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

[Kathy Olson <kathy@thekrib.com>]

minus 60, that looks bad...

On Wed, 4 Oct 2006, Larry Lampert wrote:

> 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