Use of Member Financial Category Descriptions

[smonday]

Dear Barry,

I find the use of designations of our economic involvement in WACCO to be not in the best service of who we are. I am sure that the majority of us are supporting WACCO to the best of our ability, and I think there is a maybe not so subtle shaming involved in having people publicly announced as "free" members. Even acknowledging "sustaining" members may only be telling us who has more money, and not more inclination, and is not really a way of honoring them. Charities do it when they are raising money, but thats different. I would suggest doing away with that labeling.

Let us all pay as we can afford and know who we are and what our intentions are.

I'm happy to hear from the community about how others feel about this.
Stella

[Dixon]

Let us all pay as we can afford and know who we are and what our intentions are.

It sounds great on paper, but my observation has been that people often don't "pay as they can afford". Sometimes it seems that the tightest tightwads are the ones who could most afford to pay, while the poorest are showing more generosity! I'm reminded of the line from an old Dylan song: "When I was deep in poverty, you taught me how to give". So I think Barry's way of doing it makes sense.

However, if you think that other way will work, by all means use it, Stella. The next time you sell your lovely photographs, don't mark them with prices; just put a donation basket by the door and let people "pay as they can afford". The last I knew, you don't conduct business this way yourself. Surely it's inappropriate to expect Barry or anyone else to do it this way until you adopt the practice yourself. We await your report on how well it works.

Cheers!

Dixon

[Roland Jacopetti]

Hi, Barry. I agree with Stella. And, besides, isn't there always the question of how much money it takes to be a sustaining member? I gave some money a while ago, and I can probably give some more. I know it doesn't feel quite the same when you're the one who has bills to pay. How about several days of a message something like, "Hi. Down to the wire again. Please send some money - you decide how much."
Best Wishes,
Roland


Dear Barry,

I find the use of designations of our economic involvement in WACCO to be not in the best service of who we are. I am sure that the majority of us are supporting WACCO to the best of our ability, and I think there is a maybe not so subtle shaming involved in having people publicly announced as "free" members. Even acknowledging "sustaining" members may only be telling us who has more money, and not more inclination, and is not really a way of honoring them. Charities do it when they are raising money, but thats different. I would suggest doing away with that labeling.

Let us all pay as we can afford and know who we are and what our intentions are.

I'm happy to hear from the community about how others feel about this.
Stella

[Barry]

Thanks for your comments, Stella.

After running WaccoBB and WaccoBB.net for years, tending and nurturing it as my service and gift to the community, I now need the financial support of the community. I would love to have money not be an issue, but it's now a full time job and then some, and I need the support of the community to make it sustainable.


I am sure that the majority of us are supporting WACCO to the best of our ability

Unfortunately, that's not the case, at least not yet. Out of about 4,000 member there are only about 65 non-commercial supporting members and 85 commercial members. That's less than 1%. I am only asking for $2/month (either $24/year or $2.50 paid monthly) to be a supporting member of this service/community. I don't think ability is they key factor here. Most everybody is able to afford $2/month. And those that can't can contact me. There are other ways to contribute as well, including distributing flyers.

I know it can be a difficult transition to be asked to contribute towards something that you have been using for free. And I'll take part of the responsibility since I know I have not asked for your support enough. I plan to do that more.

Many folks have suggested that I require a supporting membership in order to use WaccoBB.net. I don't want to do that because I want to make it available to anybody who feels called to join us and I think the community is richer as more people are included.

WaccoBB.net is all about facilitating community. It's more that just a bulletin board or a classified service. I think there is a distinction to be made between people who are just using WaccoBB.net without joining/supporting us and those that join us and help out a bit, one way or another. I want to acknowledge those that support us.

I've been struggling what to call the users who haven't contributed. I've considered "guest" and "visitor" among others. I can see your point about the term "free". I am happy to consider another term, perhaps just "member". I too, am interested in your thoughts.

[Barry]

It sounds great on paper, but my observation has been that people often don't "pay as they can afford". Sometimes it seems that the tightest tightwads are the ones who could most afford to pay, while the poorest are showing more generosity! I'm reminded of the line from an old Dylan song: "When I was deep in poverty, you taught me how to give". So I think Barry's way of doing it makes sense...
Thank for your support and incisive comments as always, Dixon! And I have seen some evidence to support this. I have been touched by the generosity of some members who are clearly living month to month on very tight fixed incomes.



