New Classified feature

[T_om]

Make it a Pay site. Figure out a fee and go with it.

Selling calendars and asking for 'donations' won't cut it. Sticking fees on per-sale items is just an aggravation nobody needs.

No membership 'levels'. You are a member.. or you are not a member.

Have a trial period for new arrivals, say 10 days, 30 days, whatever.... with NO posting access to the For Sale or Gallery board until the subscription fee is paid and a certain number of posts are made...

Tom

 

[pesphoto]

A single yearly fee is simplest way to go. Maybe have a Rff shop page where people can buy a baseball hat, mug, tshirt, etc. to earn some extra funds for the site.

Im familiar with the DWF site and that is a single yearly fee and thats it. Poeple buy and sell stuff on the site as well adn it seems to work well from what I see.

 

[Wayne R. Scott]

I have been a member of this site for a little while now and have witnessed the growing pains it is going through. I have no qualms about adding money to the kitty to keep the site running. I don't want a special badge membership and I personally could care less about having an upgraded photo gallery.

I am opposed the Mini-evilbay type of classifieds and I do think it would lead to hard feelings as the snipers go to work.

I don't know, nor do I care to know how much money is required to run the rff forum. If Jorge can make it work at a profit more power to him.

An anuual membership fee is fine with me and I would be willing to privately sponsor some one who is feeling the cruel pinch of want in life. (Heaven only knows that I have been there.)

In addition to the annual membership fee, how about a monthly Rangefinderforum Russian Roullette Raffle? (RFFRRR) for those of you that like acronyms. Each month a Fed or Zorki or Kiev with lens could be raffled off for say $1 per chance. At the end of the month a drawing is held and the winning number is awarded the prize. Then if the camera doesn't work you would be refunded your $1. 🙂

Wayne

 

[Andrew Touchon]

Make it a Pay site. Figure out a fee and go with it.

Selling calendars and asking for 'donations' won't cut it. Sticking fees on per-sale items is just an aggravation nobody needs.

No membership 'levels'. You are a member.. or you are not a member.

Have a trial period for new arrivals, say 10 days, 30 days, whatever.... with NO posting access to the For Sale or Gallery board until the subscription fee is paid and a certain number of posts are made...

Tom

Well spoken! Keep it simple and avoid all of these different levels of membership. If it's a community of members , all members should have the same privileges. Otherwise its just another online commercial store offering a variety of services to online customers.

 

[traveller]

very close to the how of how we got here.

it seems the reality is that we are changing, have changed.
it now is much more expensive to run this site.
jorge could be driving a very nice car if the money went to a car payment rather than to the running of this site.
i'm not suggesting we buy him a car...😉
but to keep the site going some form of income, other than advertising, has to happen or we will go bust.
i'm not smart enough to know what is best but listening to all of you, it seems that a small subscription is the most popular.

we could keep the $25 gallery upgrade and that could include the subscription charge and charge a lower ( 5 to 10 buck) for a basic subscription, which would include everything we have have to date.
i strongly suggest that there be no icons or signs publicly showing the difference in membership.
the gallery upgrade is an upgrade in perks not an upgrade in personality or status. we are all rf lovers and that should be enough for people here.

this is just my suggestion.

joe

Joe's absolutly right.

I started with rangefinders because of this place and what I like here is the spirit of the community. Please don't place it at risk with ideas like Ebay lite or publicly showing the grade of membership.

John

 

[ChrisPlatt]

I am willing to pay a flat fee of ten dollars per year to subscribe to RFF.

Christopher Platt

 

[back alley]

speaking of a sense of community...you guys are just great!!

showing a willingness to help the site stay the same and pay a few bucks to boot is very impressive.
and so many who do not want extras or pins/icons to own bragging rights.
this is what sets us apart and despite the tension/choas of the recent past we still can muster a togetherness that other sites can only pray for.

i am pleased and proud to know you!

joe

 

[SalmanA]

Vow, it took quite a bit of time to go through all of the posts... all 8 pages of them!

As a lurker and infrequent contributor to this site, here's my $0.02:

Revert the classifieds forum to the old, free style. I really liked the friendly & open atmosphere of the old classifieds forum. The new classifieds forum is too much like eBay. 🙁

Move to a membership model similar to Photo.net, except without identifying the subscriber status. I'd be OK with an annual membership fee up to US$25.00.

Regards,

 

[Flyfisher Tom]

how about a monthly Rangefinderforum Russian Roullette Raffle? (RFFRRR) for those of you that like acronyms. Each month a Fed or Zorki or Kiev with lens could be raffled off for say $1 per chance. At the end of the month a drawing is held and the winning number is awarded the prize. Then if the camera doesn't work you would be refunded your $1. 🙂

Wayne

Wayne, that's actually a very interesting idea 😉

Our state just enacted an "education" lottery (one of the last states in the country to do so). Revenue specifically held for education purposes.

