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

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

Because, it if does, we had better get it knocked back down to 115 or we're 
never going to reach it.

sh

----- Original Message ----
From: S. Hieber <shieber@yahoo.com>
To: Aquatic Gardeners Association Board <aga-sc@thekrib.com>
Sent: Wednesday, October 4, 2006 11:15:08 AM
Subject: Re: [AGA-sc] Fw: [AGA-conheads] Projections


Thanks. How did we get bumped up on Fri and sat nights to 61 roomnights. That 
doesn't affect our threshold, right?

sh

* * * * * * * * * 
The deadline is Oct 12 for getting the special Convention room rate!

Read about the Aquatic Gardeners Association Convention at 
http://www.aquatic-gardeners.org/convention.html


----- Original Message ----
From: Larry Lampert <l_lampert@yahoo.com>
To: Aquatic Gardeners Association Board <aga-sc@thekrib.com>
Sent: Wednesday, October 4, 2006 10:16:55 AM
Subject: Re: [AGA-sc] Fw: [AGA-conheads] Projections


I have attached our latest Hotel reservation pickup
list. I still have not made our speaker reservations
which I need to do this week. That will bump it up a
little more.

Larry

--- "S. Hieber" <shieber@yahoo.com> 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

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