I've been mulling over the membership fees issue this week. First, talking with Christine. Second, brainstorming with Joe Solomon about the web applications and potential earned income programs. Third, a few promising conversations with other people who know the space very well.
I'm beginning to think that the membership fees for social action platforms is simply not creative enough. In the same way that advertisements and commissions on donations made me uneasy, I'm getting the same feeling about the membership fees.
Christine is getting ready to start contacting the platforms about formalizing our relationships. She'll be asking them what they need from us. The last thing I think they'll say is, "we need you to charge us membership fees."
Suffice to say, I've put my thinking cap back on. Updates to follow.
On Thu, Jul 10, 2008 at 1:39 PM, Peter Deitz <peterde...@gmail.com> wrote:
> Hi all,
> I've been mulling over the membership fees issue this week. First, > talking with Christine. Second, brainstorming with Joe Solomon about > the web applications and potential earned income programs. Third, a few > promising conversations with other people who know the space very well.
> I'm beginning to think that the membership fees for social action > platforms is simply not creative enough. In the same way that > advertisements and commissions on donations made me uneasy, I'm getting > the same feeling about the membership fees.
> Christine is getting ready to start contacting the platforms about > formalizing our relationships. She'll be asking them what they need > from us. The last thing I think they'll say is, "we need you to charge > us membership fees."
> Suffice to say, I've put my thinking cap back on. Updates to follow.
Dedicated to supporting and educating nonprofits and the progressive social change sector about evolving technologies that cultivate and engage communities.
> Just to quickly chime in, Peter; I mirror your uneasy feelings about > memberhip fees. Looking forward to more ideas and conversation about it > though.
> a
> On Thu, Jul 10, 2008 at 1:39 PM, Peter Deitz <peterde...@gmail.com> wrote:
>> Hi all,
>> I've been mulling over the membership fees issue this week. First, >> talking with Christine. Second, brainstorming with Joe Solomon about >> the web applications and potential earned income programs. Third, a few >> promising conversations with other people who know the space very well.
>> I'm beginning to think that the membership fees for social action >> platforms is simply not creative enough. In the same way that >> advertisements and commissions on donations made me uneasy, I'm getting >> the same feeling about the membership fees.
>> Christine is getting ready to start contacting the platforms about >> formalizing our relationships. She'll be asking them what they need >> from us. The last thing I think they'll say is, "we need you to charge >> us membership fees."
>> Suffice to say, I've put my thinking cap back on. Updates to follow.
> Dedicated to supporting and educating nonprofits and the progressive social > change sector about evolving technologies that cultivate and engage > communities.
I agree that membership fees will subtract from the ethos of
democratic inclusion & and potentially act as a barrier of entry & a
hindrance to collaboration.
While I think integrating membership fees in such a way that it was
still inclusive might work (this is something that has been
discussed), I don't think it would have enough return on investment to
make it worth going through the trouble.
Hope my 2 cents makes sense,
---Joe
On Jul 10, 2:15 pm, "Frerieke vanbree" <freri...@gmail.com> wrote:
> and that is the way you'll create the extraordinary results!
> only when everybody is winning, that is when the social action team wins
> if membership fee will not make a member win,
> nobody will
> i'm here for a brainstorm session!
> skype on?
> fre
> On Thu, Jul 10, 2008 at 10:44 PM, Amy Sample Ward <amyrsw...@gmail.com>
> wrote:
> > Just to quickly chime in, Peter; I mirror your uneasy feelings about
> > memberhip fees. Looking forward to more ideas and conversation about it
> > though.
> > a
> > On Thu, Jul 10, 2008 at 1:39 PM, Peter Deitz <peterde...@gmail.com> wrote:
> >> Hi all,
> >> I've been mulling over the membership fees issue this week. First,
> >> talking with Christine. Second, brainstorming with Joe Solomon about
> >> the web applications and potential earned income programs. Third, a few
> >> promising conversations with other people who know the space very well.
> >> I'm beginning to think that the membership fees for social action
> >> platforms is simply not creative enough. In the same way that
> >> advertisements and commissions on donations made me uneasy, I'm getting
> >> the same feeling about the membership fees.
> >> Christine is getting ready to start contacting the platforms about
> >> formalizing our relationships. She'll be asking them what they need
> >> from us. The last thing I think they'll say is, "we need you to charge
> >> us membership fees."
> >> Suffice to say, I've put my thinking cap back on. Updates to follow.
> > Dedicated to supporting and educating nonprofits and the progressive social
> > change sector about evolving technologies that cultivate and engage
> > communities.
I agree. There has to be either a strong revenue model in place for other like platforms \ businesses or a measurable value for a fee based system to exist.
