From britdisc-owner@csv.warwick.ac.uk  Fri Jun 11 13:17:49 1999
Received: by pansy.csv.warwick.ac.uk (8.9.3/8.9.3) id NAA00685
	for britdisc-outgoing; Fri, 11 Jun 1999 13:16:38 +0100 (BST)
Received: from daffodil.csv.warwick.ac.uk (daffodil [137.205.192.30])
	by pansy.csv.warwick.ac.uk (8.9.3/8.9.3) with ESMTP id NAA00655
	for <britdisc@csv.warwick.ac.uk>; Fri, 11 Jun 1999 13:16:34 +0100 (BST)
Received: from mail-gw1.webleicester.net (mailgate.webleicester.co.uk [195.146.160.12])
	by daffodil.csv.warwick.ac.uk (8.9.3/8.9.3) with ESMTP id NAA08117
	for <britdisc@csv.warwick.ac.uk>; Fri, 11 Jun 1999 13:16:33 +0100 (BST)
Received: from pii266 (pool-pri1-006.webleicester.co.uk [195.146.164.6])
	by mail-gw1.webleicester.net (8.9.1/8.9.0) with SMTP id NAA22922
	for <britdisc@csv.warwick.ac.uk>; Fri, 11 Jun 1999 13:13:24 +0100 (BST)
Message-ID: <003001beb404$80c7d000$06a492c3@pii266>
From: "Ben Ravilious" <bravil@webleicester.co.uk>
To: "BRITDISC" <britdisc@csv.warwick.ac.uk>
Subject: Re: Ultimate Growth
Date: Fri, 11 Jun 1999 13:15:12 +0100
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain;
	charset="iso-8859-1"
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 8bit
X-Priority: 3
X-MSMail-Priority: Normal
X-Mailer: Microsoft Outlook Express 4.72.3110.1
X-MimeOLE: Produced By Microsoft MimeOLE V4.72.3110.3
Sender: owner-britdisc@warwick.ac.uk
Precedence: bulk

Roger,

Would it make you happier if I threw in the towel and forgot about the whole
idea?

When I ask for input on a proposal which is still a million miles from
completion why should I receive abuse? The reason I'm sticking this on
Britdisc is *precisely because* it hasn't been worked out thoroughly yet -
It gives everyone a chance to play a part in shaping it and helps us get it
right. *Of course* we will have to look at the maths in more detail and I'm
sure your calculations will be helpful.

Ben :-(
PS thanks to Max, and Helen for suggestions on the employment side of
things.


-----Original Message-----
From: Roger Thomson <roger.thomson@oyster.co.uk>
To: BRITDISC <britdisc@csv.warwick.ac.uk>
Date: 11 June 1999 10:52
Subject: RE: Ultimate Growth


> Tiering the membership fee depending on whether someone
> receives printed
> copy is a possibilty.

Glad that you are open to suggestions Ben. Please give it serious
consideration. I think it could save money for everyone (and trees!). I'd be
happy to work with Paul Hurt and/or yourself to model the costs more
explicitly and accurately in order that you were making an informed
decision.

> In fact if we doubled the print run
> the total cost
> of the newsletter might only increase by say, 20%. Del is
> correct, once
> you're printing above a certain number (of order 1000
> according to Paul) the
> printing costs rapidly diminish.

You are failing to recognise that the print run is only 50% of the
distribution costs. Automated online distribution saves that 50% as well.
It's almost free no matter how many times you do it! If there's noone at the
BUF capable of doing so I'd be happy to advise on how it may be done. I
can't help feeling you're falling into the 'can't do, won't do' trap.

> However at this early stage we need to charge everyone a
> proportion of the
> production costs however they receive the newsletter (just as
> we do now
> through team affiliation fees).

