Announcement

Collapse
No announcement yet.

The future of OTF

Collapse
X
 
  • Filter
  • Time
  • Show
Clear All
new posts

  • Hot Pepsi
    replied
    If you provide an actual address, I can send an actual paper check.

    Leave a comment:


  • danielmak
    replied
    It seems like every pay option is going to take a piece of the pie, so the question would be easiest for all involved and smallest piece of the pie. I have Paypal set to Autopay with The Blizzard for my sub. I don't know if there is a way to set that so the person paying pays the fee. If not, then if Paypal is used, some rounding up would have to happen to cover Paypal's fees.

    Leave a comment:


  • Antepli Ejderha
    replied
    OK, I'm paying monthly through PayPal and just thought it was a direct debit.

    Leave a comment:


  • Capybara
    replied
    Originally posted by Antepli Ejderha View Post
    Would WSC be willing to let us use their direct debit path or are we going to be parting ways completely?

    The annual costs that Snake mentioned in the other thread seem to make it a conversation worth having.
    I thought about this and checked their website and it looks like they don't do direct debit, only credit card and cheque payments.

    Leave a comment:


  • Snake Plissken
    replied
    That's adding another administrative overhead.

    Don't bank accounts allow standing orders any more? I know mine does.

    Leave a comment:


  • Antepli Ejderha
    replied
    Would WSC be willing to let us use their direct debit path or are we going to be parting ways completely?

    The annual costs that Snake mentioned in the other thread seem to make it a conversation worth having.

    Leave a comment:


  • hobbes
    replied
    I must say, I'm pretty surprised at how few people have been contributing, given how many were definitely, definitely going to when the subject came up last time.
    I feel like a bit of a chump having been banging in a fiver a month and actually feeling guilty about how low that was because I was out of work until recently.

    Leave a comment:


  • San Bernardhinault
    replied
    Originally posted by Sporting View Post

    True, and even those who did donate might prefer to remain anonymous.
    Absolutely. The huge amounts I'm going to donate, I certainly don't want to announce and publicise. I don't want anyone to know that I am being incredibly generous. Certainly wouldn't mention it here, for instance.

    Leave a comment:


  • Capybara
    replied
    Originally posted by TonTon View Post
    You don't need to be set up for Direct Debits directly, do you? You can use something like GoCardless or whatever. Again, it's a service that takes a cut, though.
    This is true.

    Leave a comment:


  • DCI Harry Batt
    replied
    You don't need to be set up for Direct Debits directly, do you? You can use something like GoCardless or whatever. Again, it's a service that takes a cut, though.

    Leave a comment:


  • ursus arctos
    replied
    All of which leads me to believe that the commission taken by Patreon and similar organisations is worth it in these circumstances

    Leave a comment:


  • Capybara
    replied
    Originally posted by Sits View Post
    Perhaps it will be possible to set up direct debits, so we don’t have to remember. For those who chose to do so. That’s what I find easiest (Spotify, Netflix, Graun, Wiki).
    The hoops you have to go through as an organisation to get approval for operating direct debit, coupled with the mechanism for collection probably wouldn't make it worthwhile for an organisation the size it's likely to be. Standing orders, on the other hand, while old-fashioned, might work. The problem with that, though is, they just go on and on until you stop them. When I worked in an organisation that collected by direct debit we had a very small number of standing orders coming in and there was absolutely no way of determining where they were coming from.

    Leave a comment:


  • Sits
    replied
    I think so. It’s a fine and delicate line we need to tread.

    Leave a comment:


  • Snake Plissken
    replied
    The other place that I'm using a model has a separate subforum for members that is mainly used for paperwork in running the Co-op behind it - posting of yearly accounts, notification of committee positions/elections etc. People who give money are given the choice of becoming a member and having access or simply donating the money and not.

    I can, if people want, use custom titles to identify those who donate/subscribe. I do wonder if it should be opt-in though.

    Leave a comment:


  • Sits
    replied
    Perhaps it will be possible to set up direct debits, so we don’t have to remember. For those who chose to do so. That’s what I find easiest (Spotify, Netflix, Graun, Wiki).

    Leave a comment:


  • sw2borshch
    replied
    I check my emails about once a month if I am expecting something.

    Leave a comment:


  • Wouter D
    replied
    Originally posted by danielmak View Post
    If the email is monthly, I don't think anyone would care or treat that as SPAM.
    Yeah, no. My life is already overflowing with email as it is, and every single unsolicited email that comes on top of that makes me angry enough to start boycotting whoever sent it.

    Leave a comment:


  • Sporting
    replied
    Originally posted by ad hoc View Post



    The problem with the public list of who donated is that those who couldn't donate might feel uncomfortable

    True, and even those who did donate might prefer to remain anonymous.

