Date   

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


moderated Re: Samuel's Paid User Proposal #suggestion

monamouroui
 

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


moderated Re: Samuel's Paid User Proposal #suggestion

 

Also, I’m not sure this fits exactly, but imagine that state x doesn’t have enough vaccine to go around, but people willing to pay can magically get their vaccine. (Apologies, it’s hard not think about this.) I know we’re talking about a pittance but it’s the principle. And that’s just one aspect. 


On Jan 11, 2021, at 4:30 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


moderated Re: Samuel's Paid User Proposal #suggestion

 

Shal,

Because when members are offered paid accounts, in any scheme, to me that warps the space around *every* group and generally the whole system. 


On Jan 11, 2021, at 4:30 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


moderated Re: Samuel's Paid User Proposal #suggestion

 

Joanie,


I'm not sure how we would manage the free vs. paid members of our group so that we had sufficient free memberships for those that need it. We would need to be able to convert the free users, who progress to lower levels of privacy management, to paid users to maintain a sufficient pool of free user slots.

In the proposal of the OP I think your only tools would be to buy more free user slots and/or implore those totally or partially "out" to convert to paid accounts to make more free slots available.

In my suggested enhancement to this proposal you would also have a control (in the Members list and/or on a specific member's page) to "bump" a member out of a free slot without unsubscribing them. They'd be in what I called an "inactive" status until either they paid for their account or you added them back to a free slot.


I think we can overcome this from an admin side but we would need some tools to monitor the number of remaining free slots and we would need to send messages to free users so that we can encourage some to be converted to paid members when the pool gets low.

Agreed.

The OP proposal and my suggestion would both benefit from additional tools to sort/filter the members list by paid account versus free slot. That would facilitate using the Send Message Action in the message list to target specifically members using a free slot, or members not using one (a "thank you" perhaps).
Having our totally "out" members pay their existing organization membership fee and then a groups.io fee would "double tap" these people for money. I know it's a very little amount but it does create two things to occur. Maybe our organization would have a way to pay the groups.io fee for our paid members using the membership money we collect.

That's an interesting idea.

Simply using the money you collect from them to buy additional free slots would avoid the double tap, but it wouldn't give them access to other groups the way upgrading them to a paid account would. The latter would be more expensive for your group, assuming the same $2.50/yr for a paid account versus $0.55/yr for an additional slot (and assuming your group is Premium not Enterprise), but I don't see a reason why Groups.io couldn't implement a way for a group to do that.

Shal


moderated Re: Samuel's Paid User Proposal #suggestion

 

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


moderated Re: Samuel's Paid User Proposal #suggestion

 

There’s another potential problem with groups.io charging members directly (in any proposal, Samuels or otherwise) and that is pet (or even human) health groups where medical issues are discussed. Helen’s post mentioning that if members pay they might expect better service is actually what brought this to mind. I fear that these types of groups could be at legal risk for being accused of practicing medicine (veterinary or otherwise) without a license of members are charged. Voluntary donations requested by a group owner would seem to be in a different category but IANAL.

I think it’s this concern that underlies my strong, dealbreaker objection to charging my members for participation, especially since there are actually vets in my group. I absolutely will nog charge my members in any way, shape, or form, no matter what happens and would have to leave if mg grandfathered status went away. It is completely antithetical and unacceptable to me. 

I am grandfathered but there will surely be these kinds of groups joining in the future.


On Jan 11, 2021, at 3:54 PM, Joanie <joanie.m.nightingale@...> wrote:

We run a non-profit organization which provides socialization opportunities for people with a secret alternative lifestyle. You could think of this as a secret society for those who are not "out" yet to the world. Our members consist of both people who are totally "out", partially "out" and totally in the closet. We raise money through donations and memberships to fund the organization. Most of our members are in the totally "out" or partially "out" category. Some of our members cannot use credit card transactions for fear of being outed. For us, the paid levels of service for the entire group is almost a requirement so that people who need total privacy can join the group with only a secondary email address to protect their real identity. A number of our members start out totally in the closet and then over time progress towards being totally out. Some always stay where they started in the privacy ladder.  I understand that existing groups might be "grandfathered in", which is great, but that also provides a slippery slope for future changes as we loose people who were part of the decision making and made promises to user groups.

I'm not sure how we would manage the free vs. paid members of our group so that we had sufficient free memberships for those that need it. We would need to be able to convert the free users, who progress to lower levels of privacy management, to paid users to maintain a sufficient pool of free user slots. I think we can overcome this from an admin side but we would need some tools to monitor the number of remaining free slots and we would need to send messages to free users so that we can encourage some to be converted to paid members when the pool gets low. Having our totally "out" members pay their existing organization membership fee and then a groups.io fee would "double tap" these people for money. I know it's a very little amount but it does create two things to occur. Maybe our organization would have a way to pay the groups.io fee for our paid members using the membership money we collect.

Right now, our paid memberships and fundraisers generate enough revenue to cover the costs of the Premium membership level. I know that every group is different and accommodating all these various use cases is difficult. I'm just trying to provide some insight to this particular use case.

Regards,

Joanie

--
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

801 - 820 of 28360