposals, ALL members would be required to take a paid subscription, to be able to join groups (beyond perhaps a few) whichever groups they are. As such it is the opposite of Mark's proposal - it charges members, instead of group owners.

And as such it has the same inferiority to Samuel's, which provides for a choice: either the group owner or the member can pay - if neither, then no membership of that group for that member.

Jeremy

On Tue, Jan 12, 2021 at 04:25 AM, J_Catlady wrote:
Yes. Totally different.

 

On Jan 11, 2021, at 8:19 PM, Shal Farley <shals2nd@...> wrote:

J,
 
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, ...
 
"I suggest, therefore, that you create two types of users, namely free users who pay nothing and paying users who pay $2.50 per year.  Free users can only join groups that have free-user slots left over.  Paying users can join an unlimited number of groups without filling up any free-user slots."
-- Samuel's Paid User Proposal, on which Mark based this topic.
 
Is this different from your understanding of Drew's proposal?
Shal
 

--
J

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


--
J

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


moderated Re: Samuel's Paid User Proposal #suggestion

Jeremy H
 

The difference being that under Drew's proposals, ALL members would be required to take a paid subscription, to be able to join groups (beyond perhaps a few) whichever groups they are. As such it is the opposite of Mark's proposal - it charges members, instead of group owners.

And as such it has the same inferiority to Samuel's, which provides for a choice: either the group owner or the member can pay - if neither, then no membership of that group for that member.

Jeremy


On Tue, Jan 12, 2021 at 04:25 AM, J_Catlady wrote:
Yes. Totally different.

 

On Jan 11, 2021, at 8:19 PM, Shal Farley <shals2nd@...> wrote:

J,
 
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, ...
 
"I suggest, therefore, that you create two types of users, namely free users who pay nothing and paying users who pay $2.50 per year.  Free users can only join groups that have free-user slots left over.  Paying users can join an unlimited number of groups without filling up any free-user slots."
-- Samuel's Paid User Proposal, on which Mark based this topic.
 
Is this different from your understanding of Drew's proposal?
Shal
 

--
J

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


moderated Re: Samuel's Paid User Proposal #suggestion

 

Christos,

... here's another complicating scenario not already mentioned as of
me writing this: When someone gets unsubscribed due to spam, if they
are a free-slot member, the code must maintain that slot available,
for a while at least, because we wouldn't want that member to click on
the resubscribe link only to be told, "sorry, you now have to pay".
But then, how long do we keep that slot reserved??
That's an interesting point.

Clearly the slot should stay reserved to that (former) member's address for at least the 7-day duration that the "Resubscription" link is active:
https://groups.io/helpcenter/membersmanual/1/working-with-group-messages/responding-to-a-you-have-been-removed

If the group owner does not want to keep the slot reserved that long then (under my suggested enhancement) the owner could locate the address in the Past Members list and "bump" that former member out of the free slot.

Except in Basic groups, which don't have the Past Members list. This might be sufficient reason to extend that feature to Basic groups (who are most in need of managing their limited number of slots).

Shal


moderated Re: Samuel's Paid User Proposal #suggestion

 

Yes. Totally different.


On Jan 11, 2021, at 8:19 PM, Shal Farley <shals2nd@...> wrote:


J,

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, ...

"I suggest, therefore, that you create two types of users, namely free users who pay nothing and paying users who pay $2.50 per year.  Free users can only join groups that have free-user slots left over.  Paying users can join an unlimited number of groups without filling up any free-user slots."
-- Samuel's Paid User Proposal, on which Mark based this topic.

Is this different from your understanding of Drew's proposal?

Shal


--
J

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


moderated Re: Samuel's Paid User Proposal #suggestion

 

J,

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, ...

"I suggest, therefore, that you create two types of users, namely free users who pay nothing and paying users who pay $2.50 per year.  Free users can only join groups that have free-user slots left over.  Paying users can join an unlimited number of groups without filling up any free-user slots."
-- Samuel's Paid User Proposal, on which Mark based this topic.

Is this different from your understanding of Drew's proposal?

Shal


moderated Re: Samuel's Paid User Proposal #suggestion

 

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.

On Jan 11, 2021, at 6:02 PM, Drew <pubx1@af2z.net> 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.

Drew




--
J

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


moderated Re: Samuel's Paid User Proposal #suggestion

 

Hi Sara,


Shal, I cannot believe you are advocating for this. If anyone is going to feel the pain of navigating this cuckoo idea, it would be you and the mods at GMF.