    Leave a comment:


  • ad hoc
    replied
    The problem with the public list of who donated is that those who couldn't donate might feel uncomfortable (to the point of not even logging on at all) and I think any model that potentially excludes people (especially on the grounds of financial wherewithal) is to be avoided.

    I think some combination of a regular committed payment (perhaps monthly or annually depending on the person) plus Wikipedia style periodic funding drives is the best way to go

    Leave a comment:


  • danielmak
    replied
    Originally posted by Capybara View Post
    But of course I'd be prepared to cough up something for this place. But then we've had this debate before and people said they would donate then and now they are admitting they didn't. And neither did I. Donations shouldn't be compulsory either - we said that before as well - but then how do we ensure the money that is needed gets paid? It's a problem I don't have an answer for.
    I'm going to suggest this but I need a giant qualifier that I'm on the fence about this suggestion. If there was a a big banner up top or happened on the login page about donating, that might help. Then if the front page listed who donated (this is the part that has me on the fence) then at least people could see if they remembered to donate. Per Capybara's post that I quoted, of course people don't donate for a variety of very good financial reasons. Then there are those of us who remember something about donating in the past, we forgot, and then nobody came back around to remind us. I know, we're not kids, but life is complicated. So, if I saw a list of screen names and did not see my name on that list, it would be a reminder and I would donate right away. Again, I'm on the fence about this because the list could read like a list of shame and that is 100% not my intention. Sometimes some of us need reminders.

    Another move that would not have the same wall of shame function would be an auto-generated email with a subject line that is very clear that the total contents of the email relate to donating. Then those of us who had donated, just delete the email right away. Those of us who couldn't donate in the past but could now, would hopefully get on it. Those of us who forgot, ideally get on it. If the email is monthly, I don't think anyone would care or treat that as SPAM. I get weekly emails from an independent record store. Mostly I delete, but I'm not annoyed by the email because I like the store.

    Leave a comment:


  • Capybara
    replied
    I've not read through the thread so apologies if I'm repeating anyone's point.

    Is the idea that OTF is cast totally adrift from WSC? I hope that even if WSC is not paying for, nor administering ,OTF then they would still point people in this direction. Incidentally, I once suggested that there should be a link from here to the WSC site but it didn't materialise.

    I actually don't know what I pay for WSC; I just renew when they ask me to, every three years, I think. But of course I'd be prepared to cough up something for this place. But then we've had this debate before and people said they would donate then and now they are admitting they didn't. And neither did I. Donations shouldn't be compulsory either - we said that before as well - but then how do we ensure the money that is needed gets paid? It's a problem I don't have an answer for.
    Last edited by Capybara; 23-02-2021, 09:26. Reason: moved a comma

    Leave a comment:


  • gjw100
    replied
    I'm by no means a prolific contributor and if it wasn't for some of the Music threads my visible presence would be relatively negligible, but I check in here most days just to see what's going on and I would miss OTF hugely if it were to disappear. I'd be perfectly happy to contribute towards the running costs - a monthly sum would be preferable to an annual subscription - and I agree with the consensus that this should not be mandatory. I initially found OTF through WSC but although I haven't purchased the latter for many years (or any other magazines for that matter) I think it would be good to preserve at least a token link between the two as a nod to the past.

    Leave a comment:


  • 1974ddr
    replied
    Originally posted by Jobi1 View Post

    I've been locked into a sub deal for I think at least 20 years that sees me pay even less than that, which made me feel slightly guilty and is why I was happy to join the WSC Supporters Club when they launched that last year. It all starts to add up, but I'm sure I could find another couple of quid a month to direct towards this.
    Me too, and me too. And me too.
    Also echo E10's comment above.

    Leave a comment:


  • E10 Rifle
    replied
    I've only just seen this. I'd chip in a monthly amount, and wouldn't be averse - maybe cos I've just got used to it at the Guardian - to a more upfront begging-bowl approach being splattered all over the site. Preferable to ads and to mandatory subs.

    Leave a comment:


  • Greenlander
    replied
    Originally posted by Jobi1 View Post

    I've been locked into a sub deal for I think at least 20 years that sees me pay even less than that, which made me feel slightly guilty and is why I was happy to join the WSC Supporters Club when they launched that last year. It all starts to add up, but I'm sure I could find another couple of quid a month to direct towards this.
    I'm on the same deal, so joined the Supporters Club on the same premise.

    Personally I'd balance my contributions between the two (sorry WSC), so while I guess not everyone here is in the WSC club could membership also confer a percentage towards OTF.

    Or, and a big ask, but WSC manage the funds as they do now but give the option of supporters club membership including a percentage towards the upkeep of OTF or offer a subscription towards the running of the board but a percentage goes towards WSC. I don't know how these things actually work, but maybe even a sliding scale so the individial can balance their contributions between the two.

    Keeps the historical links as well.



    Leave a comment:

Working...
X