[MR] re: Value of membership (long post) (fwd)

[Craig Levin]

Luce:

(As promised, the second part)

> 2) Is it fair to impose a surcharge to attend events on non-members?
> Organizations hosting events that are open to the public do this every day.
> Companies impose price differentials on goods and services every day based
> on memberships in "frequent buyers clubs."  Museums and zoos give ticket
> price breaks to members (even though both members and non-members are seeing
> the same exhibit).  I have never seen a customer or attendee yet say they
> won't pay because as a non-member they must pay more.  People accept the
> notion that "membership has its privileges" and that among these may be a
> reduction in the fees you have to pay.  Usually if a non-member refuses to
> pay an entry fee, it is because the entry fee itself (with or without the
> "surcharge" or "discount") is too high.

Or, perhaps, because the place where the surcharge is headed to is
something they dislike. Also, as my mom used to put it, "If all
your friends jumped off Navy Pier, would you?" 

As a museum member, I also get invitations to special events, I
get a discount at the museum's stores (note, not at the vendors
who're independently owned), and better parking. As an SCA
member, I get the chance to volunteer-which I do, and two
periodicals.

> It says a lot about the SCA that so
> many of its members are so concerned about being financially accessible to
> everyone.  But I don't think that a $3 price differential is all that much.
> Events are a weekend (or at least a day) filled with activities and
> entertainments, usually for less than $7 per person, per day. (Most events
> on the Atlantian calendar were less than $16, and the more expensive events
> were multi-day camping events). Seven dollars is about the cost of 2 to 5
> beers in a bar (depending on how cheap you like your beer), and is less than
> the price of a movie ticket in most areas. I defy you to find better bang
> for your entertainment buck.  Even at $10, the price is still pretty cheap.
> Considering the outlay in food, fabric, rattan, armor, etc., that most folks
> make in gearing up for an event, the actual site fee pales in comparison.
> If we want to make sure we are financially accessible to students and other
> financially challenged individuals, there are numerous other ways to address
> that issue. Generosity, as was suggested by one gentle, is a great idea.

To some extent, I'll admit that my concern is financial. I
remember purchasing $1.00 per yard cotton cloth and making a
t-tunic from it that, until Devora had me toss the dear old
thing, I wore for years. I spent two bucks there. I already owned
the sweatpants. I can't fight due to a history of seizures, so
nada on anything related to heavy fighting. I was getting to be a
lousy poet then (grin), so I'll toss in the price of a notebook.
My feast gear was ten bucks. The boots that I bought then (1990)
and still wear now were a massive investment on my part, then, at
eighty bucks; however, they weren't just for SCA use.

The surcharge alone overtops what my first tunic cost. :-)

> I believe we need to do everything we can to keep event prices down, but
> this is an issue that is wholly unrelated to the "non-member
> whatchawannacallit."  Event prices are set based on feasts, site fees,
> equipment rentals.  All of those costs go up if there are more people.

But there's more folks to spread the weight around.

> Because we do permit attendance to non-members, more people come.  And the
> site fee covers the cost of their attendance at events.  But the only money
> that supports our corporate identity currently comes from our membership
> fees.  Like it or not, our corporate identity allows this game to be played
> with a level of sophistication that would be impossible otherwise.

I don't think that the corporation, per se, has all that much to
do with our identification as a subculture. Rather, the game
spread by word of mouth and by fanzines carrying descriptions of
demos. It's perpetuated by our migration from one land to
another, by the big wars, and by mailing lists/newsgroups like
this one.

> THere
> are thus people playing our game who are not monetarily supporting the
> unseen infrastructure of that game, namely, the corporate identity. Playing
> the game is its own reward, and choosing membership is my way of saying I
> believe in this dream and want to support its perpetuation on the national
> level.  If you are not playing regularly, you are only coming to one or two
> events a year.  You're also probably not getting much more out of the game
> than a good time for a day, and the existence of a $3 member discount won't
> likely affect your level of participation.  If you are playing this game in
> a committed fashion (attending events regularly, autocratting, fighting,
> whatever) and you are not a member, then you are reaping the benefits of the
> sophistication of the game while allowing people like me to shoulder the
> financial burden of our corporate identity for you.  Is that fair?

People who haven't sent away their Milpitas tithes can't
autocrat. Also, one wonders just how much of a burden the
non-members are, really, when the biggest expenses are member
bennies-remember, insurance isn't the biggest cost to the
corporation.

In Service,

Dom Pedro de Alcazar
Barony of Storvik, Atlantia
Drakkar Herald
Argent a tower purpure between 3 bunches of grapes proper

-- 
http://pages.ripco.net/~clevin/index.html 
clevin at rci.ripco.com
Craig Levin				Librarians Rule: Oook!