Date   

locked Re: Pricing Changes #update

 

On Wed, Dec 23, 2020 at 10:31 AM, Charles Roberts wrote:
Public Service" and "benefits to subscribers" are not necessarily the same thing
True. Only journalists basically take a vow of poverty. ;)
 
--
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


locked Re: Pricing Changes #update

Charles Roberts
 

Methinks "Public Service" and "benefits to subscribers" are not necessarily the same thing.

Chuck, CABGx3


On Dec 23, 2020 10:40 AM, Bruce Bowman <bruce.bowman@...> wrote:
Folks -- Just sharing a few more thoughts that I'm having on Basic groups then I'll exit from this discussion.

1) Lacking most of the online features, and only storing 1 GB in attachments, the primary impact of a [new] Basic group seems to be email volume. A large group sends more emails with each post. An active, small group sends more posts, but to fewer addresses. The hard part is monitoring that in real time...not only to bill for it, but also to keep the Owner abreast of how many charges they're racking up. Until someone comes up with a good alternative, I have to go with the idea of limiting the number of subscribers.

2) If 100 isn't a good cutoff number, we need to be talking about what is. There was a post in Group_Help back in October asking for help migrating a Yahoo group of 90,000. The "right" number probably lies somewhere in between. I don't know what that might be, but even if it was 1000, we'd still be hearing from those whose groups have 1001.

Given the vacuum of information on what it costs groups.io to send 100,000 emails (or whatever), I'm in no position to argue with the current proposal. I do know that whatever the cost may be, it's coming directly out of Mark's pocket.

3) I've seen a handful of posts from people suggesting their Basic group ought to be exempt from the pricing structure because it provides a public service. This begs the question whether any Owners here have a group that provides no benefit to its subscribers. Show of hands? I didn't think so. Sorry, but such considerations cannot be part of the groups.io business model.

Regards,
Bruce


locked Re: Pricing Changes #update

txercoupemuseum.org
 

Hi Bruce,

Mark had asked us to keep sharing our opinions, because he understands that no one is intelligent enough to see all aspects of a “problem” from a single perspective.  That’s why most intelligent life has more than one eye.  I’m contribute to his decision making process so long as I think he is listening.

Sometimes we have to step back and look at a logical thought process.  While most of us, like you, lack Mark’s “... information on what it costs groups.io to send 100,000 emails (or whatever)…”, I was fascinated by your statement "I do know that whatever the cost may be, it's coming directly out of Mark's pocket.”  Really?

I respectfully disagree.  “Cost” is merely one part of business CASH FLOW, a resource it is incumbent upon each and every owner to establish and manage well.  Someone once opined that, from the perspective of the IRS, the “problem” is that people think of what they “earn" as “their money”.  

Businesses don’t last long if financial management starts with the opinion they are somehow “entitled” to a certain “standard of living”.  That’s because unless the business CASH FLOW is sufficient to timely pay the bills its activity generates, creditors at some point step in and seize assets for a court to dispense appropriately.  It is ONLY at THAT point the issues of just WHO rightfully has claim to how much of BUSINESS assets is resolved, and how much of TOTAL ASSETS are BUSINESS ASSETS are ascertained by one more presumably impartial third parties.

The “bottom line” for the average “business” is that the owner or stockholder “earnings" are whatever is left AFTER the bills are paid.  That simplifies one’s choices to (1) increase cash flow, or (2) reduce associated expenses to increase "whatever is left”.  That’s what Mark is trying to do.

In the beginning, he allowed and encouraged “free groups” on Groups.io.  Learning as time passed, as a responsible manager, he notes what contributes to "whatever is left” and what reduces that amount.  I think he realized at some point that time was not on his side with what he was doing, so he is trying to change the “management model” to one consistent with his personal financial goal(s) AND.

He is in the process of trying to assure long term financial viability for Groups.io.  He has two primary resources, his personal time and talent and CASH FLOW.  He must constantly evaluate and adjust how much of each he allocates to (1) servicing/maintaining the existing business, (2) achieving his financial goals for (1) the present and future business and (2) his own personal life style.

As businesses age, many reach a point where management decides they will be content to just “milk” the business as a “cash cow” and devote no more time to it than suits them.  This is the phase where the “new broom sweeps clean” factor asserts itself, when competitors who are still motivated to compete in a given “business” may find a way to siphon away the “customer base” that is essential to every ongoing commercial enterprise.

