Announcement Change Is Here!
- Thread starter theRKF
- Start date
I thought that happened already.
Oh, wait, something else was being flung... my mistake.
CarverFlowers
Well-Known Member
I'm thinking soap opera. When I used to watch those things, I used to think -- "never in real life could things unfold like this." WRONG!
Ryan
I can understand charging for the Community Chat, but going from Free to $100 a year for a single subscriber seems like a big increase. I'm not sure at this time if I'm going to continue.
I'm sure with less advertising, and businesses spending less, you have fewer dollars coming in and still working the hours. We're all there, so I have to think about the $100 yrly fee.
I haven't read all the members comments, but the one that stands out is " who will be left"
So many members are so knowledgeable and creative and have helped me several times. I truely appreciate all of their expertise and hope I have contributed as much.
Having expert known knowledgeable contacts on the "new chat" sounds interesting, but the floral designer members, that have been designing for years and years, have such a creative gift would be comparable to the "expert" in my opinion.
I can understand charging for the Community Chat, but going from Free to $100 a year for a single subscriber seems like a big increase. I'm not sure at this time if I'm going to continue.
I'm sure with less advertising, and businesses spending less, you have fewer dollars coming in and still working the hours. We're all there, so I have to think about the $100 yrly fee.
I haven't read all the members comments, but the one that stands out is " who will be left"
So many members are so knowledgeable and creative and have helped me several times. I truely appreciate all of their expertise and hope I have contributed as much.
Having expert known knowledgeable contacts on the "new chat" sounds interesting, but the floral designer members, that have been designing for years and years, have such a creative gift would be comparable to the "expert" in my opinion.
Joe Mioux
Well-Known Member
if you really want to know, lets talk in private. This thread isn't the place for an explanation.
you can call me or email me.
thanks Joe
Let me ask a question.......How many of you all recall when we first started seeing D'OG advertisements appear in banners in and around FlowerChat.com? How many of you hollered when we saw advertisements for ProFlowers in our beloved FlowerChat? How many deemed it a worthy expense to not see those D'OG ads? That cost was 100.00 a year - and it was automatically recurring till I convinced Ryan to make a non-recurring option. You could also choose a monthy re-curring option as well.
Folks, guess what - for those of us who gladly spent the money to stop the D'OG ads ARE NOT SPENDING ANY MORE DOLLARS.......IT IS THE SAME AMOUNT !!!!!!
Now, As Eric S. so succcintly stated........when it comes time for me to re-new ( since I did NOT choose the recurring option ) ...... Ryan and company will have one year to show me what my 100 dollars is getting.
Now.......let me ask some more questions....
1) How many of us start the day with a cup of coffee purchased somewhere on the way to open the shop. Depending on your likes, You'll spend anywhere from 50 cents at Hardee's ( senior discount rate ) to well over 3.00 at Starbucks.
2) How many of us at some point during the day stop and grab a soda and maybe a package of snack crackers during an exceptionally busy day and we see we just won't have time to stop and eat a proper lunch? Or send out the driver out to pick up some sandwiches, or maybe a burger for us.....and we alternate between taking a bite of our burger and poking some flowers?
3) How many of us on the way home are way to dog tired to go home and cook dinner or supper and decide to stop off someplace and let somebody else do the cooking?
My point is............100 dollars sounds like a lot of money............but if you think about all the other ways we spend hundreds of dollars - it really is not that much after all.
Folks, guess what - for those of us who gladly spent the money to stop the D'OG ads ARE NOT SPENDING ANY MORE DOLLARS.......IT IS THE SAME AMOUNT !!!!!!
Now, As Eric S. so succcintly stated........when it comes time for me to re-new ( since I did NOT choose the recurring option ) ...... Ryan and company will have one year to show me what my 100 dollars is getting.
Now.......let me ask some more questions....
1) How many of us start the day with a cup of coffee purchased somewhere on the way to open the shop. Depending on your likes, You'll spend anywhere from 50 cents at Hardee's ( senior discount rate ) to well over 3.00 at Starbucks.
2) How many of us at some point during the day stop and grab a soda and maybe a package of snack crackers during an exceptionally busy day and we see we just won't have time to stop and eat a proper lunch? Or send out the driver out to pick up some sandwiches, or maybe a burger for us.....and we alternate between taking a bite of our burger and poking some flowers?
3) How many of us on the way home are way to dog tired to go home and cook dinner or supper and decide to stop off someplace and let somebody else do the cooking?
