locked
Re: Pricing Changes
#update
I can't find the whole of my original message -- which Samuel Murrayy quoted a part of a sentence from (or it could be a whole sentence without a period at the end). Yes I was suggesting that maybe Mark Fletcher had in mind charging the basic (now called free) groups.io all along but I didn't say he did because I cannot know that. I did not have any inference in mind beyond that, logical or intuitive or not. I don't understand many of the parts of Mr Murrayy's message. I gather from intuition insofar as I can understand he is saying that Mark Fletcher originally meant to build a new business model and saw groups.io as groups intent on business operations. Really? I am no businesswoman, have never worked in private industry except decades ago as an Executive secretary in a (I could see profoundly corrupt) corporation in the US for 2 weeks and just before that for 6 months in a business in the UK (not a bad place) where I was a personal assistant. In neither place did I ever have anything to do with any digital stuff: this was 1968-69. My three groups are not businesses. We are groups made up of (it was originally hoped by me and is true in part) of friends reading books together. No one is making any money, no one is making any profit; to participate in such a thing in the academy (where I used to work) is infra dig, in fact it is looked up as useless and used to give you lower status. Nowadays it depends on where it is coming from and who is in it. But still tenured people think you are mad to do this kind of thing. The other lists I am on as a member are just the same -- all reading groups, or I know of knitting groups, or people sharing like opinions (feminist -- yes there are still feminists in the world -- lists about womens' problems) So if there are services given and taken away because they are business ones I don't recognize this. Some of Mr Murrayy's sentences floor me: "I'll wager Mark's main problem isn't getting money from basic groups that are truly communities, but rather getting money from basic groups who are free-loading in a community habitat for non-community-like purposes ...: What could this possibly mean? I understand the individual words; I even know the usual meaning of habitat but what are "the non-community like purposes" he is impugning? Who are the people who are "target users for paid services?" How is the new pricing structure going to kill groups.io as a community? I don't understand. I was hoping and do think my three lists of active members (I concede that some maybe many of the silent members are not truly members of our community; they are mostly what's called free riders) are small communities. Yes to ask us to pay would destroy us because most of the people I fear would not pay. Some might but not enough if the price were prohibitive for them. In the antepenultimate paragraph (third from the last) I gather services seen as for businesses are in premium groups. We still have files and photos in our basic/free group. We never had any wiki that I know of. I don't know what you mean by many of your words -- like database I wish people would stop using the word "brand" and all its cognates -- rebranding and so on. Vague buzz noises. Mark changed the names of things and yes that can stigmatize. To call a group hitherto named Basic to Free in our capitalist society stigmatizes the Free group. I have heard a certain individual repeatedly call public schools "government schools" - wow does that stigmatize 200 years of progress for enabling all the members of our society to go to school, learn to read and write and many skills and gain knowledge of all kinds. It is a profoundly sickening stigmatizing. But I am not a brand. I am an individual with a name. I don't know what most basic groups have in mind if they have anything in mind. From the 3 I moderate/run and the 3 I join in on I think the people don't have the money to pay anything considerable. They probably already as individuals have enough monthly and yearly payments for what they may consider they need -- like water, electricity, gas ... I have answered Mr Murrayy because his message distressed me: it seems to impose on me and my groups ulterior motives we don't have and impose on Mark Fletcher various motives and goals I am not sure he has, all of which tend to corrode trust and belief in good decent motives. The worst thing in our society as to values over these past 4 years and more is the corrosion of trust and belief there can be good pro-social goals between individuals and groups of people. Ellen Moody
On Tue, Dec 29, 2020 at 5:10 AM Samuel Murrayy <samuelmurray@...> wrote: On Mon, Dec 28, 2020 at 06:22 PM, Ellen Moody wrote:
|
|
locked
Re: Pricing Changes
#update
On Mon, Dec 28, 2020 at 06:22 PM, Ellen Moody wrote:
Although Mark did mention a per-member or per-user pricing structure a year ago, I don't think your logic follows. Mark's comment that per-user pricing is "industry standard" is just his personal opinion. There isn't really an industry standard for services such as Groups.io. It all depends on how you classify Groups.io.
|
|
locked
Re: Pricing Changes
#update
KWKloeber
Marv ~
Apologies, spellcheck changed my reply to you to "Marc". Damn Seri. -Ken
|
|
locked
Re: Pricing Changes
#update
Laurence Taylor
billsf9c <OOWONBS@Netscape.net> wrote:
The problem may not be so much the amount but collection... (with aCan you use BACS (Credit Transfer)? Most banks can do this online or over the phone. You just need the recipient's account details. I pay nearly all my bills this way. -- rgds LAurence <><
|
|
Re: Sent Invitations - search field
#suggestion
On Mon, Dec 28, 2020 at 11:39 AM, Steven Knowles wrote:
A feature that I've found would be handy would be for a moderator / owner to be able to search the Sent Invitees log.A tad more work, but you can find the information in the group Activity Log unless/until this is added. Select "Invited Member" from the Actions list and search. If you're looking for a specific person, use their email address (up to the @ sign) in the Search box. I don't think you could use the Display Name though. Duane
|
|
locked
Re: Pricing Changes
#update
billsf9c
The problem may not be so much the amount but collection... (with a side of sticker-shock.) Buck a person may be ok per list but 50+ cents to mail it in ranckles folks. We don't all use plastic. Paypal might sorta work if they take checks.