Social actions is social actions because of the collaborative of all those involved, people resources and platforms themselves.
The value lies in the content platforms are providing...and roles reversed social actions is in some ways a community notice board for social platforms. Where people can sit with their cup of coffee and leisurely read the board of opportunities.
If the idea of a membership is to create revenue and the membership concept not inline with social actions philosophies...then an alternative revenue model needs to be discussed and developed.
I guess I need to ask...what was the basis for thinking about a membership fee structure? To gain revenue or to entrench participation or?
Date: Thu, 10 Jul 2008 15:34:43 To: Social Actions<social-actions@googlegroups.com>
Subject: [social actions] Re: scrap the membership fees?
I agree that membership fees will subtract from the ethos of
democratic inclusion & and potentially act as a barrier of entry & a
hindrance to collaboration.
While I think integrating membership fees in such a way that it was
still inclusive might work (this is something that has been
discussed), I don't think it would have enough return on investment to
make it worth going through the trouble.
Hope my 2 cents makes sense,
---Joe
On Jul 10, 2:15 pm, "Frerieke vanbree" <freri...@gmail.com> wrote:
> peter, as always, committed
> and that is the way you'll create the extraordinary results!
> only when everybody is winning, that is when the social action team wins
> if membership fee will not make a member win,
> nobody will
> i'm here for a brainstorm session!
> skype on?
> fre
> On Thu, Jul 10, 2008 at 10:44 PM, Amy Sample Ward <amyrsw...@gmail.com>
> wrote:
> > Just to quickly chime in, Peter; I mirror your uneasy feelings about
> > memberhip fees. Looking forward to more ideas and conversation about it
> > though.
> > a
> > On Thu, Jul 10, 2008 at 1:39 PM, Peter Deitz <peterde...@gmail.com> wrote:
> >> Hi all,
> >> I've been mulling over the membership fees issue this week. First,
> >> talking with Christine. Second, brainstorming with Joe Solomon about
> >> the web applications and potential earned income programs. Third, a few
> >> promising conversations with other people who know the space very well.
> >> I'm beginning to think that the membership fees for social action
> >> platforms is simply not creative enough. In the same way that
> >> advertisements and commissions on donations made me uneasy, I'm getting
> >> the same feeling about the membership fees.
> >> Christine is getting ready to start contacting the platforms about
> >> formalizing our relationships. She'll be asking them what they need
> >> from us. The last thing I think they'll say is, "we need you to charge
> >> us membership fees."
> >> Suffice to say, I've put my thinking cap back on. Updates to follow.
> > Dedicated to supporting and educating nonprofits and the progressive social
> > change sector about evolving technologies that cultivate and engage
> > communities.
Frerieke vanbree wrote: > peter, as always, committed
> and that is the way you'll create the extraordinary results!
> only when everybody is winning, that is when the social action team wins
> if membership fee will not make a member win,
> nobody will
> i'm here for a brainstorm session! > skype on?
> fre > On Thu, Jul 10, 2008 at 10:44 PM, Amy Sample Ward <amyrsw...@gmail.com > <mailto:amyrsw...@gmail.com>> wrote:
> Just to quickly chime in, Peter; I mirror your uneasy feelings > about memberhip fees. Looking forward to more ideas and > conversation about it though.
> a
> On Thu, Jul 10, 2008 at 1:39 PM, Peter Deitz <peterde...@gmail.com > <mailto:peterde...@gmail.com>> wrote:
> Hi all,
> I've been mulling over the membership fees issue this week. > First, > talking with Christine. Second, brainstorming with Joe > Solomon about > the web applications and potential earned income programs. > Third, a few > promising conversations with other people who know the space > very well.
> I'm beginning to think that the membership fees for social action > platforms is simply not creative enough. In the same way that > advertisements and commissions on donations made me uneasy, > I'm getting > the same feeling about the membership fees.
> Christine is getting ready to start contacting the platforms about > formalizing our relationships. She'll be asking them what > they need > from us. The last thing I think they'll say is, "we need you > to charge > us membership fees."
> Suffice to say, I've put my thinking cap back on. Updates to > follow.
> Dedicated to supporting and educating nonprofits and the > progressive social change sector about evolving technologies that > cultivate and engage communities.
The membership fee was designed first and foremost to provide a basis for sustaining the operation. In a conversation earlier this week with marketing guru Debbie Lamb, I realized that our membership program was caught between two models: 1) payments in exchange for the distribution service (ie, Social Actions as advertisement venue even though that's not how we would refer to it) and 2) payments in exchange for the collaborative opportunity (ie, Social Actions as an industry association, again not the words I would use to describe it.)