Mark’s choices as to how much he can “give” to his “customers” and how much he can extract for himself are neither infinite nor insulated from “real world considerations”.  In short, he must “choose wisely”  :<)

Been there, done that, retired.

Best,

WRB

— 

On Dec 23, 2020, at 9:40 AM, Bruce Bowman <bruce.bowman@...> wrote:

Folks -- Just sharing a few more thoughts that I'm having on Basic groups then I'll exit from this discussion.

<snip>

Regards,
Bruce
_._,_._,_


locked Re: Pricing Changes #update

 

To be clear, I, as well as probably some others, am not “arguing” with the upcoming plan. I’m happily grandfathered in and am just expressing thoughts that occur to me and which may or may not be relevant to any of this. I too will exit the thread now (or try too. It’s too much fun 😊)


On Dec 23, 2020, at 7:40 AM, Bruce Bowman <bruce.bowman@...> wrote:

Folks -- Just sharing a few more thoughts that I'm having on Basic groups then I'll exit from this discussion.

1) Lacking most of the online features, and only storing 1 GB in attachments, the primary impact of a [new] Basic group seems to be email volume. A large group sends more emails with each post. An active, small group sends more posts, but to fewer addresses. The hard part is monitoring that in real time...not only to bill for it, but also to keep the Owner abreast of how many charges they're racking up. Until someone comes up with a good alternative, I have to go with the idea of limiting the number of subscribers.

2) If 100 isn't a good cutoff number, we need to be talking about what is. There was a post in Group_Help back in October asking for help migrating a Yahoo group of 90,000. The "right" number probably lies somewhere in between. I don't know what that might be, but even if it was 1000, we'd still be hearing from those whose groups have 1001.

Given the vacuum of information on what it costs groups.io to send 100,000 emails (or whatever), I'm in no position to argue with the current proposal. I do know that whatever the cost may be, it's coming directly out of Mark's pocket.

3) I've seen a handful of posts from people suggesting their Basic group ought to be exempt from the pricing structure because it provides a public service. This begs the question whether any Owners here have a group that provides no benefit to its subscribers. Show of hands? I didn't think so. Sorry, but such considerations cannot be part of the groups.io business model.

Regards,
Bruce

--
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


locked Re: Pricing Changes #update

Bruce Bowman
 

Folks -- Just sharing a few more thoughts that I'm having on Basic groups then I'll exit from this discussion.

1) Lacking most of the online features, and only storing 1 GB in attachments, the primary impact of a [new] Basic group seems to be email volume. A large group sends more emails with each post. An active, small group sends more posts, but to fewer addresses. The hard part is monitoring that in real time...not only to bill for it, but also to keep the Owner abreast of how many charges they're racking up. Until someone comes up with a good alternative, I have to go with the idea of limiting the number of subscribers.

2) If 100 isn't a good cutoff number, we need to be talking about what is. There was a post in Group_Help back in October asking for help migrating a Yahoo group of 90,000. The "right" number probably lies somewhere in between. I don't know what that might be, but even if it was 1000, we'd still be hearing from those whose groups have 1001.

Given the vacuum of information on what it costs groups.io to send 100,000 emails (or whatever), I'm in no position to argue with the current proposal. I do know that whatever the cost may be, it's coming directly out of Mark's pocket.

3) I've seen a handful of posts from people suggesting their Basic group ought to be exempt from the pricing structure because it provides a public service. This begs the question whether any Owners here have a group that provides no benefit to its subscribers. Show of hands? I didn't think so. Sorry, but such considerations cannot be part of the groups.io business model.

Regards,
Bruce


locked Re: Pricing Changes #update

 

On Wed, Dec 23, 2020 at 06:35 AM, Jeremy H wrote:
this increase will (unless member numbers are well managed) be unpredictable
The unpredictability is a good point. It will force many basic groups to become restricted to manage their member count. And then there will be triage, as in: "Well, we already have 100. Is this new member worth more than an old member we can drop?" And I wonder whether groups.io will provide warnings, especially to unrestricted groups, like xfinity does when you've used up 90% of your data plan to avoid being stuck with unpleasant billing surprises.
 
--
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


locked Re: Pricing Changes #update

Jeremy H
 

Having had a chance to think through this...

First, Mark has said that for existing, not upgrading, groups, existing, legacy, price and features will be maintained, so they are unaffected - good for those existing groups, thank you Mark.

