New Classified feature

[dreilly]

George,
Yeah, I'd support a single level of membership, too, if that's the will of the people. And I think the trial membership is important for people dropping into the rangefinder world for the first time, which has been an important function of this site.

I'm actually pretty impressed with the discussion here. It has to go around and around on some points, but a general opinion does seem to be emerging...at least, from those actively talking! There's a lot of members who haven't yet weighed in.

doug

 

[traveller]

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.

Seems reasonable to me, particularly the 2nd point

 

[Andrew Touchon]

I would have no problem if Jorge gave a large discount to students, seniors and disabled members. That should be a private matter between Jorge and the person involved. However, I strongly believe everyone else should pay flat rate dues at whatever level is required by Jorge to keep the site running. IMHO I also believe all members should have equal access to all site functions. There should be only three categories of people on the site: The Big Cheese, Moderators and Members.

 

[ch1]

I would have no problem if Jorge gave a large discount to students, seniors and disabled members. That should be a private matter between Jorge and the person involved. However, I strongly believe everyone else should pay flat rate dues at whatever level is required by Jorge to keep the site running. IMHO I also believe all members should have equal access to all site functions. There should be only three categories of people on the site: The Big Cheese, Moderators and Members.

Hear, hear!

Just to emphasize. Any arrangement for a "discounted fee" based on need should be strictly a private matter b/w the member and Jorge.

When I get on the bus or subway paying full fare, it is none of my business, nor do I want it to be, who may be on board under some form of needs-based discounted fare.

 

[Andrew Touchon]

I would have no problem if Jorge gave a large discount to students, seniors and disabled members. That should be a private matter between Jorge and the person involved. However, I strongly believe everyone else should pay flat rate dues at whatever level is required by Jorge to keep the site running. IMHO I also believe all members should have equal access to all site functions. There should be only three categories of people on the site: The Big Cheese, Moderators and Members.

Let me expand on the above. There should only be four categories of people on the site: The Big Cheese, Moderators, Members and 30 Day Free Trial Members. After a 30 day free look by new members it would be time to knock off the free riding and pay dues or leave. I believe this would cut down the operating cost, provide Jorge a reasonable way to manage the site and give prospective members a fair chance to get to know the site prior to sending money.

 

[RJBender]

Maybe we should have a poll on the suggestion of a subscription - most people seem to think that it is a good idea generally instead of the Classifieds section / payment option?

I have no problem whatsoever with the site generating money via it's users, or Jorge making a small profit (after all he has put a great deal of his own time and effort into setting it up and running it) but I am not too keen on a two tier membership system, or the 'commercial' classifieds section that does take away from the feeling of a group of friends sharing their thoughts, expertise and equipment. (IMHO)

Uh, what's wrong with Jorge making a huge profit? Maybe he'd like to quit his day job and work with his forums full time. 😉

R.J.

 

[FrankS]

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.

Absolutely straight, Tom! If Jorge is simply looking to grow this site as big as possible, then I'm not interested. I questioned (silently) the camera contest/membership drive. It may have brought in a few good members, but where are the other 3, 900? Jorge has talked in the past about RFF being like his child, but instead of allowing it to grow naturally/organically, he has injected it with artificial growth hormones. How is that like a loving parent? All the power to him if he wants to create a mega-site, it's just not what I'm interested in belonging and contributing to. Personally I don't want RFF to become Walmart!

 

[ray_g]

What a long thread, with many good suggestions.

Here's another take: We keep hearing about the "increased cost" of running this place. I don't see many more threads per day than say 6 months ago. It must have to do with the number of gallery uploads, then, and what memory or whatever server resources are needed to support that.

Donations are fine, as many already have done. Most people here mostly really enjoy the forum, though, and looking at the gallery. Why not keep those free, as in PNet? If you want to upload more than 5 photos (arbitrary) in your free gallery space, then subscribe.

Since that is the part of RFF that taxes the resources, then charge for that. The talk, the camaraderie, the classifieds, and everything else - since a lot of other sites with larger membership can offer those for free, I suspect that is not what "the increased cost" is about.

