Mailing List Archive: Membership fees proposal

Membership fees proposal

anthere9 at yahoo

Jul 24, 2004, 8:16 AM

Post #1 of 19 (2708 views)

The proposal is available at http://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Membership_fees.

This proposal was set based on discussions with many editors, on meta,
on irc, by email. Though it is probably not perfect, I believe it is a
fair proposal trying to take into consideration all comments made.

I tried at the same time to propose something

* which keeps in mind that membership is meant to collect money. It is
important because it is the safest and strongest and least controversial
method of financing

* which is fairly simple

* which takes into account the existing community and recognition of its
diversity (allowing to join less wealthy good contributors for a rather
low amount)

* which allow people to indicate what they would prefer the money to be
used for

* which will set relationships between local chapter and foundation.

I would like to remind editors that whether they give money or not, they
are members of the Foundation. Contributing to articles, organisation,
software, maintenance etc... is a great way to help. Giving money is
another. If people can do both, fine. But you will still be important to
us if you do not give money. Only provide what you feel like providing,
time/energy or money, only time/energy, only money. You will be welcome
in any cases.

I'll add to this, that members joining local chapters, will be
contributing members to the foundation as well, provided that there is
an agreement between the local chapter and the Foundation. Next step is
to see how we can legally and technically do this :-) I have a proposal,
which I shall explain tomorrow to current and future chapters.

For now, I would like you to read this membership fee proposal, and
explain it to non english people please, as all languages will be
concerned. I tried to be rather descriptive, to avoid misunderstandings.
But I guess the proposal might be summarized in just a few lines.

Thanks for your attention :-)

Florence

Re: Membership fees proposal [ In reply to ]

delirium at hackish

Jul 29, 2004, 7:53 PM

Post #2 of 19 (2698 views)

Anthere wrote:

> The proposal is available at
> http://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Membership_fees.
>
> This proposal was set based on discussions with many editors, on meta,
> on irc, by email. Though it is probably not perfect, I believe it is a
> fair proposal trying to take into consideration all comments made.

I haven't followed most of the discussions, so this is just a first
impression, but a fee of $60 seemed a little bit steep, so it surprised
me when I first saw it. I'm not sure it's actually a bad idea, but it
was a bit surprising. I'm not 100% sure, but I think it's more common
to have a somewhat lower minimum membership fee, and then have higher
levels with additional mini-benefits for those who can afford them. Of
course, part of that is my personal budgeting: I can see myself buying a
$20-$30 membership right now without too much thought, but a $60 one
would require a bit more consideration, and I might end up just not
joining at all if there's no intermediate $30 option. If that's
something that a lot of other people would also do, that could be a
problem. (Of course, it might also be balanced by some people who maybe
would've only given $30 but are now encouraged to give $60, so I'm not
sure which one results in the foundation raising more money overall.)

-Mark

Re: Membership fees proposal [ In reply to ]

beesley at gmail

Jul 29, 2004, 7:58 PM

Post #3 of 19 (2703 views)

Mark wrote:
> I haven't followed most of the discussions, so this is just a first
> impression, but a fee of $60 seemed a little bit steep...

There is the option of paying less if you are an active user. The
minimum is $6 for those who have edited for a certain length of time.
We encourage people to pay $60 if they can afford it, but if they feel
they can't, they can contribute anything between $6 and $60 according
to their personal financial means.

Angela.

Membership fees proposal [ In reply to ]

e.p.zachte at chello

Jul 29, 2004, 9:50 PM

Post #4 of 19 (2706 views)

I wonder if a regular fee of $60 will raise much more than one of $30, as
certainly much less people will take the bait on such a considerable sum.
After all it does not buy them much except the satisfaction that they
contributed to a healthy Wikipedia. I have no idea where the optimum lies,
we would have to ask some economist to measure the price elasticity of a
clean conscience and/or ideological zeal, but this is a considerable amount
for people with average income. $30 sounds much better to me, keep the
goodies like a coffee mug with logo for people who add an extra donation of
$30 or more. Yes people can opt for a $6 contribution, but we would not want
to push them in that direction, would we?

Since this choice is pretty arbitrary and a suboptimal choice will cost us,
could we not keep a anonymous vote of what people would be willing to pay?
There are nice applets that make this a quickie to pull off.

On the other hand $500 to $1000 sounds ridiculously low for a company that
wants to donate. We might offer to add their logo on a sponsor page, but
that should start at no less than $10,000 IMO. If they want to be recognized
as sponsors they should have made a real difference.

Erik Zachte

Re: Membership fees proposal [ In reply to ]

andrew.lih at gmail

Jul 30, 2004, 2:34 AM

Post #5 of 19 (2691 views)

It seems that the price should be set near the price of a decent
magazine subscription, which in the US would be around USD $30 a year.
That's how many public broadcasters in the US rationalize their
membership drives.

Since Wikipedia is global community, another funky idea is to have
market pricing, using the Economist Big Mac index. Have folks donate
the equivalent of ten Big Macs. Not only does this make it a more
"fun" calculation, it can showcase the global nature of the project
that as a "marketplace of knowledge", it is sensitive to global market
pricing. This way, American, Polish, or Chinese users can take the
same "impact" on their wallets.

For the latest Big Mac index, see that chart at the bottom of:
http://www.economist.com/markets/bigmac/displayStory.cfm?story_id=2708584

-Andrew (User:Fuzheado)

On Fri, 30 Jul 2004 03:58:32 +0100, Angela_ <beesley@gmail.com> wrote:
> Mark wrote:
> > I haven't followed most of the discussions, so this is just a first
> > impression, but a fee of $60 seemed a little bit steep...
>
> There is the option of paying less if you are an active user. The
> minimum is $6 for those who have edited for a certain length of time.
> We encourage people to pay $60 if they can afford it, but if they feel
> they can't, they can contribute anything between $6 and $60 according
> to their personal financial means.
>
> Angela.
>
>
> _______________________________________________
> foundation-l mailing list
> foundation-l@wikimedia.org
> http://mail.wikipedia.org/mailman/listinfo/foundation-l
>

--
Andrew Lih
andrew.lih@gmail.com

Re: Membership fees proposal [ In reply to ]

anthere9 at yahoo

Jul 30, 2004, 4:04 AM

Post #6 of 19 (2701 views)

Erik Zachte wrote:
> On the other hand $500 to $1000 sounds ridiculously low for a company that
> wants to donate. We might offer to add their logo on a sponsor page, but
> that should start at no less than $10,000 IMO. If they want to be recognized
> as sponsors they should have made a real difference.

We had no idea for a price. That amount was suggested by Jimbo. We are
open to suggestions.

An interesting comparison would be this one : a french firm already
offered to host 3 or 4 of our servers for free. We will cite this firm
as a sponsor of Wikimedia on the website. How much does hosting 4
servers per year cost ?

Membership fees proposal [ In reply to ]

e.p.zachte at chello

Jul 30, 2004, 8:53 AM

Post #7 of 19 (2704 views)

Anthere:
"An interesting comparison would be this one : a french firm already
offered to host 3 or 4 of our servers for free. We will cite this firm
as a sponsor of Wikimedia on the website. How much does hosting 4
servers per year cost ?"

First I withdraw the 'ridiculously", of course such a nice gesture should be
appreciated. My concern was that really large companies would get an almost
free ride. Now if we would publish below the logo what the exact
nature/amount of the gift is, that would help, as I'm sure e.g. IBM would
not want to be listed for $1000. If they wish we could print instead
"unspecified but considerable amount", or something like that, at the
discretion of the board, who can judge if the proposed gift is a worthy
proposition.

Re: Membership fees proposal [ In reply to ]

saintonge at telus

Jul 30, 2004, 8:55 AM

Post #8 of 19 (2701 views)

Delirium wrote:

> Anthere wrote:
>
>> The proposal is available at
>> http://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Membership_fees.
>>
>> This proposal was set based on discussions with many editors, on
>> meta, on irc, by email. Though it is probably not perfect, I believe
>> it is a fair proposal trying to take into consideration all comments
>> made.
>
>
> I haven't followed most of the discussions, so this is just a first
> impression, but a fee of $60 seemed a little bit steep, so it
> surprised me when I first saw it. I'm not sure it's actually a bad
> idea, but it was a bit surprising. I'm not 100% sure, but I think
> it's more common to have a somewhat lower minimum membership fee, and
> then have higher levels with additional mini-benefits for those who
> can afford them. Of course, part of that is my personal budgeting: I
> can see myself buying a $20-$30 membership right now without too much
> thought, but a $60 one would require a bit more consideration, and I
> might end up just not joining at all if there's no intermediate $30
> option. If that's something that a lot of other people would also do,
> that could be a problem. (Of course, it might also be balanced by
> some people who maybe would've only given $30 but are now encouraged
> to give $60, so I'm not sure which one results in the foundation
> raising more money overall.)

