Subject:
|
Brainstorming to Keep LUGNET Alive
|
Newsgroups:
|
lugnet.admin.finance
|
Date:
|
Wed, 10 Apr 2002 05:18:57 GMT
|
Viewed:
|
1834 times
|
| |
|
|
Och! Ug! Okay, so it's after midnight here, and having only tonight (last
night?) learned of this particular group, I have spent much of the last hour
reading everything posted here thus far. It was one of my first (perhaps only)
experiences around here that I did not enjoy, but I did it because I care about
LUGNET and its future.
In my tired state, I may not remember all the ideas put forth so far, and I
appologize to all that I definitely do not recall which idea should be credited
to whom. Nonetheless, I offer my two tired and yellowed bricks...
1. Getting More Money from TLC: I dislike this idea tremendously. If our goal
is to provide funding for a LUGNET Admin or the like, the last thing I want is
for that person to be indirectly funded by TLC. I love TLC. I'd love to work
for them. But somehow I think this community should be outside of their realm.
I compare it to Consumer Reports: keep sponsors out if it creates a conflict
of interest. What happens if TLC becomes the major contributor and then they
turn around and tell the Admin they don't want to see any more posts that
complain about a new product line? Or prices? Or availability?
2. Charging for LD Announcements: Similar topic to #1. Again, I disagree with
this concept. But here, mostly because if LD (or TLC) refuses to pay, then
everyone loses out. Currently our connections with LD are potentially the only
decent interaction available with the makers of LEGO. And it feels we have a
long way to go to make that relationship perfect. I would hate to see it
dissolve early simply because we ask them for money.
3. Charging Members-by-Post: Sorry to be so negative so far (consider it
playing devil's advocate), but I don't like this one either. As said by
others, it would cut down on all traffic. I have been a poster, and I have
been a lurker too. The information available here is intense for the LEGO
hobbyist. This idea could possibly make it less intense. For the most part, I
like the intensity where it is. One of the things that makes LUGNET so great
is that all these people can freely share ideas, borrow ideas, and grow
creatively together. (An example is a recent thread in .castle where someone
posted a link to their model. I posted a question about how they designed the
arrowloops. They posted back with a link to pictures of how they assembled
them. The same day, I employed the concept in my own model, but modified it
slightly. Later, I can post my model at some point, and the idea can evolve
further. Should the orignal builder and I get charged more than the lurker who
simply gleems our ideas from afar??)
4. Charging Members-by-Plan: Varying membership plans seem reasonable to me.
Although one could argue this goes against the original intentions of LUGNET, I
think it could work, so long as the "Free Plan" continues to give a lot of
resources. Naturally, giving a lot to the "Free" might make the "Normal
Member" and "Premium Member" plans less attractive, and thus less profitable.
This reminds me of a LARP I was involved in that ran as a non-profit. The
founder of the game set up a membership plan that gave the privilage of voting
on game policies to those who donated over a certain amount. This is also
similar to donating to a Public TV station (here in the US anyway), where for
$20 you get a hand bag with the station logo, for $60 you get the bag and a
video of your favorite imported BBC show, and for $100 you get the bag, the
video, and a card that gets you big discounts at Symphony Hall... ...uh.... So
could this sort of thing work on LUGNET? I think so, but a lot of thought
would need to go into what perks the upper levels get so that the culture
remains relatively free for all lovers of LEGO.
5. Using Auctions: This is another strategem used by Public TV stations. It
has been said here that with E-Bay, there is no point. I'm not so sure of
that. My early experiences with E-Bay were not great (back in the rtl days).
I never went back. And those that do have to take a chance that the people on
the other end are reliable. If an auction was stamped with the LUGNET logo,
that would inspire my confidence, and perhaps others. If done like on Public
TV, we could have a special fund-raising-drive one month out of every three or
four. During such a time, a specific goal (dollar amount) would be posted on
the LUGNET main webpage, along with a daily update of how close to the goal
*we* are. Then during the drive, post (on the main page) reminders that "every
donation keeps LUGNET alive", and also have on the main page a special "auction
of the day" with an item up for bid (or perhaps an attractive link to several).
And of course, somehow send reminders of the drive/auction to those who don't
use the webpage.
6. Selling the Code: I saw this and generally think it sounds impressive. But
as savvy a computer *operator* as I may be, I honestly know very little about
the technicalities of information systems, code, etc. So I can't comment much
on this as I have no real idea what it all means. ...Although if we are
talking about reformin the LUGNET model into a package to market, then that
means needing *more* full-time employees (including consultants, marketers,
tech-support, etc.). Maybe worthy to consider, but it seems like a lot of
work...
7. Banner Ads & Pop-Ups: I don't know anyone who wants Pop-Ups. I can't even
stand going to an AFOL's Geocities site with those unwanted-bandwidth-hogging
pain-in-the-rears. Banner Ads (in moderation) would be easy to accept, but the
question has been put out whether they are profitable, and it sounds like they
are not.
8. Charging for Market Announcements: Seems reasonable at first. But how to
manage it? Would the policing of group-jumpers be cause for yet another Admin
position (and thus only increase expenditures)? And how would it be fair to
charge LUGNET members for ads if we assume (from #1 and #2) that LD can
announce for free? This is a tough one.
9. Charging Rent for Select Newsgroups: This is an interesting idea. My first
thought is that it wouldn't likely provide enough money. But then I thought
about it some more. Having been witness to the recent activity on the NELUG
list, and having seen hints that other regional LUGs are equally active, it
would seem to me that these local groups are active in the hobby in far
different ways than the internet community at LUGNET (where we all meet to
share info and ideas, the local LUGs meet and *do things). I get the sense
these local LUGs have budgets and funds and attend a number of public events.
My impression is that of any AFOL entity, these LUGs (the bigger ones anyway)
have the most potential to donate money. I could be way off here, but perhaps
charging rent for certain discussion space would be worthwhile, at least for
such groups.
10. Uh...My brain just shut off. If there is a number 10? Someone else will
have to do the commentary....
In conclusion: First, sorry I wrote so darn much. I have a bad habit of
babbling. Second, although I seem not to favor many of the ideas so far, I
think that individually none of these will work alone. For the kinds of money
they might generate, and for the kinds we need, I think a *combination* of
different incomes will be needed to support LUGNET's future.
Thank you. ...and Goodnight...
-Hendo
|
|
Message has 1 Reply:
 | | Re: Brainstorming to Keep LUGNET Alive
|
| (...) Good point. (...) See above comment. :-) (...) Agreed (...) This is where you make a good point. LUGNET needs money but I think it will only survive if it remains free. The above idea has a lot of merit. I would like to see it explored futher. (...) (23 years ago, 10-Apr-02, to lugnet.admin.finance)
|
2 Messages in This Thread:
 
- Entire Thread on One Page:
- Nested:
All | Brief | Compact | Dots
Linear:
All | Brief | Compact
|
|
|
|
