Date   

moderated Re: Samuel's Paid User Proposal #suggestion

 

The various proposed models are now do varied that I have no idea any more which one we’re discussing at this point. Yes, yes, I know, Samuels idea, but which variation of it as mentioned in this thread? So I will not comment further. I’ll just have to wai and see what comes out of this in the end.


On Jan 9, 2021, at 9:27 AM, Sandi D <sandi.asgtechie@...> wrote:

It would seem to me this is very simple. 

If a group owner wanted a premium group and wanted to pay the cost of additional members over the tier's limits that group owner could do so and no members would be paying. Ditto for basic groups. They could updgrade to Premium and no members would have to pay. 

If on the other hand a group owner chose not to pay for additional members over the allowed limit, then they could continue to attract members who have opted to have paid individual GIO accounts.

A group owner would not have to leave GIO because they could not afford to pay for the group and did not want to collect money and manage a mechanism to pay GIO for their group. 

I also think a 30 day free individual membership should be considered. If the person did get banned or finds they don't like the groups they joined, no money is lost. After 30 days, if they choose to pay $5, they have had plenty of time to know what they are "signing up for" and had plenty of value for the past 30 days that were free. I can't think of any other service less than $3-5 a month. $3-5 a year is an extraordinary value and would bring in significant untapped revenue. 

I also would like to see a donation button for those wanting to give more than $5 a year so we don't have to create a group just to donate. 

--
Sandi Dickenson

--
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

Glenn Glazer
 

On 01/09/2021 09:08, Samuel Murrayy wrote:
But you make a good point: I believe there are certain types of groups where people typically join only for a month or two (or for 6 or 9 months), before leaving again, so this possibility needs to be taken into account.

Samuel

When we were in Canada once for a conference, word got out that a local cell phone shop was offering free phones and a large number of minutes for free with a no-questions money back guarantee. Since all of us were only going to be there for a week, you can imagine what happened.

Best,

Glenn

--
PG&E Delenda Est


moderated Re: Samuel's Paid User Proposal #suggestion

Sandi D <sandi.asgtechie@...>
 

It would seem to me this is very simple. 

If a group owner wanted a premium group and wanted to pay the cost of additional members over the tier's limits that group owner could do so and no members would be paying. Ditto for basic groups. They could updgrade to Premium and no members would have to pay. 

If on the other hand a group owner chose not to pay for additional members over the allowed limit, then they could continue to attract members who have opted to have paid individual GIO accounts.

A group owner would not have to leave GIO because they could not afford to pay for the group and did not want to collect money and manage a mechanism to pay GIO for their group. 

I also think a 30 day free individual membership should be considered. If the person did get banned or finds they don't like the groups they joined, no money is lost. After 30 days, if they choose to pay $5, they have had plenty of time to know what they are "signing up for" and had plenty of value for the past 30 days that were free. I can't think of any other service less than $3-5 a month. $3-5 a year is an extraordinary value and would bring in significant untapped revenue. 

I also would like to see a donation button for those wanting to give more than $5 a year so we don't have to create a group just to donate. 

--
Sandi Dickenson


moderated Re: Samuel's Paid User Proposal #suggestion

 

Duane,
Thanks for the (attempted) clarification. I’ll have reread this. It seems like a member-pay model affects every member, and therefore, affects all groups, even if indirectly.


On Jan 9, 2021, at 9:10 AM, Duane <txpigeon@...> wrote:

On Sat, Jan 9, 2021 at 10:34 AM, J_Catlady wrote:
So I can juwt tell anyone I don't think should be forced to pay
No one would be forced to pay as I read it.  There would be 'free slots' for each pricing tier that could be used or the group owner could upgrade to a higher tier with more free slots, as well as having the option of paying the incremental fee for additional members.   Unless/until the 'site membership' (assuming that's the plan) is implemented, there's no way to know how many people would get one.  Even though I have several grandfathered groups, including a Premium group, I'd still be willing to pay up to $10 per year to GIO for a membership.  I'm guessing/hoping that there would be quite a few people that feel the same, but we can't know unless it happens.