If the donor site becomes free for this one purpose maybe folks will have a relative with plastic - although I can pay a bill over the phone or 'net with a checking account. Sometimes they want $1.35 without a human and 4.95 with one. I have 1 beehive. For years I was a yahoo member of all surrounding counties. Gradually half moved to use private forum services. Membership being 20-35$. I can't afford that for 3 different groups, (whose member-benefits I cannot use anyway, even if local,) much less 10 groups. I audit so many groups. Many are very low activity. Maybe like some cell phone systems. Pay X for a base 10MBytes. Or 100 for unlimited, per annum, with something inbetween. In a sense, this business should get better w Covid - but as subscribers are suffering financially, maybe Mark can get Covid business assistance. At $50 total a year to cover just 5 of the 25ish groups I'm in... I'm gone. No can do. Old vet barely scraping by. BillSF9c
|
|
Sent Invitations - search field
#suggestion
Apologies if this has previously been suggested. I did search past topics within this group however I don't know whether the search function accommodates boolean operators and so don't know how effective my search has been.
A feature that I've found would be handy would be for a moderator / owner to be able to search the Sent Invitees log. For example, if I wanted to find out whether I'd already sent an invitation to John Smith, it'd be useful to be able to search John or Smith or "John Smith" from within the Sent Invitees page. Rather than scroll page by page.
|
|
locked
Re: Pricing Changes
#update
Okay. Now thank you. These changes take place January 18th, 2021. I am told in this one these changes are "industry standard," so these pricing strategies were known originally. I haven't read them because it would take time and I would probably have questions (not understand everything) and since they do not (I hope "not as yet") apply. Ellen Moody
|
|
locked
Re: Pricing Changes
#update
On Mon, Dec 28, 2020 at 12:10 PM, Ellen Moody wrote:
There were no dates cited.Ellen, it's in the first message of the thread, here: https://beta.groups.io/g/main/message/27191 "For groups upgraded after Monday, January 18th, 2021 at 9am Pacific Time,..." {Pete
|
|
locked
Re: Pricing Changes
#update
Peter, that main message did not tell me the date. There were no dates cited. Do I have to go through that whole thread (it's long) to discover the date (s) all the new stuff is to begin? Ellen
|
|
Re: All photos show "Taken" date as 12/31/1969
#bug
On Mon, Dec 28, 2020 at 7:35 AM Peter Cook <peterscottcook@...> wrote: Every photo in every album in my groups (including some taken yesterday) have a "Taken" date of 12/31/1969. Discussed on GMF - https://groups.io/g/GroupManagersForum/message/35939 . This should be fixed now. Thanks, Mark
|
|
locked
Re: Pricing Changes
#update
On Mon, Dec 28, 2020 at 12:00 PM, Peter Cook wrote:
Ellen, here are the details: https://beta.groups.io/g/main/message/2719 .Sorry, here: https://beta.groups.io/g/main/message/27191
|
|
locked
Re: Pricing Changes
#update
On Mon, Dec 28, 2020 at 11:55 AM, Ellen Moody wrote:
Can I ask when will the new price changes and whatever else goes with it go into effect?Ellen, here are the details: https://beta.groups.io/g/main/message/2719 . Pete
|
|
locked
Re: Pricing Changes
#update
Can I ask when will the new price changes and whatever else goes with it go into effect? Although my 3 lists are grandmothered in, I'd like to know when these changes are going to happen. Ellen Moody
|
|
locked
Re: Pricing Changes
#update
KWKloeber
Marc
Nice explanation/model. Thank you (my comment about adding 1 to 400 was obviously tongue-in-cheek.) But as I said, what you say above is true in the fictional model only when #1,001 has activity that’s the same as the 1,000. There’s nil cost to add 500 or 1,000, if they are all essentially non-users of bandwidth or storage (infrastructure.) Storing names and email addresses and flipping around an email is ‘near zero’ cost I would imagine, in terms of hard costs. In our situation I described, I wouldn’t expect any substantive cost difference whether our membership was 400 or 1600, when there are only 2 dozen active members. (Discounting the cost of stringing cable to the house) you can have 100 or 10,000 cable subscribers if no more than the same number of TVs are turned on at one time. Am I missing something fundamental? I think of gio as a sort of community, opposed to Y!G or GG, and want to see Marc succeed for many reasons. On the other hand an increase of nearly a grand a year is impossible to make work for, I fear, too many for it to succeed and — although we’re gf’d in now and I’m not the owner — I’d hate for our group to be in the situation of needing to migrate again from another failed service like Y!G. Ken K
|
|
All photos show "Taken" date as 12/31/1969
#bug
Every photo in every album in my groups (including some taken yesterday) have a "Taken" date of 12/31/1969. Discussed on GMF - https://groups.io/g/GroupManagersForum/message/35939 .
