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

[Kathy Olson <kathy@thekrib.com>]

yes we booked until tues...

On Wed, 4 Oct 2006, Larry Lampert wrote:

> Yeah, and I have a couple of people who booked after
> Sunday. I am going to have to talk to the hotel again.
> I will report back to you guys.
>
> Regards,
> Larry
>
> --- Erik Olson <erik@thekrib.com> wrote:
>
>> Another thing...  only two people booked rooms
>> Sunday night?  That seems
>> very odd, like they still aren't counting a bunch of
>> people.
>>
>>    - Erik
>>
>> 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
>>>>
>>>
>>
>> --
>> Erik Olson
>> erik at thekrib dot com
>> _______________________________________________
>> 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