Ah, but there's the rub. How do we charge for something (avatars for example) that people are already used to having for free?
Of course, when the forum was small effectively the whole thing was free as it was so small it could live on a server being used for another purpose and there were no charges (for the first few months). But as the forum grew the site has required not only its own server but a second server too... so something that once was very free now has a real cost.
That's understood but it's only really understood by the minority, and the majority would have a problem with a perceived change of something free becoming something paid. (More than half are against the subscription idea, but yet still upvoted the amount to make the subscription!)
I'm likely to stick with donations and merchandise, but am veering towards indicating those who have donated. The survey has had over 1,200 responses and I'm getting the message that more than half of the membership would not like subscriptions yet do actually feel that if there is a cost it should be covered by the members.
There have also been many emails saying how much it's appreciated that it is low on adverts and sponsorship, that the neutrality is highly valued. So obviously if that is something that is of value then it must be understood that if money isn't coming from that then it's coming from elsewhere.
The bottom line is that the users pay one way or another. If it's advertising or sponsorship then you pay twice, once by the intrusion onto the site, and once by the fact that whatever is being sold included the cost of marketing it here. If it's merchandise you get something tangible but only a fraction of the cost will fund the servers. Donations are the most efficient way of funding without having involved a third party (save for PayPal deducting fees)... so they do seem the smartest thing to do.
In my mind it's about how to distribute the donations evenly so that the small minority who fund the site heavily (and aside form my annual £500-ish donation there are quite a few instances of £100 and £50 donations) don't have to simply because more people are giving so less has to be given by each donor.
1,200 donors at £3 per year (taking into account PayPal fees) would cover everything and spare you all from adverts, etc. And this is effectively the "beer a year" thing. That's why I like it... it's immensely affordable by the vast majority, and it creates a nice steady stream of income that is predictable... none of this "we're OK for the next 4 months" rubbish, just "we're OK".
Anyhow, we're OK for the next 4 months now. It would've been 5, but the bills for last month arrived a few days ago.
Ah, but there's the rub. How do we charge for something (avatars for example) that people are already used to having for free?
Of course, when the forum was small effectively the whole thing was free as it was so small it could live on a server being used for another purpose and there were no charges (for the first few months). But as the forum grew the site has required not only its own server but a second server too... so something that once was very free now has a real cost.
That's understood but it's only really understood by the minority, and the majority would have a problem with a perceived change of something free becoming something paid. (More than half are against the subscription idea, but yet still upvoted the amount to make the subscription!)
I'm likely to stick with donations and merchandise, but am veering towards indicating those who have donated. The survey has had over 1,200 responses and I'm getting the message that more than half of the membership would not like subscriptions yet do actually feel that if there is a cost it should be covered by the members.
There have also been many emails saying how much it's appreciated that it is low on adverts and sponsorship, that the neutrality is highly valued. So obviously if that is something that is of value then it must be understood that if money isn't coming from that then it's coming from elsewhere.
The bottom line is that the users pay one way or another. If it's advertising or sponsorship then you pay twice, once by the intrusion onto the site, and once by the fact that whatever is being sold included the cost of marketing it here. If it's merchandise you get something tangible but only a fraction of the cost will fund the servers. Donations are the most efficient way of funding without having involved a third party (save for PayPal deducting fees)... so they do seem the smartest thing to do.
In my mind it's about how to distribute the donations evenly so that the small minority who fund the site heavily (and aside form my annual £500-ish donation there are quite a few instances of £100 and £50 donations) don't have to simply because more people are giving so less has to be given by each donor.
1,200 donors at £3 per year (taking into account PayPal fees) would cover everything and spare you all from adverts, etc. And this is effectively the "beer a year" thing. That's why I like it... it's immensely affordable by the vast majority, and it creates a nice steady stream of income that is predictable... none of this "we're OK for the next 4 months" rubbish, just "we're OK".
Anyhow, we're OK for the next 4 months now. It would've been 5, but the bills for last month arrived a few days ago.