Based on Mark's comments and some research on my part, large groups are the exception rather than the rule.  Yes, it would be of some concern for those groups that attract a large number of members, but a site membership option might minimize the need to upgrade a group while still bringing in $$$ for GIO.

While I do appreciate the grandfathering that is in place, at some point I expect it to end.  Maybe not while Mark is in charge (hopefully for a long time ;>), but someday.

Duane

--
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

 

Even worse.


On Jan 9, 2021, at 9:08 AM, Samuel Murrayy <samuelmurray@...> wrote:

On Sat, Jan 9, 2021 at 05:34 PM, J_Catlady wrote:
On Sat, Jan 9, 2021 at 08:15 AM, Samuel Murrayy wrote:
a very generous no-questions money-back policy
Great. So I can just tell anyone I don't think should be forced to pay, "Don't worry, you can just request a refund"?
I'm serious.
When word gets out that the refund policy may be more generous than the web site officially lets believe, no doubt some group owners might go ahead and tell their members that they should claim refunds willy-nilly.  But remember: if a member gets a refund, then their account reverts to free-member status. So, if your group has insufficient free-member slots available, they won't be able to rejoin your group (and they will also be removed from all their other groups where there are no free-member slots available or where the group owners decide not to award a free-member slot to them).

But you make a good point: I believe there are certain types of groups where people typically join only for a month or two (or for 6 or 9 months), before leaving again, so this possibility needs to be taken into account.

Samuel

--
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

 

Making members pay is a dealbreaker for me. I know some feel the opposite. My feeling is that I am hosting. I’m not running a paid business here.

And the refund issue is orders of magnitude more complicated when members pay. There are synchronization issue between confirmation, pending questionnaires for restricted groups, multiple vs single groups, etc.

For me its a dealbreaker. It radically changed the entire model and what we’re all doing here. But that’s just me.


On Jan 9, 2021, at 9:07 AM, Sandi D <sandi.asgtechie@...> wrote:

On Sat, Jan 9, 2021 at 10:21 AM, J_Catlady wrote:
I think it would be clearly unethical for a member to pay for a year's worth of a group, get kicked out, and not get their money back.
What happens to groups who have paid and get closed down for not following the rules?

If a member of a group has paid $3-5 a year for an individual GIO account, they can join a different group. Maybe they have learned their lesson after the banned behavior. I have paid many a $69 a year no refund fee for a service I was not satisfied with. I don't think a non refundable $5 a year for an individual account is going to break anyone. They aren't banned from GIO. They have all their GIO benefits including joining another group. 

The optional model of allowing individuals to become paid supporters of GIO is in addition to the optional model of allowing group owner to become paid supporters of GIO. 

If the groups I helped create are forced to pay at any point they will leave GIO. If the members in those groups are given the option to pay at any point, many will continue on as members and the created groups they are in will remain as groups and attract more paying and non paying members. 

Someone has to pay. Allowing both group owners and GIO account holders the option to pay seems like it should be reasonably to considered. 
 
--
Sandi Dickenson

--
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

Duane
 

On Sat, Jan 9, 2021 at 10:34 AM, J_Catlady wrote:
So I can juwt tell anyone I don't think should be forced to pay
No one would be forced to pay as I read it.  There would be 'free slots' for each pricing tier that could be used or the group owner could upgrade to a higher tier with more free slots, as well as having the option of paying the incremental fee for additional members.   Unless/until the 'site membership' (assuming that's the plan) is implemented, there's no way to know how many people would get one.  Even though I have several grandfathered groups, including a Premium group, I'd still be willing to pay up to $10 per year to GIO for a membership.  I'm guessing/hoping that there would be quite a few people that feel the same, but we can't know unless it happens.

Based on Mark's comments and some research on my part, large groups are the exception rather than the rule.  Yes, it would be of some concern for those groups that attract a large number of members, but a site membership option might minimize the need to upgrade a group while still bringing in $$$ for GIO.