For (prospective) new groups, if they are going to be 'Premium' or 'Enterprise', the change boils down to an increase in price, if number of members gets above a certain level. And this increase will (unless member numbers are well managed) be unpredictable -  I wonder many groups do manage their member number well, as distinct from just watching members join and leave. But I think any group - or rather those running it (or proposing to) - that has the financial situation to be able to pay under the previous charge structure, will be able to under the new. So not actually a great change in this area.

The big change is for Basic, free, groups, which will, for new groups, be severely restricted in numbers, to 100 members. Many are run by by individuals for, or as, informal organisations, that do not have the financial setup to be able (regardless of willingness) to make ANY payment. I would suggest that a very high proportion of existing such groups were only set up, and continue to exist, because they are free (or should I say zero charge?). 
Some future groups will be small, and 'closed', so their numbers  will not grrow: so they know that, now and in the future, they will be below 100: they are essentially unaffected, able to be free as before. 

The real problem is for new 'open' groups, that may start small, but hope (however realistic this might be), or are willing, to grow, into the hundreds or thousands. And for them, groups.io is no longer making an offer....it will be saying 'we will not cater for you'.

Which will be pity: something that should not be happening. To which I would suggest (as before) that the answer is for Mark to solicit donations, from group owners and mebers, to support free groups (existing and future); as many others (e.g. Wikipedia) are.

A further thought: there is a current thread on GMF 'Determining active members (and removing the inactive)' - to which, response might be summarised as 'not easily' - with memberships being chargeable in future, inactive members will be a cost, and there will be a drive for an easy solution to this problem. (First question - define an incative member)

Jeremy


locked Re: Pricing Changes #update

Samuel Murrayy
 

On Tue, Dec 22, 2020 at 10:15 PM, Mark Fletcher wrote:
Propagating an incorrect pricing structure, even if done as a joke, is not helpful.
My apologies, I did not intend to "propagate".

Samuel


locked Re: Pricing Changes #update

Peter Cook
 

On Tue, Dec 22, 2020 at 05:38 PM, Mark Fletcher wrote:
I was referring to Samuel's table.
 
I thought so, Mark, but in light of how this conversation has been going I wanted to make sure others understood.

Pete


locked Re: Pricing Changes #update

 

On Tue, Dec 22, 2020 at 2:05 PM Peter Cook <peterscottcook@...> wrote:
Just to be clear, the table I posted was not intended as a joke, but as a illustration. I believe it to be correct (but I hope anyone who finds an error will check me on it).

I was referring to Samuel's table.

Mark 


locked Re: Pricing Changes #update

Peter Cook
 

Just to be clear, the table I posted was not intended as a joke, but as a illustration. I believe it to be correct (but I hope anyone who finds an error will check me on it).

Pete


locked Re: Pricing Changes #update

txercoupemuseum.org
 

I’m sure each person contributing is doing their good faith best to understand the upcoming changes.  

The two recent “alternate presentations” of the new pricing structure are more logical and clear, at least to me.  Perhaps you could do a correct one in this form, which would resolve all 'issues’?

Best,

WRB

— 

On Dec 22, 2020, at 3:14 PM, Mark Fletcher <markf@corp.groups.io> wrote:

On Tue, Dec 22, 2020 at 12:08 PM Samuel Murrayy <samuelmurray@...> wrote:
On Tue, Dec 22, 2020 at 12:46 AM, Peter Cook wrote:
Meantime, I'll just leave this here.
That's one of way of looking at it, Peter.  Here's another way to display the numbers. :-)

Propagating an incorrect pricing structure, even if done as a joke, is not helpful.

Mark
_._,_._,_


moderated Re: RSVP Waitlist Promotion Issues #bug

 

On Tue, Dec 22, 2020 at 12:03 PM Bruce Bowman <bruce.bowman@...> wrote:
On Mon, Dec 21, 2020 at 01:29 PM, Mark Fletcher wrote:
I have fixed this behavior. Someone earlier in the waitlist with a +1 will prevent someone later on the waitlist from being added, even if that later person doesn't have a +1.
Mark -- We have someone in GMF reporting that a meeting he set up with unlimited attendance is now putting everyone on the waitlist. It previously worked okay but now it doesn't.

Ref: https://groups.io/g/GroupManagersForum/message/35831 


Oof. Fixed. Sorry about that. Vacation brain.

Thanks,
Mark


locked Re: Pricing Changes #update

 

On Tue, Dec 22, 2020 at 12:08 PM Samuel Murrayy <samuelmurray@...> wrote:
On Tue, Dec 22, 2020 at 12:46 AM, Peter Cook wrote:
Meantime, I'll just leave this here.
That's one of way of looking at it, Peter.  Here's another way to display the numbers. :-)

Propagating an incorrect pricing structure, even if done as a joke, is not helpful.