Pete
|
|
locked
Re: Pricing Changes
#update
On Fri, Dec 25, 2020 at 09:13 PM, KWKloeber wrote:
Since this was the free service that was better than sliced bread, I think Mark might provide an explanation as to how the cost is closely related to the # of members. i.e., How does 401 members cost 55¢ more? What costs money, seems logical to me, is activity, not so much the number of members.Just thought folks might like to know a little more about how this business works. I don't know about Groups.io, but I have experience with the economics of providing online services. The costs are usually stepwise, not linear and not easily allocated to the number of customers. Putting it more concretely, suppose you provide an online service to 500 customers that costs you, the service operator, $1000 per month and you charge your customers $4 per month, giving you $1000 net per month with 500 customers. (Revenue=500x$4= $2000. Cost=$1000. Net = Revenue - Cost = $2000 - $1000 = $1000). Providing services to 501 customers is also $1000 per month. In fact, providing services to 1000 customers is likely to also be very close to $1000 per month. Why? Because you use the same infrastructure (software, compute, storage, network) to provide for 500 as 1000 customers. There is little difference between using a sliver of available capacity and using most of available capacity. That means that adding customers costs you, the service operator, almost nothing. For every dollar your customers pay, that dollar goes straight to your net. At 1000 customers, your net is now $3000. (Revenue = 1000 x $4 = $4000. Cost = $1000. Net = $4000 - $1000.) Not bad. But when the 1001th customer arrives your capacity is exceeded, performance tumbles and you start having outages. Then you have a problem. You have to add capacity or lose customers. Enough capacity so that you don't have to run through the same drill next week, but if your revenue is based on the number of subscribers, that 1001th subscriber will only add $4 to your net, which won't buy any additional capacity at all. So you dip into your reserves (you do have reserves don't you?) and raise your capacity by a factor of ten. The economy of scale makes your cost for 10,000 customer capacity only $5000, not the $10,000 you might expect. That looks great because at 10,000 customers you would net $35,000 per month (Revenue = 10,000 x $4 = $40,000. Cost = $5000. Net = $40,000 - $5000 = $35,000.) Quite a jump from $3000 a month net. Holy Mackerel Batman! This looks like a money machine! The catch at 1001 customers, you are losing money to the tune of $996 per month. (Revenue = 1001 x $4 = $4004. Cost = $5000. Net = $4004 - $5000 =. $996 LOSS). Your net is underwater until you take on an additional 200 customers. (Rev = 1200 x $4 = $5000. Cost - $5000. Net =$5000 - $5000 = 0). There's money to be made, but you have to get your paying customers above 1200 before your losses drive you out of business. A traditional business solution in this kind of bind is the "loss leader" to hustle customers in the door. In fact, free services are more business savvy than traditional loss leaders because there's less affect on cash flow. And you can sometimes use your free customers as a sort of buffer for testing while shielding your paying customers. Adding 10 free customers does not increase your cost, while attracting 20 paying customers with 10 free gets you closer to that magic point where your net begins to emerge from the sea of red. Real life is more complicated than my cooked example and cloud computing has taken some of the sting out of excess capacity (even cloud fees are usually stepwise), but the general principle is valid: online costs tend to stay constant as the number of users increase, then jump disproportionately when a threshold is crossed. Business models must eventually reflect that reality. Most past online service business models, including Mark's, have been less than future-proof and times are changing. There are lots of ways this nut can be cracked, and I expect to see a lot of different ways in the next year or so. The discussion here is all toward better models, and that is good. Best, Marv
|
|
locked
Re: Pricing Changes
#update
toki
On 25/12/2020 17:22, Charles Roberts wrote:
I would be willing to bet that there is a LONG line of folks salivating to beIt is called list sponsorship. I don't know the ROI a sponsor would expect, for an annual payment of US$3,000. (One person I know that sponsors such things, expects a dollar or sponsorship money to generate at least 5 dollars of gross revenue.) Hunt around, and list-owners might find a firm or two willing to sponsor the list. This can be done jonathon
|
|
locked
Re: Pricing Changes
#update
Donald Hellen
Sorry, I meant "Drew"
On Sat, 26 Dec 2020 16:17:13 -0500, "Donald Hellen" <donhellen@roadrunner.com> wrote:
---------------------------------------------------- Some ham radio groups you may be interested in: https://groups.io/g/ICOM https://groups.io/g/Ham-Antennas https://groups.io/g/HamRadioHelp https://groups.io/g/Baofeng https://groups.io/g/CHIRP https://rf-amplifiers.groups.io/g/main
|
|
locked
Re: Pricing Changes
#update
Bill Burns
On 26-Dec-20 4:17 PM, Donald Hellen wrote:
I just mention this so others know there's a whole 'nother world outMark set up the predecessor of Groups.io in 1998, having been using email lists since 1989 : https://wingedpig.com/category/onelist/ As you say, a good few years after Usenet, but still a pioneer of modern email list software. -- Bill
|
|