A proportion, yes, but not necessarily the same proportion no matter what
proportion of those costs you are responsible for. Communist Russia fell
apart because it was a centralised bureaucratic economy with no incentive
for cost-minimisation. Even if the fee differential is as small as £3 you
will have a large body of people who will take online delivery, thus saving
both the marginal print costs and post costs. These amount to no less than
85p per copy (even if you assume marginal printing costs are 30% of what I
originally said - 20p (generous estimate!)), thus saving £5.95 per annum (on
the assumption of 7 issues/year). £2.95 would therefore be a direct
subsidiation of those people who wanted the newsletter mailing. A
subsidisation, a gift to the BUF, a freebie, a bonus, a grant, something for
nothing. Life is not a zero sum game. What you give to computer users does
not get taken away from others, it gets given to them too! Wow! I like that,
don't you?

> However at this early stage

If I had a pound every time a client had said that to me I'd be a very rich
man. They all say it; later on they all admit they were wrong. In New Media
there are hundreds of examples of companies moving too slowly, hardly any of
companies moving too quickly. BT moved too slowly on free internet access,
Freeserve is now floating for £2bn. Ouch, that hurts. BT were one of my
clients, they didn't take our advice.

> Sorry if my maths appears confusing but trust me we do need a
> good sign up
> rate to make this thing viable.

Confusing? There was no maths in your response at all!!!! Oh, sorry - just
noticed the vague reference to 20% of an unspecified number:-/.
Trust you? Not if you're going to make an important decision based on an
utterly inadequate decision framework. Not now, not ever.

I proved Newsletter production and distribution costs were likely to cost
the BUF, us, at least £17K a year.
I'd like to see at least a proportion of that spent on something more
valuable if it can be saved. Wouldn't you?

This is the era of democracy and open government: if your idea of a good
sign-up rate is 100%, and you're convinced that you need that in order to
make this thing viable - PROVE IT. I bet you you can't - your arguments hold
very little water. In fact, in the more normal spirit of debate on Britdisc,
I'm prepared to bet you five pints of beer you can't. Maybe Laura, as BUF
pres, would act as judge (Laura?).

> Keep talking - I think we're getting there...

Your initial willingness to listen made me think so, but the unfounded
conviction with which you continued made me doubt it.

Cy'all
PieBoy


> -----Original Message-----
> From: Ben Ravilious
> Sent: 10 June 1999 18:24
> To: BRITDISC
> Subject: Re: Ultimate Growth
>
>
> Dear all,
>
> Tiering the membership fee depending on whether someone
> receives printed
> copy is a possibilty.
>
> However at this early stage we need to charge everyone a
> proportion of the
> production costs however they receive the newsletter (just as
> we do now
> through team affiliation fees). If we put the newsletter
> online and people
> *don't* pay for it through their fees then we're in trouble.
> We might then
> have to broaden the requirement for membership at tournaments (e.g
> membership required for ALL tournaments not just National
> events). Otherwise
> we end up with loads of people getting a 'freebie' and being
> excluded from
> just the National events.
>
> Because of the need to communicate, I strongly believe that *everyone*
> should receive the newsletter one way or another. If players
> are able to
> opt-out then those that do choose to receive the newsletter
> might have to
> pay nearly twice as much - at least at this early stage.
>
> I think these teething troubles would only occur in the first
> couple of
> years of the association where we would be relying on a significant
> proportion of players to sign up. Given twice as many
> members, we *could*
> afford to have less newsletter subscribers and economies of
> scale would make
> it much cheaper anyway. In fact if we doubled the print run
> the total cost
> of the newsletter might only increase by say, 20%. Del is
> correct, once
> you're printing above a certain number (of order 1000
> according to Paul) the
> printing costs rapidly diminish.
>
> Sorry if my maths appears confusing but trust me we do need a
> good sign up
> rate to make this thing viable.
>
>
> What I would like people to consider next is the employment of the
> administrator which is going to be more difficult than hiring
> a freelance
> newsletter editor. Does anyone out there have any knowledge
> of employment
> law? Would it be sensible/cheapest/necessary to declare ourselves as a
> company or charity? Is there a legal precedent for sports
> organisations
> governing bodies? Or can we just pay someone a cheque and let
> them worry
> about the taxman? Discuss...
>
> Keep talking - I think we're getting there...
>
> Ben
> PS "Please Miss!, the big boys are fighting in the playground."
>