 

[RJBender]

Regarding WTB and for sale items

Regarding WTB and for sale items

I've seen people list their for sale and WTB items in their signature. All you have to do is link the text to another site such as a free homepage from your ISP. Then all your posts will show that you're looking for a 90mm f/2 Leitz Summicron, for example.

I don't understand how the bidding will work with Jorge's example. Is it similar to a Buy it Now with a Best Offer option?

R.J.

 

[FrankS]

Hopefully we won't have to find out, RJ!

 

[peter_n]

thanks gid.

anyone else on board?
joe

Absolutely Joe.

 

[Jocko]

The growth of any organisation leads to problems, but I think these can be overstated. There can be no serious objection to a large, active membership, and for that very reason I would strongly urge that any trial period should be considerably longer than 30 days, or perhaps end only after a certain number of posts; participation is habit-forming and the best guarentee of real commitment (not to mention nurturing a a willingness to pay) .

On a slightly different note, I think it's important to remember that this is an international forum. If there are going to be concessions for students, seniors and so on, shouldn't there also be reduced rates for members in Eastern Europe, South America or much of the Far East, where incomes are in general significantly below US, Australian/NZ or Western European levels?

I expect many people would object to that idea, which is why I agree with Ray-G: keep the essentials free and charge for extras.

Regards, Ian

 

[szekiat]

hi, my 2c worth....
I'm a member of a singapore based photographic forum run by a bunch of guys who hold day jobs too. I've been with them since day one of its conception and have seen it go through all its teething problems, funding, server upgrades etc.... one of the options that they did peruse was to sell webspace for members to host a personal website. That apparently raised enough money to keep the show running, with a few small ads thrown in.
RFF seems to have had some big time companies sponsoring it which leads me to believe that the difference in funding is really not too huge. I think a nominal fee for web/gallery space is probably the best option, but please keep the site FREE!!!! In this commercial world, it is the only thing that keeps ppl together, cos it is freeware, lets not lose that concept just yet.

 

[ch1]

The growth of any organisation leads to problems, but I think these can be overstated. There can be no serious objection to a large, active membership, and for that very reason I would strongly urge that any trial period should be considerably longer than 30 days, or perhaps end only after a certain number of posts; participation is habit-forming and the best guarentee of real commitment (not to mention nurturing a a willingness to pay) .

On a slightly different note, I think it's important to remember that this is an international forum. If there are going to be concessions for students, seniors and so on, shouldn't there also be reduced rates for members in Eastern Europe, South America or much of the Far East, where incomes are in general significantly below US, Australian/NZ or Western European levels?

I expect many people would object to that idea, which is why I agree with Ray-G: keep the essentials free and charge for extras.

Regards, Ian

Jocko,

I think there is a very simple way to deal with these issues. The "needs-based" test should simply be a private request from the prospective member to Jorge. The "reasons" for the reduced (or even no fee) are no one else's business!

Set a General Membership Fee at a particular level and offer an option for a reduced amount (all the way to zero) based on a request to the sponsor.

This way you avoid the complications of sliding scales, proofs of eligibility etc.

The idea is to leave the door open for all. I think that this arrangement is fair to all - it stigmatizes no one and, hopefully, reduces the administrative burden on Jorge to a minimum.

 

[szekiat]

btw, the forum in question is none other than forums.clubsnap.org . it runs using the same VB code and has thousands of members, mostly non-paying.

 

[Andrew Touchon]

On a slightly different note, I think it's important to remember that this is an international forum. If there are going to be concessions for students, seniors and so on, shouldn't there also be reduced rates for members in Eastern Europe, South America or much of the Far East, where incomes are in general significantly below US, Australian/NZ or Western European levels?

I expect many people would object to that idea, which is why I agree with Ray-G: keep the essentials free and charge for extras.

Regards, Ian

There are 192 countries in the world. I don't think it would be practical for Jorge to try to establish separate rate structures. When I travel to high cost areas such as Tokyo, Hong Kong, New York, London etc. I don't expect a discount just because the goods and services are more expensive then they are in my home town in Virginia.

