Re: [AGA-sc] Fw: [AGA-conheads] Projections

[Cheryl Rogers <cheryl@wilstream.com>]

Okay, but I still don't get it. It was their rule. GWAPA made it up in 
2004 and they adopted it. Now they want to change it, because they are 
too lame to actually attempt advertising and promotion. I don't think we 
should. It won't bring that many more registrants. It will create more 
hassle than it's worth.

Cheryl



S. Hieber wrote:
> Folks that were SFBAAPS members didn't have to become AGA members to reg for 
> the convention. This policy was the same as prior conventions. But we didn't 
> want folks signing up with SFBAAPS just to get a cheap membership and reg for 
> the convention, so there was a cut off date, after which and AGA membership 
> is required to reg. The suggestion being made by Jim is that we allow newer 
> members at SFBAAPS to reg without becoming AGA members. 
> 
> Actually, it could make sense for AGA short-term financially, as would 
> dropping the membership requirement altogether for that matter. However, and 
> it's a big however, some folks already got AGA members because they had to 
> for the convention -- so there are refunds to consider and how do we 
> adjudicate who merits a refund? It is possible that refunds could exceed the 
> value of the additional regs we get -- who knows since there's no way to 
> discern the appropriate amount of refudns. And another big however is that 
> our policy on the membership requirement wasn't short-term financially based, 
> so the arguments about possible short-term financial gains might not be 
> particularly relevent.
> 
> I have to wonder if, $20 is a signifiant break point in the demand for 
> convention regs -- undoubtedly the market is price sensitive. But if we 
> wanted to use price sentitivity to increase regs it would probalby make more 
> sense to drop the reg price to say $34 and still require membership rather 
> than drop the cost for new SFBAAPS members only.
> 
> sh
> 
> ----- Original Message ----
> From: Cheryl Rogers <cheryl@wilstream.com>
> To: Aquatic Gardeners Association Board <aga-sc@thekrib.com>
> Sent: Tuesday, October 3, 2006 9:49:56 PM
> Subject: Re: [AGA-sc] Fw: [AGA-conheads] Projections
> 
> 
> This is what I don't get. What is he talking about. SFBAAPS members were 
> already grandfathered.
> 
> Cheryl
> 
> _______________________________________________
> 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