Sometimes the term "Put up, or shut up" is appropriate.
I’ve decided to take the time to offer up a suggestion that I think will go a long way to correcting most of the problems we have been so ‘vocal’ about. I’ve participated in quite a few threads over the past couple months about why and how I believe the site handled the ‘conversion’ poorly. Also, we’ve seen others get ‘banned’ for speaking their mind-if their mind went contrary to the thoughts and feelings of the admin.
So, I decided to put some effort and thought into a sincere suggestion, this is intended to be constructive; not destructive.
Here are the details of my proposal:
1) SW admin needs an attitude change
2) Admit the ‘transition’ was handled poorly
3) Apologize to the membership for handling things poorly
4) Change the structure
Here is how and why:
I’m willing to accept that advertising revenues are down, and costs are up. I live in the real world too. I’ve never had a problem with the idea of a cost to maintain the site. (Yes, I did run a post that questioned the NEED for it, since many other websites are free to the users, because of revenue generated by the advertisers) It does cost money to buy hardware, and hardware must be replaced/updated from time to time. It also cost’s money for the power bill, as well as the salary of the IT folks that make it all ‘work’.
So, now that we have established that it’s OK to charge, how do you go about implementing it? Simple: Be honest. Here is one idea:
No multi-year discounts. A flat rate of $12/year for everyone. We recognize that new members are valuable as well, and we want to encourage growth of our community. Therefore, when a new member signs up with SW, they will get 30 days free, with the hope that in that 30 day period, they will see the value of the site, and choose to join our community. Now… I could see where your yearly rate is locked when you join (as long as your membership does NOT lapse), so if the future requires a higher rate, you would be locked into what you rate you got when you first signed up.
I would gladly pay $12/per year, but the way this has been handled has been just rotten. And, as you can clearly see, the $12/year, is MORE than the current 3-year rate of $10/year, so at this level, it’s CLEARLY NOT about the $$.
There is a catch that comes with this:
If you read this, and you are thinking “This is a stupid general concept” (not specifics) then you have the wrong attitude, (see suggestion #1). When you are charging members in order to cover the overhead, and they provide the content, you become accountable to them. (Just like our government was framed) You as a moderator, and you as an administrator are SERVING members, not ruling them. If there is extra money when the costs are covered, it can go into a slush fund to purchase better equipment, or charity or promotional purposes. And, with this attitude change comes the open-book accounting policy. There better be a simple accounting page showing the revenues (advertising and membership) and the expenses. Does a particular individuals salary need to be shared? No, but the exact amount of the total of all the labor costs for IT, for utilities, for office supplies, that level of records publication). And new members should be able to view this to see just where the money goes before deciding to join our group. This also clearly shows why a charge is needed. And, if HP wants a 'profit' category, I'm OK with that, as long as it's a reasonable amount. If they are making money off of it, they will protect their asset.
This means that you can’t ban someone for simply having a different opinion than you, or recommending someone visit a different forum or site. Reasons for banishment should be very few: things like profanity or vulgar language, derogatory ethnic or gender comments, that kind of stuff. We’ve watched quite a few of the best contributors leave (or at least stop posting) on the basis of principle.
Here is one example of what I consider a great contributor, and some of his thoughts on the issue. This was copied from a post by AKSnowrider. There are a few more words, but this is what I felt was relevant to my point.
And… He’s right.
We as users appear to recognize that without HP, Snowest the mag, or website would not exist as it is today. They fronted the $ (in some fashion), organized the efforts and opened a forum to people for free access to post and read. I am grateful to them for doing so! But, it doesn’t seem like the administration recognizes the importance of the member contributions. In my opinion, I think the problem is that the HP folks, (and Christopher) don’t seem to grasp that without the members contributing information and content, the site would not be what it was 1 year ago either. If they do recognize it, and feel that way, they have not effectively conveyed that message to the membership as a whole. This is a symbiotic relationship: We both benefited from the relationship. And, now the administration is projecting the attitude that it doesn’t care if their changes run off the same folks that had a huge part in making it great.
If you want to charge us, you’d better show us the respect that our wallet buys. I have not given you my wallet yet, because you have not shown respect to those whose posts have earned them respect. You should be accountable to folks like Ron, RGM, AKSNOWRIDER, Mountainhorse, WinterBrew, and others for your content, and you are not.
I believe in capitalism: The strong will survive, the weak shall fail. And I don’t mind someone making a buck. HP has to feed their families as well. Strong organizations have to be able to adapt to changing environments (or change their environment) and SW may indeed have to charge to keep the site working. But, if you bite the hand that feeds you, you won’t get fed anymore. (if you piss off the ones that bring good content to your site, they will stop bringing good content to your site, and the overall quality and appeal of your site will diminish)
Some have mentioned that there are only a few complainers. Well, if you study human nature throughout history, the majority is always quiet. There is only a small % that gets vocal one way or another. The VAST MAJORITY of the vocal members are crying ‘foul’ with the direction with which the site is headed.
You don’t have to take all of my suggestions or advice. You don’t have to take any of it. It’s still a free country. But you’d better change what you are doing if you still want members in another year.