 

[ch1]

hi, my 2c worth....
I'm a member of a singapore based photographic forum run by a bunch of guys who hold day jobs too. I've been with them since day one of its conception and have seen it go through all its teething problems, funding, server upgrades etc.... one of the options that they did peruse was to sell webspace for members to host a personal website. That apparently raised enough money to keep the show running, with a few small ads thrown in.
RFF seems to have had some big time companies sponsoring it which leads me to believe that the difference in funding is really not too huge. I think a nominal fee for web/gallery space is probably the best option, but please keep the site FREE!!!! In this commercial world, it is the only thing that keeps ppl together, cos it is freeware, lets not lose that concept just yet.

Just so you know - those "big time companies" are actually small-time, "mom and pop" vendors. When Nikon and Leica and Fujifilm and Kodak start advertising here - then your point will be well taken.

 

[hoot]

I questioned (silently) the camera contest/membership drive. It may have brought in a few good members, but where are the other 3, 900?

I'm guessing that those who joined RFF for the sole purpose of participating in the contest (and haven't found any other reasons to participate since then) will be just as quick to leave, now that the contest is over for everyone except the 12 finalists. As for those who *have* found other reasons to stay, welcome!

In any case, this entire debate about "growth" may well be beating a dead horse in a few weeks. Consider: A tiny minority of photographers use RF cameras. (I emphasize "use" because I haven't noticed any pure collectors on this site.) Now, only a fraction of those RF users have regular Internet access, and of those, once again it is only a small number who are so much into their RF passion as to regularly participate in a forum dedicated to this quirky neurosis. 😀 Does the amount of traffic they generate truly warrant a bigger, faster server in the long run?

For the record, I used to be the CoSysOp of the second biggest Star Wars fanbase on the Internet. (No, I'm not a fan of SW; I was just helping out a friend.) Our member count went into the thousands back in those days, but my friend paid about $50/month for the hosting and bandwidth and we never had any server issues. The ads (a Burst! banner and an Amazon Associates account) more than took care of the financing. And, trust me, Star Wars can get just as emotional as rangefinder cameras. 😀

Anyhow, as I posted in the new poll thread, I support Gabriel's idea of sticking with voluntary donations and (the following is my addition) some friendly peer pressure. Not that a membership fee would be unethical or uncalled-for, but there is a certain beauty in free choice. A very successful restaurant in Vienna charges its guests "what they feel the meal was worth to them". Not surprisingly, those who pay generously do more than cover for those who don't.

 

[MP Guy]

Without revealing too much .... Lets just say the sponsors have a great deal. With what I pay on a monthly basis to keep this site up I can buy a new vehicle. I'm talking a nice sedan. Also keep in mind that this site does over 10 gigs of transfer on a good day. Lets leave it at this for now.

 

[Jocko]

Jocko,

I think there is a very simple way to deal with these issues. The "needs-based" test should simply be a private request from the prospective member to Jorge. The "reasons" for the reduced (or even no fee) are no one else's business!

Set a General Membership Fee at a particular level and offer an option for a reduced amount (all the way to zero) based on a request to the sponsor.

This way you avoid the complications of sliding scales, proofs of eligibility etc.

The idea is to leave the door open for all. I think that this arrangement is fair to all - it stigmatizes no one and, hopefully, reduces the administrative burden on Jorge to a minimum.

George, actually we're nearer than it looks. I originally favoured a universal membership fee, but came to see problems with the potential for an inflexible "one size fits all" solution. In general I prefer to trust individual choice and my "geographical fees" were a consciously provocative attempt to highlight the limitless complications implicit in a monolithic solution - the sliding scales etc.

The "free" nature of RFF is part of its unique character, but I do not think it unreasonable to expect members to pay for enhanced services - nor do I think that this necessarily creates multiple levels of membership. For all that, I suspect that ultimately a (flexible) universal fee along the lines you outline is the only workable solution. Yet I fear such a fee alters the nature of our relationship: we become "customers" and RFF changes from a clearing in the forest to a semi-commercial "service provider". I wish I knew the answer.

Good night thread, from this side of the ocean!

Regards Ian