Subject:
|
Re: Brainstorming to Keep LUGNET Alive
|
Newsgroups:
|
lugnet.admin.finance
|
Date:
|
Wed, 10 Apr 2002 11:49:40 GMT
|
Viewed:
|
2402 times
|
| |
|
|
In lugnet.admin.finance, John P. Henderson writes:
>
> 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?
Good point.
>
> 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.
See above comment. :-)
>
> 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??)
Agreed
>
> 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.
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.
>
> 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.
Did not Auczilla do this for a while? The problem here is it takes time to
to manage this. Also with the saturated market, would a large enough profit
be made? Thirdly, two words, initial investment.
>
> 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...
This is up to the owners of the code.
>
> 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.
Please no popups.
>
> 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.
Good point.
>
> 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.
Not all LUGs have group money. When ParLUGment and MonLUG did the train show
in Montreal all expenses were incurred by the members personally.
>
> 10. Uh...My brain just shut off. If there is a number 10? Someone else will
> have to do the commentary....
How about an adopt a newsgroup program, like an adopt a highway program? For
a certain amount a month you can sponsor a newsgroup. It would be more for
the prestige than anything else. The larger ng's could have more than one
sponsor.
>
> 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
Thanks and good morning :-)
Jude
|
|
Message is in Reply To:
 | | Brainstorming to Keep LUGNET Alive
|
| 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 (...) (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
|
|
|
|