No organization should depend on membership fees as a major revenue
source. If memberships produce a small net income over the cost of
administration we should be happy. What we would probably want from
memberships is the sense of commitment that tells us that these people
are here for the longer term. When membership fees are kept low, it
gives us a pool of people who can be asked to contribute when needed.
Those members may be more generous when asked.

Ec

Re: Membership fees proposal [ In reply to ]

maveric149 at yahoo

Jul 30, 2004, 10:31 AM

Post #9 of 19 (2699 views)

--- Andrew Lih <andrew.lih@gmail.com> wrote:

> It seems that the price should be set near the price of a decent
> magazine subscription, which in the US would be around USD $30 a year.
> That's how many public broadcasters in the US rationalize their
> membership drives.

We should have several different membership levels starting at $30 a year.

One possible structure:

$30 a year ($2.5/month): Standard
$60 a year ($5/month): Silver
$120 a year ($10/month): Gold
$240 a year ($20/month): Platinum
#240+ a year: Sustaining (yep, goes up a category)

And of course anybody who is active on any Wikimedia project could be a
volunteer-level member by just signing-up (and maybe paying a nominal fee). A
parallel discount fee structure should also exist (set it at 20% of the regular
fee structure and reserve it for special cases - such as for nations where the
cost of living is really low).

Going up each level should also mean the person gets more wampum (shirts, mugs,
etc). We could reach out to various businesses to ask for wampum donations
(discount cards, free gifts, etc). This may complicate the discount fee
structure though. Either way getting the gifts may require a separate payment
for shipping. It will also be some time before we could set up such a system.

Just some ideas to chew on.

-- Daniel Mayer

__________________________________________________
Do You Yahoo!?
Tired of spam? Yahoo! Mail has the best spam protection around
http://mail.yahoo.com

Re: Membership fees proposal [ In reply to ]

beesley at gmail

Jul 30, 2004, 12:10 PM

Post #10 of 19 (2691 views)

mav wrote:
> Going up each level should also mean the person gets more wampum (shirts, mugs,
> etc)....

This would require a change in the bylaws. Currently the only
difference allowed between Volunteer Active members (who don't pay at
all) and Contributing Active members is the entitlement to vote for
the Contributing Member Representative in the next elections.

Angela.

Re: Membership fees proposal [ In reply to ]

delirium at hackish

Jul 30, 2004, 12:17 PM

Post #11 of 19 (2706 views)

Angela_ wrote:

>mav wrote:
>
>
>>Going up each level should also mean the person gets more wampum (shirts, mugs,
>>etc)....
>>
>>
>
>This would require a change in the bylaws. Currently the only
>difference allowed between Volunteer Active members (who don't pay at
>all) and Contributing Active members is the entitlement to vote for
>the Contributing Member Representative in the next elections.
>
>
Isn't it possible to do with just a board member vote? It's not
removing any benefits, just adding something like "those who contribute
at least $60 get a free mug". Legally the members would still have the
same status, as just Volunteer Active members or Contributing Active
members, except that we'd mail some people something and not mail other
people something. Unless the bylaws explicitly prohibit giving people
things based on how much they contribute, it doesn't seem particularly
problematic (but, of course, IANAL).

-Mark

Re: Membership fees proposal [ In reply to ]

wikipedia at klempert

Jul 30, 2004, 1:31 PM

Post #12 of 19 (2698 views)

On Friday, July 30, 2004 9:17 PM
Delirium <delirium@hackish.org> wrote:

> Angela_ wrote:
>
>> mav wrote:
>>
>>> Going up each level should also mean the person gets more wampum
>>> (shirts, mugs, etc)....
>>
>> This would require a change in the bylaws. Currently the only
>> difference allowed between Volunteer Active members (who don't pay at
>> all) and Contributing Active members is the entitlement to vote for
>> the Contributing Member Representative in the next elections.
>>
> Isn't it possible to do with just a board member vote? It's not
> removing any benefits, just adding something like "those who
> contribute at least $60 get a free mug".