While I do appreciate the grandfathering that is in place, at some point I expect it to end.  Maybe not while Mark is in charge (hopefully for a long time ;>), but someday.

Duane


moderated Re: Samuel's Paid User Proposal #suggestion

Samuel Murrayy
 

On Sat, Jan 9, 2021 at 05:34 PM, J_Catlady wrote:
On Sat, Jan 9, 2021 at 08:15 AM, Samuel Murrayy wrote:
a very generous no-questions money-back policy
Great. So I can just tell anyone I don't think should be forced to pay, "Don't worry, you can just request a refund"?
I'm serious.
When word gets out that the refund policy may be more generous than the web site officially lets believe, no doubt some group owners might go ahead and tell their members that they should claim refunds willy-nilly.  But remember: if a member gets a refund, then their account reverts to free-member status. So, if your group has insufficient free-member slots available, they won't be able to rejoin your group (and they will also be removed from all their other groups where there are no free-member slots available or where the group owners decide not to award a free-member slot to them).

But you make a good point: I believe there are certain types of groups where people typically join only for a month or two (or for 6 or 9 months), before leaving again, so this possibility needs to be taken into account.

Samuel


moderated Re: Samuel's Paid User Proposal #suggestion

Sandi D <sandi.asgtechie@...>
 

On Sat, Jan 9, 2021 at 10:21 AM, J_Catlady wrote:
I think it would be clearly unethical for a member to pay for a year's worth of a group, get kicked out, and not get their money back.
What happens to groups who have paid and get closed down for not following the rules?

If a member of a group has paid $3-5 a year for an individual GIO account, they can join a different group. Maybe they have learned their lesson after the banned behavior. I have paid many a $69 a year no refund fee for a service I was not satisfied with. I don't think a non refundable $5 a year for an individual account is going to break anyone. They aren't banned from GIO. They have all their GIO benefits including joining another group. 

The optional model of allowing individuals to become paid supporters of GIO is in addition to the optional model of allowing group owner to become paid supporters of GIO. 

If the groups I helped create are forced to pay at any point they will leave GIO. If the members in those groups are given the option to pay at any point, many will continue on as members and the created groups they are in will remain as groups and attract more paying and non paying members. 

Someone has to pay. Allowing both group owners and GIO account holders the option to pay seems like it should be reasonably to considered. 
 
--
Sandi Dickenson


moderated Re: Samuel's Paid User Proposal #suggestion

 

On Sat, Jan 9, 2021 at 08:15 AM, Samuel Murrayy wrote:
a very generous no-questions money-back policy
Great. So I can juwt tell anyone I don't think should be forced to pay, "Don't worry, you can just request a refund"?
I'm serious.
 
--
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

Samuel Murrayy
 

On Sat, Jan 9, 2021 at 04:16 PM, J_Catlady wrote:
Here's another problem if members rather than owners are the ones who pay: what happens to the member's payment if and when a member is removed and/or banned from a group? What happens if that was their only group... ? What if they have only been in the group for a very small part of the year vs. the whole year?
This is a good point -- one of those points that are not really problematic to solve but which needs to be considered.  I would personally try to find a solution that is likely to lead to the fewest support requests (because support requests eat into profits).

So, off the cuff, my solution to this problem would be for Groups.io to have a very generous no-questions money-back policy for user memberships (note: user memberships, not group owner payments), since it's only $2.50, and it's not a huge loss to pay back that amount, and it's too little money to spend support time on.  I recall having read various views and experiences about internet-based no-questions refunding, and the impression that I got was that it is not abused nearly as often as one might have expected.  With this solution, a user would automatically get a refund if he requests it, regardless of his reasons.

Refunds for group owners are a different matter, but since the amounts are higher, it's also less problematic to spend support time on such requests.


moderated Re: Samuel's Paid User Proposal #suggestion

 

In my business, if someone has already paid me for something and then I am the one to fire them, I think it's only ethical to give them a refund. I think it would be clearly unethical for a member to pay for a year's worth of a group, get kicked out, and not get their money back.

The more I think about it, the more I think that I would not stay in groups.io if members were forced to pay. If I understand the proposal correctly, this would affect all members of all groups, and the grandfathering would be toast. Please correct me if I'm wrong.

On Sat, Jan 9, 2021 at 7:16 AM J_Catlady via groups.io <j.olivia.catlady=gmail.com@groups.io> wrote:
Here's another problem if members rather than owners are the ones who pay: what happens to the member's payment if and when a member is removed and/or banned from a group? What happens if that was their only group vs. if they are in more than one group? What if they have only been in the group for a very small part of the year vs. the whole year? How is the communication handled between the group owner and groups.io in case there has to be a refund?
--
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

 

Here's another problem if members rather than owners are the ones who pay: what happens to the member's payment if and when a member is removed and/or banned from a group? What happens if that was their only group vs. if they are in more than one group? What if they have only been in the group for a very small part of the year vs. the whole year? How is the communication handled between the group owner and groups.io in case there has to be a refund?
--
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

Duane
 

On Fri, Jan 8, 2021 at 04:47 PM, billsf9c wrote:
Wikipedia demands a lot of info unneesed for a simple.donation and demands you give it to donate AND that it allows.them and "~their friends" ability to send junk mail.

From what I read of the IO donation setup, it is similar.
The person setting up a Stripe account to accept donations for a group does need to furnish information.  Those making a payment to GIO or a donation to a group only need to enter credit card info.  In the case under discussion, people would be paying GIO, so no extra info needed.

Duane


moderated Re: Samuel's Paid User Proposal #suggestion

Mike Hanauer
 

I do apologize to Catlady for misreading her intent. I do still think the points below are important...

    ~Mike

Groups.io High Level Pricing Concerns:
  1. If a current member, without grandfathering, might not sign on, is that not a clue of an unsustainable pricing structure?
  2. If there is a monthly charge per user per group, how much do you think you can take from one person per month where some might belong to more than one group? Would that not limit the number of groups he/she would join?
  3. Is there provision for an owner/moderator to get part of a fee if that is desired?
  4. How much control can/should you take from an owner? Owners, group creators, are perhaps the most important person.
I think most of the plans, including the presumed one, are leading Groups.io in a difficult direction.


Consider Better, not Bigger. So many advantages. Just ask. USA adds a Chicago to our overpop each year.
"Still more population growth is not our way to a healthy community, a healthy planet, OR enjoyable cycling."

    ~Mike


On Friday, January 8, 2021, 03:18:56 PM EST, J_Catlady <j.olivia.catlady@...> wrote:


I’m agreeing w Marv. Would not start my group today if members had to pay. I keep coming back to that. Many of our membets are volunteers there to help other people with their cats’ illnesses, and for some, including out volunteer but eminent specialist referral vet who probably charges hundreds per hour, we are the only group they belong to. If I had to start my group with any of the member-pay structures being proposed, I would have to figure out a way to front these people the membership fee. It would be I appropriate for me to expect them to donate their services AND to pay for the privilege of doing so.


On Jan 8, 2021, at 12:11 PM, Marv Waschke <marv@...> wrote:

The proposal is fine as an option, but I don't think I would start any more groups on groups.io if I had no choice but to follow that model.

I prefer a model where I as owner pay for the service and figure out myself how to pay for the service. I might charge users a fee based on usage, (lurking is free, but members pay to be heard), I might run a yearly donate-a-thon until I receive enough to pay the fee, I might request that a core group pay something to keep the group alive, there are many ways I can think of to do this and they would all depend on the nature of the group and its membership.

Stating it a little differently, I like things just as they are in that group owners are left figure out how to fund a group for themselves. I don't like the idea, no matter how much I respect Mark, of having groups.io collecting directly from members of groups I own. In my view of online group ownership, that's my responsibility, not something I will relinquish to the platform. I expect having an online group of any kind will become more expensive as time goes on and the nature of tech business evolves, but I accept that as my problem.