In either case, there has to be a strong value _promised_ to the platforms to encourage them to pay. And the fact is, not all platforms have the money. So in some strange scenario, with a sliding scale, we would be getting a bigger platform to underwrite the cost to participate of the smaller "competitor" platforms. The value proposition breaks down pretty quickly. And as Joe said, the return for introducing this complicated dynamic would be pretty small.
So I'm now looking to create a revenue stream from foundations and corporate philanthropy programs -- not with Social Actions being a grant recipient, but rather a service provider connecting foundations and corporate philanthropy programs with simple ways to embrace grassroots grant-making: either through direct donations to specific platforms or specific 'types' of actions. I'm fleshing through this model in mind at lightning speed and think it has tremendous potential. After all, this is where the money is in the first place. This strategy turns the membership on its head... we would end up paying the platforms to participate!
"PD: /Earned income plugin/: we could create a program that invites companies and foundations to sponsor platforms. As people click through to an action, we could alert the user through a bar at the bottom of their browser that XX has just made a donation to support Social Actions and the platform that hosts the action they clicked on. In fact, this idea could be applied across all of our widgets. I think we could find the companies / foundations that want to support the micro-philanthrop sector on a transaction basis. I like this idea because it links our revenue to the number of people we reach, but it doesn't impose a commission or rely on advertising."
Beverley wrote: > I agree. There has to be either a strong revenue model in place for other like platforms \ businesses or a measurable value for a fee based system to exist.
> Social actions is social actions because of the collaborative of all those involved, people resources and platforms themselves.
> The value lies in the content platforms are providing...and roles reversed social actions is in some ways a community notice board for social platforms. Where people can sit with their cup of coffee and leisurely read the board of opportunities.
> If the idea of a membership is to create revenue and the membership concept not inline with social actions philosophies...then an alternative revenue model needs to be discussed and developed.
> I guess I need to ask...what was the basis for thinking about a membership fee structure? To gain revenue or to entrench participation or?
> Date: Thu, 10 Jul 2008 15:34:43 > To: Social Actions<social-actions@googlegroups.com> > Subject: [social actions] Re: scrap the membership fees?
> I agree that membership fees will subtract from the ethos of > democratic inclusion & and potentially act as a barrier of entry & a > hindrance to collaboration.
> While I think integrating membership fees in such a way that it was > still inclusive might work (this is something that has been > discussed), I don't think it would have enough return on investment to > make it worth going through the trouble.
> Hope my 2 cents makes sense,
> ---Joe
> On Jul 10, 2:15 pm, "Frerieke vanbree" <freri...@gmail.com> wrote:
>> peter, as always, committed
>> and that is the way you'll create the extraordinary results!
>> only when everybody is winning, that is when the social action team wins
>> if membership fee will not make a member win,
>> nobody will
>> i'm here for a brainstorm session! >> skype on?
>> fre >> On Thu, Jul 10, 2008 at 10:44 PM, Amy Sample Ward <amyrsw...@gmail.com> >> wrote:
>>> Just to quickly chime in, Peter; I mirror your uneasy feelings about >>> memberhip fees. Looking forward to more ideas and conversation about it >>> though.
>>> a
>>> On Thu, Jul 10, 2008 at 1:39 PM, Peter Deitz <peterde...@gmail.com> wrote:
>>>> Hi all,
>>>> I've been mulling over the membership fees issue this week. First, >>>> talking with Christine. Second, brainstorming with Joe Solomon about >>>> the web applications and potential earned income programs. Third, a few >>>> promising conversations with other people who know the space very well.
>>>> I'm beginning to think that the membership fees for social action >>>> platforms is simply not creative enough. In the same way that >>>> advertisements and commissions on donations made me uneasy, I'm getting >>>> the same feeling about the membership fees.
>>>> Christine is getting ready to start contacting the platforms about >>>> formalizing our relationships. She'll be asking them what they need >>>> from us. The last thing I think they'll say is, "we need you to charge >>>> us membership fees."
>>>> Suffice to say, I've put my thinking cap back on. Updates to follow.
>>> Dedicated to supporting and educating nonprofits and the progressive social >>> change sector about evolving technologies that cultivate and engage >>> communities.
peter that was one of your initial ideas, while you were still here in Africa...and yeah i still think that is a great idea
what comes up for me the whole time is:
Social actions could really be THE 'online language school of philanthropy' (www.worldspeaking.com) what do I mean? ... creating a feature on the social actions platform that powerfully allows any 'consultant' to setup online meetings, classes, connect with individuals/groups through a shared communication system. Students/participants/companies pay for the class/consult, small amount of this payment goes to social actions.
tomorrow i'll be in and out, but we'll make it happen morning your time?