PE
I’ve decided to take the time to offer up a suggestion that I think will go a long way to correcting most of the problems we have been so ‘vocal’ about. I’ve participated in quite a few threads over the past couple months about why and how I believe the site handled the ‘conversion’ poorly. Also, we’ve seen others get ‘banned’ for speaking their mind-if their mind went contrary to the thoughts and feelings of the admin.
So, I decided to put some effort and thought into a sincere suggestion, this is intended to be constructive; not destructive.
Here are the details of my proposal:
1) SW admin needs an attitude change
2) Admit the ‘transition’ was handled poorly
3) Apologize to the membership for handling things poorly
4) Change the structure
Here is how and why:
I’m willing to accept that advertising revenues are down, and costs are up. I live in the real world too. I’ve never had a problem with the idea of a cost to maintain the site. (Yes, I did run a post that questioned the NEED for it, since many other websites are free to the users, because of revenue generated by the advertisers) It does cost money to buy hardware, and hardware must be replaced/updated from time to time. It also cost’s money for the power bill, as well as the salary of the IT folks that make it all ‘work’.
So, now that we have established that it’s OK to charge, how do you go about implementing it? Simple: Be honest. Here is one idea:
No multi-year discounts. A flat rate of $12/year for everyone. We recognize that new members are valuable as well, and we want to encourage growth of our community. Therefore, when a new member signs up with SW, they will get 30 days free, with the hope that in that 30 day period, they will see the value of the site, and choose to join our community. Now… I could see where your yearly rate is locked when you join (as long as your membership does NOT lapse), so if the future requires a higher rate, you would be locked into what you rate you got when you first signed up.
I would gladly pay $12/per year, but the way this has been handled has been just rotten. And, as you can clearly see, the $12/year, is MORE than the current 3-year rate of $10/year, so at this level, it’s CLEARLY NOT about the $$.
There is a catch that comes with this:
If you read this, and you are thinking “This is a stupid general concept” (not specifics) then you have the wrong attitude, (see suggestion #1). When you are charging members in order to cover the overhead, and they provide the content, you become accountable to them. (Just like our government was framed) You as a moderator, and you as an administrator are SERVING members, not ruling them. If there is extra money when the costs are covered, it can go into a slush fund to purchase better equipment, or charity or promotional purposes. And, with this attitude change comes the open-book accounting policy. There better be a simple accounting page showing the revenues (advertising and membership) and the expenses. Does a particular individuals salary need to be shared? No, but the exact amount of the total of all the labor costs for IT, for utilities, for office supplies, that level of records publication). And new members should be able to view this to see just where the money goes before deciding to join our group. This also clearly shows why a charge is needed. And, if HP wants a 'profit' category, I'm OK with that, as long as it's a reasonable amount. If they are making money off of it, they will protect their asset.
This means that you can’t ban someone for simply having a different opinion than you, or recommending someone visit a different forum or site. Reasons for banishment should be very few: things like profanity or vulgar language, derogatory ethnic or gender comments, that kind of stuff. We’ve watched quite a few of the best contributors leave (or at least stop posting) on the basis of principle.
Here is one example of what I consider a great contributor, and some of his thoughts on the issue. This was copied from a post by AKSnowrider. There are a few more words, but this is what I felt was relevant to my point.
And… He’s right.
We as users appear to recognize that without HP, Snowest the mag, or website would not exist as it is today. They fronted the $ (in some fashion), organized the efforts and opened a forum to people for free access to post and read. I am grateful to them for doing so! But, it doesn’t seem like the administration recognizes the importance of the member contributions. In my opinion, I think the problem is that the HP folks, (and Christopher) don’t seem to grasp that without the members contributing information and content, the site would not be what it was 1 year ago either. If they do recognize it, and feel that way, they have not effectively conveyed that message to the membership as a whole. This is a symbiotic relationship: We both benefited from the relationship. And, now the administration is projecting the attitude that it doesn’t care if their changes run off the same folks that had a huge part in making it great.
If you want to charge us, you’d better show us the respect that our wallet buys. I have not given you my wallet yet, because you have not shown respect to those whose posts have earned them respect. You should be accountable to folks like Ron, RGM, AKSNOWRIDER, Mountainhorse, WinterBrew, and others for your content, and you are not.
I believe in capitalism: The strong will survive, the weak shall fail. And I don’t mind someone making a buck. HP has to feed their families as well. Strong organizations have to be able to adapt to changing environments (or change their environment) and SW may indeed have to charge to keep the site working. But, if you bite the hand that feeds you, you won’t get fed anymore. (if you piss off the ones that bring good content to your site, they will stop bringing good content to your site, and the overall quality and appeal of your site will diminish)
Some have mentioned that there are only a few complainers. Well, if you study human nature throughout history, the majority is always quiet. There is only a small % that gets vocal one way or another. The VAST MAJORITY of the vocal members are crying ‘foul’ with the direction with which the site is headed.
You don’t have to take all of my suggestions or advice. You don’t have to take any of it. It’s still a free country. But you’d better change what you are doing if you still want members in another year.
PE
Last edited:
