Subject:
|
Re: Lugnet's tailspin
|
Newsgroups:
|
lugnet.people
|
Date:
|
Wed, 13 Mar 2002 22:33:51 GMT
|
Viewed:
|
1664 times
|
| |
|
|
In lugnet.people, Scott Arthur writes:
> > So maybe it's time for us to ante up. I wonder how many of the ~1500 members
> > would stick around at $25 per year?
> I wonder what the subscription fee would be if we wanted to pay somebody to
> run this show FT? What would the "going rate" be if an individual from the
> USA was employed?
Hmmm...you've got a point there...I guess It's an issue of both of the
topics above, one being 'how many members would remain', and the other being
the 'membership price'. I don't think an annual fee would be bad. I could
easily afford $25 a year, heck I would even go a bit higher if needed.
As for the other issue, I'm sure most of the members would remain on Lugnet,
'cause they could easily afford an annual price, and that Lugnet is a
convenience, not just a free site. The people who would drop out (if any)
would be those who either don't care anymore, or those who refuse to pay an
annual fee.
> I really doubt 1500*$25 ($37500) would be enough?
$37,500 a year for a full time worker to watch over lugnet probably wouldn't
be enough anyhow. I would say around $50,000-$60,000 annually. That's why we
have plenty of volunteers working their hard hours to better Lugnet as we speak.
Speaking in chance, I should chip in, too. Lugnet is constantly growing.
<<_Matt Hein_>>
Lugnet member No. 1112
|
|
Message is in Reply To:
 | | Re: Lugnet's tailspin
|
| (...) I wonder what the subscription fee would be if we wanted to pay somebody to run this show FT? What would the "going rate" be if an individual from the USA was employed? I really doubt 1500*$25 ($37500) would be enough? Scott A =+= Have you (...) (22 years ago, 12-Mar-02, to lugnet.people)
|
51 Messages in This Thread:
 
- Entire Thread on One Page:
- Nested:
All | Brief | Compact | Dots
Linear:
All | Brief | Compact
|
|
|
|
