On 18 February 2010 15:35, Thomas Dalton <thomas.dalton(a)gmail.com> wrote:
I'm sorry if you interpreted my question as being
rude. I simply
wanted to know what your point was, since you hadn't made it. You had
just made some general comments that did not have an obvious
conclusion.
It was in response to a response to a comment of his; read in that
context, it makes perfect sense.
"Setting a price below a typical cinema ticket isn't really a claim on
anyone's respect. ... in the real world money tends to be given to
those who show they know the value of it", ergo, asking for less money
with the hope of getting more people may actually lead to you
receiving even less overall because it may suggest a lack of
seriousness or of ambition.
I'm not sure I agree with it entirely, but it's a legitimate concern.
A few related points which are worth bearing in mind here:
* Elasticity. There's plenty of people who'd pay half what they're
paying now happily, but would also pay *twice* quite happily. Lowering
it to the lower end of that band won't bring in more of the people
whose decision to join or not in the first place isn't simply purely
monetary - and I don't think it's that unusual a group. Tom says we're
planning to email donors asking if they'd become a member at a reduced
rate - do we know they wouldn't have become a member at the current
rate if asked?
* Demographics. Who are we targeting with reduced memberships? Is
there a definable group of people who can't pay the higher fee, and if
so, is it not being served by the existing two-tier group?
* Efficiency. If we can raise a sufficient amount from memberships to
cover our predicted operating costs, this is a pretty good thing - it
means we can say, clearly and upfront, that all donations received
will be spent *entirely* on "productive projects", that there's no cut
for administration from donated funds. Good fundraising selling point,
there.
--
- Andrew Gray
andrew.gray(a)dunelm.org.uk