Hi, Barry. I agree with Stella. And, besides, isn't there always the question of how much money it takes to be a sustaining member? I gave some money a while ago, and I can probably give some more. ...
Roland, as I posted, I am asking only $2/month for a supporting membership. I am using the term Sustaining for generous members who contribute $5/month (or $50/year). You can see all the membership levels here (https://www.waccobb.net/forums/showthread.php?t=19843). I believe you were kind enough to contribute before I even asked and before I had a record keeping system for it! And, I'm "down to the wire again. Please send some money - you decide how much." :wink:

Btw, once you are a supporting member of any kind, you can change your member title to whatever you like on your User Control Panel here (https://www.waccobb.net/forums/profile.php?do=editprofile).

[Hummingbear]

After running WaccoBB and WaccoBB.net for years, tending and nurturing it as my service and gift to the community, I now need the financial support of the community. I would love to have money not be an issue, but it's now a full time job and then some, and I need the support of the community to make it sustainable.


And we all want it to work for you, Barry.


Unfortunately, that's not the case, at least not yet. Out of about 4,000 member there are only about 65 non-commercial supporting members and 85 commercial members. That's less than 1%.

That would be a very salient point. So, what is the problem?
I post rarely, and it doesn't feel to me like I'm a "member of the club," which is the model this request (and especially the labeling system) seems to be based on. Perhaps some other model might speak to us more effectively.


WaccoBB.net is all about facilitating community. It's more that just a bulletin board or a classified service. I think there is a distinction to be made between people who are just using WaccoBB.net without joining/supporting us and those that join us and help out a bit, one way or another. I want to acknowledge those that support us.


Stella suggested that the labels were a "shaming" mechanism. Shame is a social value so far removed from my style of decision-making that I'm not even sure I'd recognize it, let alone be influenced by it; and I bet a lot of us feel the same way. So perhaps that would explain why it hasn't been effective.


I've been struggling what to call the users who haven't contributed. I've considered "guest" and "visitor" among others. I can see your point about the term "free". I am happy to consider another term, perhaps just "member". I too, am interested in your thoughts.

While it's true that many non-profits acknowledge their supporters, I don't see them labeling non-supporters. Why do people have to be labeled at all? I'd like to see people posting just as themselves, each of us a precious individual; find another way to acknowledge/reward financial support.

[Barry]

... I have not asked for your support enough. I plan to do that more.
This seems like a good time to do that...

Hey Folks, if you use WaccoBB.net on an ongoing basis (including reading the posts) please show your gratitude and help to support this service! Basic supporting membership is just $2/month.

You can use your credit card (via PayPal) from the Membership page (https://www.waccobb.net/forums/membership.php) on your User Control Panel (just click that link to go directly there) or send a $24 check for annual membership to:

WaccoBB.net
P.O. Box 1112
Sebastopol, CA 95473

Thanks!
Barry

[GiGi]

Stella you are making a very valid observation!
but personally I always thought that 'free members' were allowed to express their opinion freely, and supporting members kind of repeat what Barry says.
You are in the wrong category!

even though $2 is not a big deal, it doesn't HAVE to be attached to your name. it could be under the personal info.

dixon's suggestion to offer your work up for donation is preposterous,
just like Barry you are offering your work for free to look at, by anyone who wants to!
if they want to take your work home, they should compensate you for that.


or maybe Dixie is suggesting that anyone can moderate and OWN wacco just by being a member :idea::idea::idea::idea::idea::idea: :idea::idea::idea::idea::idea::idea::idea::idea::idea::idea: :wink::wink::wink::wink::wink::wink::wink::wink::wink: :wink::wink::wink::wink::wink::wink::wink::wink::wink:




Dear Barry,

I find the use of designations of our economic involvement in WACCO to be not in the best service of who we are. I am sure that the majority of us are supporting WACCO to the best of our ability, and I think there is a maybe not so subtle shaming involved in having people publicly announced as "free" members. Even acknowledging "sustaining" members may only be telling us who has more money, and not more inclination, and is not really a way of honoring them. Charities do it when they are raising money, but thats different. I would suggest doing away with that labeling.

Let us all pay as we can afford and know who we are and what our intentions are.

I'm happy to hear from the community about how others feel about this.
Stella

[iaim2xl]

Stella et al:

May I humbly suggest that you and anyone else focusing on how to title non-supporting WACCO members are totally missing the point. This conversation needs to stay focused on THE REAL QUESTION-- which is how do we take responsibility for raising enough for Barry to make a living wage for his full-time, primarily volunteer calling?

