[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next][Date Index][Thread Index]
BOUNCE killietalk at aka_org: Admin request of type /\bsubscribe\b/i at line 7 Admin request of type /\bsubscribe\b/i at line 9
Your math is correct. But I think that people like a multi-year
membership for its convenience, NOT for its cost savings, although cost
savings do help to justify it.
The proposed AKA discount is too large: If you subscribe to any serious
journal/magazine, say FAMA, you get one dollar off for a 2-year
subscription ($23 vs. $45) -- but I subscribe for two years anyway [and
save 33¢ postage :-)] If FAMA had a 5-year subscription, with 5 bucks
off, I would use it.
If the AKA were to offer $2 off/year, i.e. $110 for a 5-year membership,
that would preserve the finacial integrity for the AKA and simplify the
reneval process for the members. On top of that, 10 bucks is 10 bucks --
a can of Tetramin!
Csinf at aol_com wrote:
> While the proposal has merit, lets look at the consequences before adopting
> it. Foremost of which is the 96.00 would be invested for four years. This
> means in effect we will not have this members dues for the four years to use
> for operating costs. Now if say 25% or 50% of the members go this route our
> operating budget is cut by the same percentage, while we continue to furnish
> full services to these members. If the members dues were withdrawn yearly,
> then the interest will not build up to pay the fifth year. Over the long
> haul it works out but can we afford the immediate cut in the next four years
> budget. I dont think so at a time when we need funds for printing the
> Wildekamp Volumes, there is talk of a dues increase, apparently no plans for
> future Color Indexes and lastly the Membership Roster is only printed every
> other year.
> Allen R. McNealy