Ridecamp: Re: [RC] [RC] non-member fees (was Director at Large)

on 10/2/02 3:18 PM, Joe Long at jlong@xxxxxxxx wrote:

> On Wed, 02 Oct 2002 14:03:58 -0400, Deanna German
> <finishis2win@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx> wrote:
> 
>> Joe Long wrote:
>>> That's just it, there are many good, POSITIVE reasons to join AERC, we
>>> don't need to coerce people to join.  If we do, what does that say
>>> about our organization?
> 
>> To me it says the organization understands human nature. :-)
> 
> Yeah ... greed.

Joe, funny I was thinking of kind of the same thing, although my POV is of
the nonmember rider's. Why should I join if I can get everything I want (a
nice ride run under AERC rules) for nuthin'?


>> I'm looking at this from a business/marketing POV. It's not coercion to
>> encourage people to have a financial stake in the organization that governs
>> a particular activity. Either pay an annual membership fee or pay a
>> temporary membership fee. (A non-member fee.)
> 
> As I keep pointing out, the non-members do pay, the same per-rider
> sanction fee as all riders.

Joe, non-members pay what we all pay, PLUS. Big deal. Look at it this way,
non-members are on a "pay as they go" system OR they could pay annual dues.
Or they could stay home. Everyone has a choice.

 
>> I think it's pretty standard for a group to ask non-members participating in
>> member activities to ante up more money. It's that way in every group,
>> professional or recreational, that I belong to. It's no big deal.
> 
> It is not standard, although it is common in some fields.

Examples please. Here are my examples: in my husband's dog clubs, I have to
pay a non-member fee to participate in club events. If I want to go to a
professional meeting of a club to which I don't belong IF I'm even allowed
to attend, I have to pay a non-member fee or a non-discounted fee. Different
words, but it amounts to the same thing.

 
>> And then there's the logical, analytical argument: if I'm planning on
>> attending even just two AERC rides next year, I might as well join, 'cause
>> then I'm paying the same amount as I would if I paid non-member fees and
>> subscribed to Endurance News. And I get to comment on the workings of AERC.
>> :-) If I didn't care about AERC or the contents of Endurance News, I'd
>> probably want to do 4 or 5 rides per year before joining.
> 
> So hey, let's make the non-member fee $500 and then we'll get even
> more new members!

Simple economics: at some dollar amount there are diminishing returns and
the amount acts as a deterent. Setting a price for anything is as much art
as it is science, but it all comes down to supply and demand. And your
example is likely to be perceived as ridiculous, and then we get into a PR
penalty. But somewhere between $1 and $500 is an appropriate amount for
non-member fees. I think $10 is about right.


>>> When you cut through all the rhetoric, there is really only one reason
>>> for the non-member fee:  to keep dues lower by putting some of the
>>> burden of paying for member benefits onto non-members.
> 
>> And how is this unfair? Don't the non-members benefit simply by the
>> existance of AERC? Should AERC members have to shoulder the costs of
>> non-members who get to take part in rides?
> 
> Let me turn that around:  how in h*** is it fair to make non-members
> pay for the members' benefits?

If one thinks of it as "pay-as-you-go" one is paying for the benefits one
receives. The rider receives the benefit of having the central organization,
with all its faults and all of the good stuff too. The rider receives the
benefit of knowing the ride was sanctioned and will be run under AERC rules.
They get their miles and placings recorded. If they don't want those
benefits, well then, they can do a non-sanctioned "Potato" ride or simply do
the ride in their own backyard. If they do enough rides, it becomes
finacially logical to just join.


> This is the "greed" I referred to
> above, it is the members passing a non-member fee to get something for
> nothing.  

I guess this is at the core of our disagreement. I don't think non-members
are coughing up $$ for nothing.


> The members aren't shouldering any non-member costs,

And why should they?


> all riders pay a per-rider sanction fee -- non-members are shouldering
> part of the members' costs

No, they're shouldering their own costs on a pay-as-you-go basis.

You think it's unfair and I think it's fair. Funny, that our POV's are so
dis-similar given that I have more likelyhood of paying that non-member fee
than you since I'm on the finacial bubble of paying full dues.

Interesting debate.

Deanna


=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=
 Ridecamp is a service of Endurance Net, http://www.endurance.net.
 Information, Policy, Disclaimer: http://www.endurance.net/Ridecamp
 Subscribe/Unsubscribe http://www.endurance.net/ridecamp/logon.asp

 If you are an AERC member - PLEASE VOTE in the upcoming By-Laws 
 Election!!!! (it takes 2/3rds to tango!!)

=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=