Sorry, but I don't understand this discussion. People will become a
member because they want to support fantastic projects and/or because
they want to be part of a great global movement. IMHO this is more than
enough - no need to add a - in proportion to this - very poor free mug.

-Arne (akl)

Re: Membership fees proposal [ In reply to ]

Jul 30, 2004, 1:38 PM

Post #13 of 19 (2697 views)

Arne Klempert wrote:
> Sorry, but I don't understand this discussion. People will become a
> member because they want to support fantastic projects and/or because
> they want to be part of a great global movement. IMHO this is more than
> enough - no need to add a - in proportion to this - very poor free mug.

In twenty years those mugs will be *gold* on ebay. Think of it as an
investment. ;)

-- brion vibber (brion @ pobox.com)

Re: Membership fees proposal [ In reply to ]

saintonge at telus

Jul 30, 2004, 2:03 PM

Post #14 of 19 (2690 views)

Angela_ wrote:

>mav wrote:
>
>
>>Going up each level should also mean the person gets more wampum (shirts, mugs,
>>etc)....
>>
>>
>
>This would require a change in the bylaws. Currently the only
>difference allowed between Volunteer Active members (who don't pay at
>all) and Contributing Active members is the entitlement to vote for
>the Contributing Member Representative in the next elections.
>
I don't think that this is accurate. While specifying different voting
rights is a normal element in by-laws, making that an exclusive right
would be unusual. If Mav's idea were to go ahead, I'm sure that we
could easily find ways around that kind of restrictions. The proposal
distinguishes between levels of payment rather than whether or not there
should be a payment.

Ec

Re: Membership fees proposal [ In reply to ]

saintonge at telus

Jul 30, 2004, 2:13 PM

Post #15 of 19 (2700 views)

Arne Klempert wrote:

>On Friday, July 30, 2004 9:17 PM
>Delirium <delirium@hackish.org> wrote:
>
>
>>Isn't it possible to do with just a board member vote? It's not
>>removing any benefits, just adding something like "those who
>>contribute at least $60 get a free mug".
>>
>>
>
>Sorry, but I don't understand this discussion. People will become a
>member because they want to support fantastic projects and/or because
>they want to be part of a great global movement. IMHO this is more than
>enough - no need to add a - in proportion to this - very poor free mug.
>
There's nothing wrong with mugs. They're cheap advertising. If you
have a visitor serve him coffee in the Wikipedia mug (preferably a
left-handed mug) With a little luck he may ask about the logo on the
mug. That will be your opportunity to talk about Wikipedia in the hopes
of snaring another addict.

Ec

Re: Membership fees proposal [ In reply to ]

delirium at hackish

Jul 30, 2004, 2:18 PM

Post #16 of 19 (2698 views)

Ray Saintonge wrote:

> Arne Klempert wrote:
>
>> On Friday, July 30, 2004 9:17 PM
>> Delirium <delirium@hackish.org> wrote:
>>
>>
>>> Isn't it possible to do with just a board member vote? It's not
>>> removing any benefits, just adding something like "those who
>>> contribute at least $60 get a free mug".
>>>
>>
>>
>> Sorry, but I don't understand this discussion. People will become a
>> member because they want to support fantastic projects and/or because
>> they want to be part of a great global movement. IMHO this is more than
>> enough - no need to add a - in proportion to this - very poor free mug.
>>
> There's nothing wrong with mugs. They're cheap advertising. If you
> have a visitor serve him coffee in the Wikipedia mug (preferably a
> left-handed mug) With a little luck he may ask about the logo on the
> mug. That will be your opportunity to talk about Wikipedia in the
> hopes of snaring another addict.

We could try to satisfy both concerns by making the mug (or whatever)
optional, which is a fairly common thing for non-profit membership
organizations to do. Some people like the token "gifts" and take them,
but others can check a box saying "I'd rather not have it", thus saving
the foundation a bit of money.