Actually, I think Mark's original Pricing Changes posting, without the addition of this topic's Proposal, would be far more onerous on GMF, or rather, on its members, in the hypothetical case that GMF (or a group of its size) was being started under the new pricing model.

So while the Pricing Changes are of concern, I think this proposal would ease the pain for my groups (in the hypothetical case that they were started with the new pricing in effect).

Owners don't even know how to help their members log into their accounts, let alone advise them how to pick from a menu of tiered prices for the privilege of joining a group, and then what?

As I understand it, in this proposal there's only one price available to a member: $2.50/yr for all the subscriptions they want (maybe there would have to be some cap, but I think it ought to be 10 subscriptions or higher).

Some people have proposed tiers for paid accounts, maybe even Samuel in other posts (I don't recall), but I don't think that's part of what Mark is asking about in this topic.


And mind you, I don't think, or maybe I'm wrong, that you and your moderators will enjoy a financial benefit from members premium costs while being bombarded with an avalanche of "How-to" requests.

Agreed.

I think at most Group_Help and GMF would enjoy continued status as legacy-enabled Basic groups.


Then again, if the member fee goes to owners and moderators -- maybe it makes sense.

That already exists in Premium groups, in the form of a Donation mechanism which group owners can use to collect donations or fees from their members. I made a separate #suggestion for a simplified version of that mechanism, but didn't get much enthusiasm for the idea (specifically, didn't get a comment from Mark on it).


But if the point is to create a revenue stream for Mark, to offset the losses from the prolific number of basic groups (which I bet have exploded since the future pricing was announced), then my opinion is no thanks.

I think the point (what Mark has said) is to put Groups.io on a sustainable path going forward. It seems that he is content with (or at least willing to maintain) the grandfathered groups as they are, and let natural attrition and overall growth reduce the bottom-line impact of the grandfathered groups.

TANSTAAFL

Quite so. And that's why these topics are under discussion.

Shal


moderated Re: Samuel's Paid User Proposal #suggestion

 

Drew makes some really good points here. This comes the closest to changing my hard stance out of anything I’ve read so far. However, I’m not sure the members themselves would go for it or how much business/accounts groups.io would lose because of it.

On Jan 11, 2021, at 6:02 PM, Drew <pubx1@af2z.net> 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.

Drew




--
J

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


moderated Re: Samuel's Paid User Proposal #suggestion

Drew
 

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.

Drew


moderated Re: Samuel's Paid User Proposal #suggestion

 

We all need something to take our minds off what is happening around us. That could be the explanation regarding Shal. 😀


On Jan 11, 2021, at 5:37 PM, monamouroui <monamouroui@...> wrote:


Shal, I cannot believe you are advocating for this. If anyone is going to feel the pain of navigating this cuckoo idea, it would be you and the mods at GMF.

Owners don't even know how to help their members log into their accounts, let alone advise them how to pick from a menu of tiered prices for the privilege of joining a group, and then what? You want to read archives? Pay this. You want to post, not just read what others post? Now pay this. You want access to the files? Pay more. What insanity to confront new members would this pay-for-play scheme of Samuel's invention include? Or limit?

And mind you, I don't think, or maybe I'm wrong, that you and your moderators will enjoy a financial benefit from members premium costs while being
bombarded with an avalanche of "How-to" requests.

Then again, if the member fee goes to owners and moderators -- maybe it makes sense. But if the point is to create a revenue stream for Mark, to offset the losses from the prolific number of basic groups (which I bet have exploded since the future pricing was announced), then my opinion is no thanks. 

I'd rather the grandfathered free groups have an end date and prices are scaled as others have recommended by the number of members. Otherwise I'm afraid the next step would be data mining our mailing lists.

TANSTAAFL

Sara

On Mon, Jan 11, 2021, 7:30 PM Shal Farley <shals2nd@...> wrote:
J,


My sole objection is to group members being charged by the platform itself. I feel strongly that groups.io should only charge owners.

Ok, got it. I think.

Earlier I misunderstood your objection as being a concern that Groups.io would require members to pay for their memberships. Hence my responses about it actually being either/or (group or member payment) under this topic's proposal.

I have a hard time wrapping my head around why you object to allowing a member to choose a paid account over being excluded from a full group, but that's ok. So long as I've correctly understood your objection I'm fine with that.

Shal


--
J

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

1901 - 1920 of 29466