From britdisc-owner@csv.warwick.ac.uk  Fri Jun 11 13:25:28 1999
Received: by pansy.csv.warwick.ac.uk (8.9.3/8.9.3) id NAA02632
	for britdisc-outgoing; Fri, 11 Jun 1999 13:24:50 +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 NAA02624
	for <britdisc@csv.warwick.ac.uk>; Fri, 11 Jun 1999 13:24:47 +0100 (BST)
Received: from finch-post-10.mail.demon.net (finch-post-10.mail.demon.net [194.217.242.38])
	by daffodil.csv.warwick.ac.uk (8.9.3/8.9.3) with ESMTP id NAA09498
	for <britdisc@csv.warwick.ac.uk>; Fri, 11 Jun 1999 13:24:46 +0100 (BST)
Received: from ultimatum.demon.co.uk ([158.152.203.174])
	by finch-post-10.mail.demon.net with smtp (Exim 2.12 #1)
	id 10sQMT-000KZP-0A
	for britdisc@csv.warwick.ac.uk; Fri, 11 Jun 1999 12:24:42 +0000
Subject: RE: Ultimate Growth
Date: Fri, 11 Jun 99 13:25:52 +0100
x-sender: ultimatum@pop3.demon.co.uk
x-mailer: Claris Emailer 2.0, March 15, 1997
From: Paul Hurt <paul@ultimatum.demon.co.uk>
To: "BritDisc" <britdisc@csv.warwick.ac.uk>
Mime-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="iso-8859-1"
Message-Id: <E10sQMT-000KZP-0A@finch-post-10.mail.demon.net>
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 8bit
X-MIME-Autoconverted: from quoted-printable to 8bit by pansy.csv.warwick.ac.uk id NAA02625
Sender: owner-britdisc@warwick.ac.uk
Precedence: bulk

>I proved Newsletter production and distribution costs were likely to cost
>the BUF, us, at least £17K a year.

I don't think you did. You admitted that your maths was all fag-packet guesswork. This hardly constitutes proof.

Truth is, the print and distribution costs will be about £6000 per year, based on 800 paid-up members and six black and white 12-page issues per year. This is NOT however the total cost of producing Ultimatum. There are other very significant costs (notably the cost of editing, design and production) which will be incurred regardless of whether it's printed or electronic. These costs are pretty much fixed - they're the same whether we have 200 members or 2000. That's why the size of the membership is such a crucial factor. Unfortunately it's also the biggest unknown - we only have educated guesses as to how many players will actually become members.

>I'd like to see at least a proportion of that spent on something more
>valuable if it can be saved. Wouldn't you?

See my previous posting - although there are benefits to having Ultimatum available online, saving money isn't likely to be one of them. Unless, as I say, we don't bother printing it at all.

>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.

I can back MY figures up with six whole spreadsheets full of costings, which took three days to produce, involving analysis of my old timesheets and obtaining complex quotes from suppliers.

I don't know if Ben, Laura and Ian went to these lengths, but I certainly did. So can *I* claim some of this beer?

Paul




---------------------------------
Paul Hurt

Editor, Ultimatum
paul@ultimatum.demon.co.uk
http://www.ultimatum.demon.co.uk