On Fri, Jul 11, 2008 at 1:11 AM, Peter Deitz <peterde...@gmail.com> wrote:
> Hi Beverley (and others),
> The membership fee was designed first and foremost to provide a basis > for sustaining the operation. In a conversation earlier this week with > marketing guru Debbie Lamb, I realized that our membership program was > caught between two models: 1) payments in exchange for the distribution > service (ie, Social Actions as advertisement venue even though that's > not how we would refer to it) and 2) payments in exchange for the > collaborative opportunity (ie, Social Actions as an industry > association, again not the words I would use to describe it.)
> In either case, there has to be a strong value _promised_ to the > platforms to encourage them to pay. And the fact is, not all platforms > have the money. So in some strange scenario, with a sliding scale, we > would be getting a bigger platform to underwrite the cost to participate > of the smaller "competitor" platforms. The value proposition breaks > down pretty quickly. And as Joe said, the return for introducing this > complicated dynamic would be pretty small.
> So I'm now looking to create a revenue stream from foundations and > corporate philanthropy programs -- not with Social Actions being a grant > recipient, but rather a service provider connecting foundations and > corporate philanthropy programs with simple ways to embrace grassroots > grant-making: either through direct donations to specific platforms or > specific 'types' of actions. I'm fleshing through this model in mind at > lightning speed and think it has tremendous potential. After all, this > is where the money is in the first place. This strategy turns the > membership on its head... we would end up paying the platforms to > participate!
> "PD: /Earned income plugin/: we could create a program that invites > companies and foundations to sponsor platforms. As people click through > to an action, we could alert the user through a bar at the bottom of > their browser that XX has just made a donation to support Social Actions > and the platform that hosts the action they clicked on. In fact, this > idea could be applied across all of our widgets. I think we could find > the companies / foundations that want to support the micro-philanthrop > sector on a transaction basis. I like this idea because it links our > revenue to the number of people we reach, but it doesn't impose a > commission or rely on advertising."
> All the best, > Peter
> Beverley wrote: > > I agree. There has to be either a strong revenue model in place for other > like platforms \ businesses or a measurable value for a fee based system to > exist.
> > Social actions is social actions because of the collaborative of all > those involved, people resources and platforms themselves.
> > The value lies in the content platforms are providing...and roles > reversed social actions is in some ways a community notice board for social > platforms. Where people can sit with their cup of coffee and leisurely read > the board of opportunities.
> > If the idea of a membership is to create revenue and the membership > concept not inline with social actions philosophies...then an alternative > revenue model needs to be discussed and developed.
> > I guess I need to ask...what was the basis for thinking about a > membership fee structure? To gain revenue or to entrench participation or?
> > Date: Thu, 10 Jul 2008 15:34:43 > > To: Social Actions<social-actions@googlegroups.com> > > Subject: [social actions] Re: scrap the membership fees?
> > I agree that membership fees will subtract from the ethos of > > democratic inclusion & and potentially act as a barrier of entry & a > > hindrance to collaboration.
> > While I think integrating membership fees in such a way that it was > > still inclusive might work (this is something that has been > > discussed), I don't think it would have enough return on investment to > > make it worth going through the trouble.
> >> and that is the way you'll create the extraordinary results!
> >> only when everybody is winning, that is when the social action team wins
> >> if membership fee will not make a member win,
> >> nobody will
> >> i'm here for a brainstorm session! > >> skype on?
> >> fre > >> On Thu, Jul 10, 2008 at 10:44 PM, Amy Sample Ward <amyrsw...@gmail.com> > >> wrote:
> >>> Just to quickly chime in, Peter; I mirror your uneasy feelings about > >>> memberhip fees. Looking forward to more ideas and conversation about > it > >>> though.
> >>> a
> >>> On Thu, Jul 10, 2008 at 1:39 PM, Peter Deitz <peterde...@gmail.com> > wrote:
> >>>> Hi all,
> >>>> I've been mulling over the membership fees issue this week. First, > >>>> talking with Christine. Second, brainstorming with Joe Solomon about > >>>> the web applications and potential earned income programs. Third, a > few > >>>> promising conversations with other people who know the space very > well.
> >>>> I'm beginning to think that the membership fees for social action > >>>> platforms is simply not creative enough. In the same way that > >>>> advertisements and commissions on donations made me uneasy, I'm > getting > >>>> the same feeling about the membership fees.
> >>>> Christine is getting ready to start contacting the platforms about > >>>> formalizing our relationships. She'll be asking them what they need > >>>> from us. The last thing I think they'll say is, "we need you to > charge > >>>> us membership fees."
> >>>> Suffice to say, I've put my thinking cap back on. Updates to follow.
> >>> Dedicated to supporting and educating nonprofits and the progressive > social > >>> change sector about evolving technologies that cultivate and engage > >>> communities.