Several advantages. For one thing, it is a purely voluntary contribution/gift. And the income stream/revenue from each cycle is always much higher than the payout/prize. Plus everyone who pays in gets the exhilarating possibility of winning something. Thus, RFF gains revenue ; one RFF member per cycle (monthly possibly) wins a camera or lens. Those more favorably positioned economically can buy as many $1 tickets as they wish, just as in a real lottery. Those less favorably positioned can buy a single $1 ticket only.

No hint of the usual social connotations of heavyhandedness with taxes or fees, just a purely voluntary effort, plus a bit of common fun for members.

 

[planetjoe]

Wayne, that's actually a very interesting idea 😉

Our state just enacted an "education" lottery (one of the last states in the country to do so). Revenue specifically held for education purposes.

Several advantages. For one thing, it is a purely voluntary contribution/gift. And the income stream/revenue from each cycle is always much higher than the payout/prize. Plus everyone who pays in gets the exhilarating possibility of winning something. Thus, RFF gains revenue ; one RFF member per cycle (monthly possibly) wins a camera or lens. Those more favorably positioned economically can buy as many $1 tickets as they wish, just as in a real lottery. Those less favorably positioned can buy a single $1 ticket only.

No hint of the usual social connotations of heavyhandedness with taxes or fees, just a purely voluntary effort, plus a bit of common fun for members.

Yes, yes, that's a really neat idea. Someone would have to run the "raffle", but perhaps there is software (or even a PHP plugin?) that could handle it for us. I'd love to throw a couple extra bucks in every month or so for a chance at winning an FSU RF, at the very least. What's one less grande cafe americano at *$, after all?


--joe.

 

[FrankS]

The lotto idea has been brought up before, and there are probably legal implications/legislation which prohibits this. (Except in the states of Nevada and California where anything goes. 🙂 )

I like the idea of a single flat membership fee with no "hero" icons attached.

Jorge has proposed an upgraded membership level with greater use of the gallery. Currently gallery uploads are limited to 5 per day. Jorge's proposal was to up that to 20 per day.

I suggest that this proposal is not a good idea. It creates levels of membership, and it may be the cause of us "chasing our tail". Let me explain: greater gallery usage (20 photos uploaded per day per member X 4,000!) will eventually necessitate the furhur expansion of storage/bandwidth and furthur increasing cost, thereby necessitating more drastic funding measures.

Someone eloquently explained that growth for the sake of growth is not a good thing. Bigger is not necessarily better (with the obvious exceptions) but even then too big can be too big.

 

[ch1]

This is so frustrating.

It is a discussion that justs seems to go round and round and round.

For example, some say membership fee are okay - but no ID of whose a member (What does that mean? If there is a membership fee then by definition anyone who posts is a member!).

Then there is the lottery (probably illegal) and raffle idea. Who is going to manage this? Who is going to take possession of the prized FSU camera each month and sell raffle tickets and collect the fees etc.

Simple fact is that if you read all of the GAS complaints and boasts here, most folks do not seem to be living so hand to mouth such that $25 is going to "break them".

Take a look at the gear on the shelf. You found the money for that. Take a look at the computer you are using to post here. You found the money for that. Consider the ISP expense you pay to be on-line. You found the money for that.

Everyone here says how much the VALUE this site, but a lot of folks don't seem to want to PAY for it! :bang:

 

[pesphoto]

i think we are willing to pay for it. Thats how Im reading this. Just a matter of the best, and simplest way to do that.

 

[Flyfisher Tom]

... growth for the sake of growth is not a good thing. Bigger is not necessarily better (with the obvious exceptions) but even then too big can be too big.

Frank, I think you have hit on the bigger question that needs to be resolved first before we discuss revenue.

This is Jorge's site first and foremost, and a community thereafter. Jorge has been very gracious in its creation and maintainence. And very open in listening to new ideas. So let me thank him now.

However, Jorge needs to let us know what his over-arching philosophy for the site is. Does he want it to continue to expand and grow, as it has in the past few months? Or, is there a point at which the size and density of a site causes it to collapse internally by its own weight. Not even a collapse in the literal sense, but more ephemerally in the feel, texture, atmosphere, comraderie, and welcoming nature of a site.

I'm reminded of a Frasier episode where someone quips: "If less is more, think of how much more MORE is." Well, sadly, in reality, sometimes less is truly more.

If the philosophy or goal of RFF is to get bigger and bigger, not merely through word-of-mouth organic growth, but through active solicitation of growth (as we have had recently with the contest) ... then one might reasonably ask, when will the need for revenue increases ever end? Indeed, if growth is the end goal, then continued increases in revenue/fees will, by necessity, be both infinite and indefinite.

And perhaps more importantly, we might ask ourselves, has the change of RFF from a moderate sized community to its current bigger version of itself on steroids actually brought about any tangible benefits? Is the goal to get big for the sake of getting big? Has this new super-sized version of ourselves made us any faster, any friendlier, more cordial, more civil? Or rather, the opposite?

If the goal of RFF is to maintain that happy median and medium that we so loved before, I'd happily agree with all those who have banded together to contribute. But if the goal of RFF is merely to get ever larger, then I cannot help but think we are contributing to our own demise.

 

[ch1]

Frank, I think you have hit on the bigger question that needs to be resolved first before we discuss revenue.

This is Jorge's site first and foremost, and a community thereafter. Jorge has been very gracious in its creation and maintainence. And very open in listening to new ideas. So let me thank him now.

However, Jorge needs to let us know what his over-arching philosophy for the site is. Does he want it to continue to expand and grow, as it has in the past few months? Or, is there a point at which the size and density of a site causes it to collapse internally by its own weight. Not even a collapse in the literal sense, but more ephemerally in the feel, texture, atmosphere, comraderie, and welcoming nature of a site.

I'm reminded of a Frasier episode where someone quips: "If less is more, think of how much more MORE is." Well, sadly, in reality, sometimes less is truly more.

If the philosophy or goal of RFF is to get bigger and bigger, not merely through word-of-mouth organic growth, but through active solicitation of growth (as we have had recently with the contest) ... then one might reasonably ask, when will the need for revenue increases ever end? Indeed, if growth is the end goal, then continued increases in revenue/fees will, by necessity, be both infinite and indefinite.

And perhaps more importantly, we might ask ourselves, has the change of RFF from a moderate sized community to its current bigger version of itself on steroids actually brought about any tangible benefits? Is the goal to get big for the sake of getting big? Has this new super-sized version of ourselves made us any faster, any friendlier, more cordial, more civil? Or rather, the opposite?

If the goal of RFF is to maintain that happy median and medium that we so loved before, I'd happily agree with all those who have banded together to contribute. But if the goal of RFF is merely to get ever larger, then I cannot help but think we are contributing to our own demise.

Tom,

To a considerable extent a membership fee acts like a gatekeeper or limiting mechanism.

Right now anyone can register and so a lot have done so. Oftentimes to do no more than post "for sale" signs!

A membership fee to any "club" or "community" has the very effect of deterring those whose interest is so casual that they are not willing to pay the dues.

I know of no functioning club (real world - not virtual) that can survive very long without dues. Do you?

So even if we consider this site more of a club or community than Jorge's commercial venture, it still needs a regularized revenue stream to survive. Presently it doesn't have that.

I think a membership fee (or "club dues" or "community charge") is the fairest way to achieve what needs to be achieved.

 

[Flyfisher Tom]

Tom,

To a considerable extent a membership fee acts like a gatekeeper or limiting mechanism.

A membership fee to any "club" or "community" has the very effect of deterring those whose interest is so casual that they are not willing to pay the dues.

I think a membership fee (or "club dues" or "community charge") is the fairest way to achieve what needs to be achieved.

George,

I agree with all 3 of the statements above that you've made.

However, I would like to know which venture I'm going to be putting my money into, the one that craves growth for growth's sake (and therefore unending), or the one that recognizes there are more important attributes to a club or community than sheer size.

Once that is clear, I heartily agree with you on the method.

 

[grizzz]

Simple fact is that if you read all of the GAS complaints and boasts here, most folks do not seem to be living so hand to mouth such that $25 is going to "break them".

It may not break them but it may be beyond their budget. I work with people that come in and ask me what happened on the sopranos. They can't afford HBO according to their budget. They make more than I do. They got kids and big cars to move them around in and big houses to sleep them in. I got HBO and RFF 😀 . I would never assume anyone could afford anything since I don't know their story....

I believe your in NYC, I'm in DC. RFF is world wide and not everyone is as fortunate as we are in the big cities.....

 

[dreilly]

George,
Please don't shoot yourself. I think the conversation is not going badly. Most people are in favor of the membership idea (just check the poll).

And the idea about icons for membership levels isn't to show who is a member and who isn't, it's to show what level of membership the person has. Which is a different thing.

doug

 

[ch1]

George,

I agree with all 3 of the statements above that you've made.

However, I would like to know which venture I'm going to be putting my money into, the one that craves growth for growth's sake (and therefore unending), or the one that recognizes there are more important attributes to a club or community than sheer size.

Once that is clear, I heartily agree with you on the method.

Tom,

And I agree with you. Certainly the members should know where the organization (site) is going to see if, and for how long, they want to go along on the ride.

Like you, I would hope that the focus is on providing a quality site dedicated to our shared interests in RF gear and not just focused on growing in membership size.

 

[ch1]

George,
Please don't shoot yourself. I think the conversation is not going badly. Most people are in favor of the membership idea (just check the poll).

And the idea about icons for membership levels isn't to show who is a member and who isn't, it's to show what level of membership the person has. Which is a different thing.

doug

Doug,

Actually, I think there should only be one membership group at whatever "price" generates sufficient revenue flow (hopefully a reasonable amount). That would eliminate the "tiering" concerns of many - which I think are legitimate.

As to those with some financial issues, perhaps we could have a lower fee for students and seniors etc.(self identified) but it would still provide a full regular membership.