Best, Marv

--
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

David M
 

In reading this proposal and the comments, one thing that seems not to be addressed is the situation where groups.io is used as a mailing list handler only. The members of the group do not actually ever login to the system. They are just subscribed and send/receive e-mail.

More to the point, these people are not groupies. They just want e-mails and the idea of making them have an account and login to pay is not going to work. Simplicity for the members is the goal.

I have no idea what would work best, but wanted the perspective of e-mail-only users considered.

David


moderated Site updates #changelog

 

Changes to the site this week:

  • APP: A lot of work on the new version of the app.
  • INTERNAL: More work on converting templates to quicktemplate.
  • DOCS: Updates from Nina.
  • CHANGE: For messages that don't follow group hashtag requirements (missing a hashtag/using a restricted hashtag/etc), we would save a copy as a pending message and allow people to edit the message. We now just do not accept the message in the first place, and return an error message.
  • BUGFIX: The bouncing email notification wasn't properly escaping the email address encoded in the unbounce URL.
  • BUGFIX: When clicking Send Message from the view pending message screen, an erroneous You must include a message error message was displayed in the compose screen.
  • NEW: When direct adding or inviting an email address that is an alias of an existing member, show that existing member's email address in the error message.
  • BUGFIX: Fixed the Taken display when viewing individual photos.

Take care everyone.

Mark


moderated Re: Samuel's Paid User Proposal #suggestion

Glenn Glazer
 

On the subject of free trials, this just showed up in my feed:



Best,

Glenn

--
PG&E Delenda Est


moderated Re: Samuel's Paid User Proposal #suggestion

 

As a long time “owner” of multiple cats people have thrown out (to their great loss), I thank you for your service to felines everywhere.
Thank you, and thank you for rescuing multiple cats.

That said I respectfully point out that by paying annually for a Premium group with your own funds is, quite literally, funding the lurkers who comprise the great majority of your present member.
I don't mind that at present. They may well be lurking and learning, that is fine by me.

Your group presently enjoys the prestige of numbers these many lurkers “bring to the party”, even though the great majority of them would quickly disappear were you to ever impose a “subscription fee”.
I know many view large memberships as prestigious, but I don't personally. However, at present it doesn't cost me anything to have many lurking members (many of whom, as you say, would leave if they had to pay to remain a member), so they are welcome to lurk. If i were facing a personal cost of US$4000 a year, with no guarantee of much support from members, as you yourself have experienced, I would have to have a ruthless clearout; and how do you decide who should stay?

It is fortunate that the value of your services rendered is both immediately apparent and tangible.
Thank you. I like to think that people would therefore be prepared to pay a small amount per year to be a member. One possible downside with this would be that once people pay for something, they want more for their money. I can envisage people complaining if their posts are not answered promptly (however they personally define that), even though the people who try to help them are just regular folk who do not get paid, they do it because of their love of cats.

I still favour the member paying and not the group.

The longer we are grandathered, the better!

Helen


moderated Re: Samuel's Paid User Proposal #suggestion

billsf9c
 

> I think the worst feature of any proposal wherein members, rather than owners, pay is actually that. 

Just and ONLY for a perspective;

Costco charges a 2 (3?) tiered membership fee. Then the charge a profit on each item. They could easy get that 50 or 125$ fee by increasing the profit margin and maybe get more folks in the door.

There must be a reason for them taking a lil here and a lil there. There are some parallels w IO.

That said, I'd hate to have 123 year old Edith denied joining a knitting list for lack of a dime or the plastic or paypal savvy. She probably has numbered instructions on how to start her donated computor and access her group email taped to her desk. 🙄😏😑 If she gets a bump notice telling her to pay up, she'll think it's another ekderly bilking scam and will fear asking for help because of her getting scolded for slumming somewhere, without cause, if her children don't know about "how IO works." ~"It's not LIKE that Mom. I checked before we signed you up! You must have clicked somewhere by ass-ident. Be more careful."

BillSF9c

1981 - 2000 of 29453