I am one of the people who has watched Barry agonize privately over how to raise money through WACCO to pay for its own sustenance. The last thing he would ever try to do is shame anyone. In fact, the whole issue is quite embarassing for Barry.

The answer is not, as someone suggested, that Barry cry "I'm broke!" on WACCO every time he needs more money. And simply acknowledging supporting members isn't going to do it either. WE--the people who enjoy and benefit from WACCO--should form a finance committee and take this monkey off Barry's back. It's our WACCO, too. And currently we're not doing a passable job of paying OUR moderator!

My personal suggestion is to create such a level of additional benefits for supporting members that people would be crazy not to become one. But that's going to take some creativity and hard thinking.

One thing is clear. We need to stop forcing Barry to publicly beg for a living and HELP HIM. We can send money ($24 a year is a pittance, even for most of our so-called broke population). We can hold a bake sale, a carnival or some other kind of benefit. We can start holding regular finance committee meetings. We can crank up the discussion about new revenue models. But we need to do more than just talk.

For my part, I hereby promise to host a finance committee meeting if I can get 10 people from the 5,000 to agree to attend it. What do you say, WACCO? I'll listen for your response.



Dear Barry,

I find the use of designations of our economic involvement in WACCO to be not in the best service of who we are. I am sure that the majority of us are supporting WACCO to the best of our ability, and I think there is a maybe not so subtle shaming involved in having people publicly announced as "free" members. Even acknowledging "sustaining" members may only be telling us who has more money, and not more inclination, and is not really a way of honoring them. Charities do it when they are raising money, but thats different. I would suggest doing away with that labeling.

Let us all pay as we can afford and know who we are and what our intentions are.

I'm happy to hear from the community about how others feel about this.
Stella

[Juggledude]

For my part, I hereby promise to host a finance committee meeting if I can get 10 people from the 5,000 to agree to attend it. What do you say, WACCO? I'll listen for your response.

I'm in. Besides, I hear you make a mean guacamole :par-ty:

Royce

[Sara S]

I totally agree with you, and I do have some small fundraising experience (I did a bake sale for Palm Drive Hospital when it first got into financial trouble! How naive is that?)

I'll be glad to help, and will come to your meeting if it's not on a Monday or Tuesday night.

Sara S.


... We can start holding regular finance committee meetings. We can crank up the discussion about new revenue models. But we need to do more than just talk.

For my part, I hereby promise to host a finance committee meeting if I can get 10 people from the 5,000 to agree to attend it. What do you say, WACCO? I'll listen for your response.

[Mrs. Wacco]

...We can start holding regular finance committee meetings. We can crank up the discussion about new revenue models. But we need to do more than just talk.

For my part, I hereby promise to host a finance committee meeting if I can get 10 people from the 5,000 to agree to attend it. What do you say, WACCO? I'll listen for your response.
I'm in too, especially as I have a "vested" interest in Barry's success.

The way I see it, he provides a fabulous community service and DESERVES to be compensated for it. What he asks is so little in relationship to what he gives. The man has to earn a living and he has chosen this as his path, or more correctly, it chose him. He's doing exactly what he's supposed to do and doing it well.

Yes, folks aren't used to having to pay as it was free, and most of these kinds of social network sites are free. Get over it. This is a different model. And that's exciting. I would imagine given the choice of a member-supported site or one filled with Google ads, most folks would prefer membership.

So support the dear man!!! He supports you!

[Vet-To-Pet]

I'd be willing to be part of this ground-breaking decision-making process. Give me a few days' notice before the meeting & I should be able to attend almost any day/evening.
Smiles,
Paula



I'm in. Besides, I hear you make a mean guacamole :par-ty:

Royce

[Dynamique]

What's so bad about Google ads?

I've been using Google's mail service (GMail) and of course it has the Google adsense ads on the side. They not intrusive and/or annoying, unlike banner ads (especially ads with animations) and layer overlays. They are even pretty good at showing me ads pertinent to what I'm interested in. Of course, it figured this out by "reading" my GMail messages, which is a tad disconcerting... but effective.

Given the choice of a paid subscription or *tasteful* and context-sensitive adverts on the site and in the digests, I'll take the ads!

:idea: Maybe the nascent Finance Committee can run a poll of users presenting various income-generating options for users to vote on.


