Re: [AGA-sc] Foreign vs US Memberships -- 2nd Draft

["S. Hieber" <shieber@yahoo.com>]

Yes, including ad revs shouldn't even be an issue and I apologize for my 
mistake to not include them in the analysis originally. It was a very good 
thing that Cheryl caught the error and pointed it out.
 
It's worth noting, I think, that local TAG memberships are not breaking even 
without the ad revs, local TAG memberships are just a little better than 
breaking when factoring in the ad revs. Close to break even is how I think it 
should be, which is why I altered my positon after seeing Cheryl's post. And 
this reminds us how crucial ad revs our to the vitality of TAG. Tag is a going 
concern because of the subsidy from ad revs and foreign memberships. I'm very 
uncomfortable with that situation and again, I'm grateful to Cheryl for having 
raised the issue re foreign memberships and fairness. It was insightful to have 
seen the inequity the rest of us had missed.
 
sh

----- Original Message ----
From: Karen Randall <krandall@rdrcpa.biz>
To: Aquatic Gardeners Association Board <aga-sc@thekrib.com>
Sent: Monday, May 29, 2006 6:10:56 PM
Subject: Re: [AGA-sc] Foreign vs US Memberships -- 2nd Draft


I agree completely.

I think we should ONLY be considering raising dues if dues PLUS advertising 
doesn't cover TAG.  Otherwise, we are "stealing" editorial pages from the 
membes to use for advertisements to fund...?

Karen

----- Original Message ----- 
From: "Cheryl Rogers" <cheryl@wilstream.com>
To: "Aquatic Gardeners Association Board" <aga-sc@thekrib.com>
Sent: Monday, May 29, 2006 9:29 AM
Subject: Re: [AGA-sc] Foreign vs US Memberships -- 2nd Draft


> waitaminutewaitaminutewaitaminute. The reason we started accepting
> advertising was so that we could produce TAG in color without raising
> membership dues. Now we have discovered that the membership dues
> *almost* covers TAG production, without considering the advertising?
>
> I think TAG should be paying its own way, but that includes revenues
> from advertising also.
>
> Cheryl
>
>
>
> S. Hieber wrote:
>> Note the I haven't forgotten to take allocated revenues into 
>> consideration, it's just that the amount for TAG is inconsequential.
>>
>>
>> ----- Original Message ----
>> From: S. Hieber <shieber@yahoo.com>
>> To: Aquatic Gardeners Association Board <aga-sc@thekrib.com>
>> Sent: Sunday, May 28, 2006 2:50:38 PM
>> Subject: Re: [AGA-sc] Foreign vs US Memberships -- 2nd Draft
>>
>>
>> Now that I had a chance to look up in my archive of money files at home, 
>> I've determined that my original off-the-cuff estimate of the overheads 
>> was very low. The actual overheads for the last full year, on an 
>> allocated basis, are much higher, over $3 per one year TAG membership, or 
>> about $0.80 per issue based on 2005.
>>
>> So I revised the spreadsheet, cleaned up a few things, and added a couple 
>> columns to show the impact of the allcoated overheads and the 1-year 
>> pricing, actual and recommended.
>>
>> So, I'd recomend dropping about $5 per year off of the Foreign membership 
>> and adding $3 to the local. That doesn't quite balance things but it's 
>> much closer.
>>
>> sh
> _______________________________________________
> AGA-sc mailing list
> AGA-sc@thekrib.com
> http://lists.thekrib.com/mailman/listinfo/aga-sc
> 


_______________________________________________
AGA-sc mailing list
AGA-sc@thekrib.com
http://lists.thekrib.com/mailman/listinfo/aga-sc
_______________________________________________
AGA-sc mailing list
AGA-sc@thekrib.com
http://lists.thekrib.com/mailman/listinfo/aga-sc