-Mark

Re: Membership fees proposal [ In reply to ]

anthere9 at yahoo

Jul 30, 2004, 5:18 PM

Post #17 of 19 (2706 views)

Daniel Mayer wrote:
> --- Andrew Lih <andrew.lih@gmail.com> wrote:
>
>
>>It seems that the price should be set near the price of a decent
>>magazine subscription, which in the US would be around USD $30 a year.
>>That's how many public broadcasters in the US rationalize their
>>membership drives.
>
>
> We should have several different membership levels starting at $30 a year.
>
> One possible structure:
>
> $30 a year ($2.5/month): Standard
> $60 a year ($5/month): Silver
> $120 a year ($10/month): Gold
> $240 a year ($20/month): Platinum
> #240+ a year: Sustaining (yep, goes up a category)

Why not yes.

> And of course anybody who is active on any Wikimedia project could be a
> volunteer-level member by just signing-up (and maybe paying a nominal fee). A
> parallel discount fee structure should also exist (set it at 20% of the regular
> fee structure and reserve it for special cases - such as for nations where the
> cost of living is really low).

I hate to say this Mav, but I started the discussion about fees ONE
month ago on meta, asking for ideas and feedback. I made my proposal
based on what people offered me then, on meta, by mail, on irc.

I indicated I would draw a final proposal based on all that. I had no
feedback whatsoever at that point.

I then drafted that proposal and asked feedback again. There was very
little. About 10 people overall. No opposition. Essentially, comments on
the amount of fees, for which I guess discussion is totally possible.

I consequently closed the proposal.

I started doing the membership application form according to that proposal.

So...I see no problem with discussing the prices, but I definitly see a
problem in *entirely* rediscussing the entire organisation of a fee
structure already decided.

Couple of points :
* the volunteer member will NOT NOT NOT pay anything. This is not
negociable.
* there will not be country discount because this is too complicated
* there is already a discount fee system. With the discounted amount, no
side benefits such as mugs are planned.

> Going up each level should also mean the person gets more wampum (shirts, mugs,
> etc). We could reach out to various businesses to ask for wampum donations
> (discount cards, free gifts, etc). This may complicate the discount fee
> structure though. Either way getting the gifts may require a separate payment
> for shipping. It will also be some time before we could set up such a system.
>
> Just some ideas to chew on.
>
> -- Daniel Mayer

All discussions on side benefits are welcome and great.
And yes, they do not impair setting the structure as is.

ant

Re: Membership fees proposal [ In reply to ]

anthere9 at yahoo

Jul 30, 2004, 5:19 PM

Post #18 of 19 (2697 views)

Brion Vibber wrote:
> Arne Klempert wrote:
>
>> Sorry, but I don't understand this discussion. People will become a
>> member because they want to support fantastic projects and/or because
>> they want to be part of a great global movement. IMHO this is more than
>> enough - no need to add a - in proportion to this - very poor free mug.
>
>
> In twenty years those mugs will be *gold* on ebay. Think of it as an
> investment. ;)
>
> -- brion vibber (brion @ pobox.com)

Correct.... we should think of adding something on all these items to
distinguish generation. We could have a mug with ''1 000 000 pages''
written below

Or "Wikipédia, déjà 10 ans"

Re: Membership fees proposal [ In reply to ]

maveric149 at yahoo

Jul 31, 2004, 4:02 AM

Post #19 of 19 (2696 views)

--- Angela_ <beesley@gmail.com> wrote:
> mav wrote:
> > Going up each level should also mean the person gets more wampum (shirts,
> mugs, etc)....
>
> This would require a change in the bylaws. Currently the only
> difference allowed between Volunteer Active members (who don't pay at
> all) and Contributing Active members is the entitlement to vote for
> the Contributing Member Representative in the next elections.

Why in the world would it? Nothing I said would be contradictory to the bylaws
since they only speak of voting rights in this area. And everybody who
contributes $30 a year will be able to vote for contributing and volunteer reps
and volunteer members would be able to to vote for the volunteer rep. Nothing
has changed.

And by-laws, btw, are supposed to be skeletal. Therefore when they are silent
on an issue they do not preclude any action in that area. This is also beside
the fact that the bylaws have not even legal yet - the signatures of a majority
of the board are needed. Thus changes will be easy. That is, unless things have
changed from two months ago when Jimbo mentioned that.

--mav

__________________________________________________
Do You Yahoo!?
Tired of spam? Yahoo! Mail has the best spam protection around
http://mail.yahoo.com