... Yes, folks aren't used to having to pay as it was free, and most of these kinds of social network sites are free. Get over it. This is a different model. And that's exciting. I would imagine given the choice of a member-supported site or one filled with Google ads, most folks would prefer membership.

[Sara S]

I'm really surprised that more of us in this community haven't responded to iaim2xl's suggested means for making this effort sustainable for Barry. I'm new at the whole online-community thing, but I have been entertained, educated, and informed about so much from just reading the posts here, and personally don't like to take without giving something back. I suggest that we have this proposed meeting even if there aren't ten people who want to help.

Let's do a potluck, and I'll make posole to go with your guacamole!
Stella et al:

May I humbly suggest that you and anyone else focusing on how to title non-supporting WACCO members are totally missing the point. This conversation needs to stay focused on THE REAL QUESTION-- which is how do we take responsibility for raising enough for Barry to make a living wage for his full-time, primarily volunteer calling?

I am one of the people who has watched Barry agonize privately over how to raise money through WACCO to pay for its own sustenance. The last thing he would ever try to do is shame anyone. In fact, the whole issue is quite embarassing for Barry.

The answer is not, as someone suggested, that Barry cry "I'm broke!" on WACCO every time he needs more money. And simply acknowledging supporting members isn't going to do it either. WE--the people who enjoy and benefit from WACCO--should form a finance committee and take this monkey off Barry's back. It's our WACCO, too. And currently we're not doing a passable job of paying OUR moderator!

My personal suggestion is to create such a level of additional benefits for supporting members that people would be crazy not to become one. But that's going to take some creativity and hard thinking.

One thing is clear. We need to stop forcing Barry to publicly beg for a living and HELP HIM. We can send money ($24 a year is a pittance, even for most of our so-called broke population). We can hold a bake sale, a carnival or some other kind of benefit. We can start holding regular finance committee meetings. We can crank up the discussion about new revenue models. But we need to do more than just talk.

For my part, I hereby promise to host a finance committee meeting if I can get 10 people from the 5,000 to agree to attend it. What do you say, WACCO? I'll listen for your response.

[foxrosie]

OK, I'll attend. When and where? can offer nice home to host meeting if that's of service. Else, am very happy to show up where ever it turns out to be. Good suggestion (to solicit community to support for "taking the monkey off Barry's back"). He deserves a break! Blessings, Lani

[Mrs. Wacco]

OK, I'll attend. When and where? can offer nice home to host meeting if that's of service. Else, am very happy to show up where ever it turns out to be. Good suggestion (to solicit community to support for "taking the monkey off Barry's back"). He deserves a break! Blessings, Lani

Thanks Lani!!

So can we get this going? I don't think we're up to 10 people, but so what? (it's the project manager in me, sorry)

Tim - Are you still willing to host?

Linda

[Braggi]

Thanks Lani!!

So can we get this going? I don't think we're up to 10 people, but so what? (it's the project manager in me, sorry)

Tim - Are you still willing to host?

Linda

If Lani's going I'm going. I'll bring drinks. (Best consumed after committments are made.)

Where? When? Wednesdays are good.

[jay]

I agree with Stella in regards to the labeling. It always seems so ridiculous and a little "classist" (is there such a word as "classist?"). I am afraid, though, that I don't have another idea at this time to replace it.

However, I do believe in identifying exactly how much the specific category of service costs and asking for that amount!! Wacco's service is valuable and paying for it doesn't diminish its spirit!! Having some flexibility in when you can pay, though, is so helpful and I believe in the spirit of Wacco's foundation!

- juliana


Dear Barry,

I find the use of designations of our economic involvement in WACCO to be not in the best service of who we are. I am sure that the majority of us are supporting WACCO to the best of our ability, and I think there is a maybe not so subtle shaming involved in having people publicly announced as "free" members. Even acknowledging "sustaining" members may only be telling us who has more money, and not more inclination, and is not really a way of honoring them. Charities do it when they are raising money, but thats different. I would suggest doing away with that labeling.

Let us all pay as we can afford and know who we are and what our intentions are.

I'm happy to hear from the community about how others feel about this.
Stella

[Barry]

As you may have noticed, I have dropped the Free Member designation at this time and now it's just blank. Supporting Members are still noted and I feel good about that (and so should they!:angelsmilie:). Supporting Members may change their user title to whatever they like!


I agree with Stella in regards to the labeling. It always seems so ridiculous and a little "classist" (is there such a word as "classist?"). I am afraid, though, that I don't have another idea at this time to replace it.