Mark


locked Re: Pricing Changes #update

Samuel Murrayy
 

On Tue, Dec 22, 2020 at 12:46 AM, Peter Cook wrote:
Meantime, I'll just leave this here.
That's one of way of looking at it, Peter.  Here's another way to display the numbers. :-)

Samuel


moderated Re: RSVP Waitlist Promotion Issues #bug

Bruce Bowman
 

On Mon, Dec 21, 2020 at 01:29 PM, Mark Fletcher wrote:
I have fixed this behavior. Someone earlier in the waitlist with a +1 will prevent someone later on the waitlist from being added, even if that later person doesn't have a +1.
Mark -- We have someone in GMF reporting that a meeting he set up with unlimited attendance is now putting everyone on the waitlist. It previously worked okay but now it doesn't.

Ref: https://groups.io/g/GroupManagersForum/message/35831 

Please investigate whether fixing this one problem may have introduced another. I don't use the RSVP feature so cannot confirm this. 

Regards,
Bruce


locked Re: Pricing Changes #update

 

Haha, it would be a new feature: Cheshire groups!


On Dec 22, 2020, at 11:49 AM, Charles Roberts <croberts@...> wrote:


Yes, me too.  Would be nice if that test group could appear on demand for day or two so a new test could be run as needed then "disappear" and not take up space as a real group would.

Chuck, CABGx3

On Dec 22, 2020 11:40 AM, Drew <pubx1@...> wrote:

I have a "test" group that I subscribe myself to with several different
email addresses. I use it to try out various settings and see what
effect they have on non-moderator accounts. This is better than
experimenting on the "live" group. I'm sure many group owners maintain
such groups.

Drew



On 12/22/20 11:02, J_Catlady wrote:
> I think they're trying to say that there might be a bunch of non-active,
> or even abandoned, go-nowhere basic groups with almost zero members. It
> would be interesting to see if the median would be higher than the
> average. Haven't thought through how that would work in that case, but I
> myself am in, or even own, more of those basic <5-member groups than the
> other kind. The other kind seem to have around 200-400 members.
> --
> 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


locked Re: Pricing Changes #update

Charles Roberts
 

Yes, me too.  Would be nice if that test group could appear on demand for day or two so a new test could be run as needed then "disappear" and not take up space as a real group would.

Chuck, CABGx3

On Dec 22, 2020 11:40 AM, Drew <pubx1@...> wrote:

I have a "test" group that I subscribe myself to with several different
email addresses. I use it to try out various settings and see what
effect they have on non-moderator accounts. This is better than
experimenting on the "live" group. I'm sure many group owners maintain
such groups.

Drew



On 12/22/20 11:02, J_Catlady wrote:
> I think they're trying to say that there might be a bunch of non-active,
> or even abandoned, go-nowhere basic groups with almost zero members. It
> would be interesting to see if the median would be higher than the
> average. Haven't thought through how that would work in that case, but I
> myself am in, or even own, more of those basic <5-member groups than the
> other kind. The other kind seem to have around 200-400 members.
> --
> 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
> //
> /
>
>








locked Re: Pricing Changes #update

 

I’m with you on aversion to social media. Those small GIO groups do seem to be a good option and serve a valuable purpose.


On Dec 22, 2020, at 8:34 AM, Sandi D <sandi.asgtechie@...> wrote:

I too am a member or an owner of about 7 groups with less than 15 members, 3 of them with less than 6 members. 
I have an aversion to social media and GIO provided a safe option for family and friends to keep in touch as a group. 
The other 5 groups I participate in range between 120-370 members. 
--
Sandi Dickenson
ASG Volunteers Group.

--
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


locked Re: Pricing Changes #update

Drew
 

I have a "test" group that I subscribe myself to with several different email addresses. I use it to try out various settings and see what effect they have on non-moderator accounts. This is better than experimenting on the "live" group. I'm sure many group owners maintain such groups.

Drew

On 12/22/20 11:02, J_Catlady wrote:
I think they're trying to say that there might be a bunch of non-active, or even abandoned, go-nowhere basic groups with almost zero members. It would be interesting to see if the median would be higher than the average. Haven't thought through how that would work in that case, but I myself am in, or even own, more of those basic <5-member groups than the other kind. The other kind seem to have around 200-400 members.
--
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
//
/

701 - 720 of 27857