My point is............100 dollars sounds like a lot of money............but if you think about all the other ways we spend hundreds of dollars - it really is not that much after all.
Ryan
Have you considered "trial memberships" Say a 6 month for $25 or something like that. You have mentioned extra content, better audience, keynote known speakers in the industry.
I would just like to try it out before I would consider paying $100 for the year and then finding out I have to pay for all these extras in addition.
Have you considered "trial memberships" Say a 6 month for $25 or something like that. You have mentioned extra content, better audience, keynote known speakers in the industry.
I would just like to try it out before I would consider paying $100 for the year and then finding out I have to pay for all these extras in addition.
BOSS
FlowerChat Administrator
Ya know... it just hit me...
We have been talking and talking and talking for years about wanting it different. About taking our freaking industry back! We have talked how we want this, and how we want that, we have talked about not liking what SAF does or at least how they do it, or what FTD does/did/isgonnado. We have heard endless stories about bad directories, crappy websites (and awesome ones too) and 800F horrors. We have almost begged Teleflora to do it different. They have the perfect opportunity in the perfect storm, but they ar very afraid to move first. (my opinion of course)
What I am hearing is that ya'll just want to continue b i t c h i n g about it, and not put your money where your mouth is. Frankly we have gotten no where. Well I for one am ready to put in what ever I have to to make this industry something my children can continue. Honestly.
I'm sorry if that offends anyone.
Another thing I'm hearing, is that you have a right to all your content, but I wonder why it's not worth $100.00 to you. I do understand, and I would sincerely like to hear of anyone that truly can not gather $20 by the EOM. I'll flip ya $20.
If we had come forward with this plan and asked for opinions, we would have got exactly what we got. I know it and you know it. And we knew it going in. The point is if we had come forward, it would have been debated and still nothing would get accomplished. It's d a m n time to accomplish something.
I know many of you have access and post on Flowersandcent.org, Harley runs a good ship. I did not see the need to continue this there. Or here for that matter.
Whatever...
We have been talking and talking and talking for years about wanting it different. About taking our freaking industry back! We have talked how we want this, and how we want that, we have talked about not liking what SAF does or at least how they do it, or what FTD does/did/isgonnado. We have heard endless stories about bad directories, crappy websites (and awesome ones too) and 800F horrors. We have almost begged Teleflora to do it different. They have the perfect opportunity in the perfect storm, but they ar very afraid to move first. (my opinion of course)
What I am hearing is that ya'll just want to continue b i t c h i n g about it, and not put your money where your mouth is. Frankly we have gotten no where. Well I for one am ready to put in what ever I have to to make this industry something my children can continue. Honestly.
I'm sorry if that offends anyone.
Another thing I'm hearing, is that you have a right to all your content, but I wonder why it's not worth $100.00 to you. I do understand, and I would sincerely like to hear of anyone that truly can not gather $20 by the EOM. I'll flip ya $20.
If we had come forward with this plan and asked for opinions, we would have got exactly what we got. I know it and you know it. And we knew it going in. The point is if we had come forward, it would have been debated and still nothing would get accomplished. It's d a m n time to accomplish something.
I know many of you have access and post on Flowersandcent.org, Harley runs a good ship. I did not see the need to continue this there. Or here for that matter.
Whatever...
Thank you!
We have done a poor, poor job of letting members know how much their businesses have gained not just inside the forum, but from the quality links to their sites freely given over the years. Keeping up the gallery, reviewing the directory submission and hand-adding the listings to the RF blog has all been done for members for free.
Why? Because we knew they would all help you build traffic to your flower shop websites.
To Mocha Rose: Did you ever book a wedding based on traffic from your image in the FC Gallery, which is #1 for its keywords? If so, IMO you are crazy to remove that photo. My guess is it's position is worth many times the cost of being an FC member. We've had more than 27 million views in the gallery - and many of those were from search engine traffic.
We have worked hard to make FC an authority site and many of you have seen a link from the FC Directory in your Google Local atrribution lists. It's because the site has quality content on the consumer-facing side. Again, that was by design - to maximize exposure for real local florists.
Like I said, we've done a lousy job of explaining the value of the past benefits and their real market value - which is far more than $100/year.
holland1
Member
- Jul 21, 2009
- 22
- 34
- 13
- State / Prov
- NL
After wading through all of the posts in this thread on the announced new fee for access to FC, it strikes me that Joe Mioux's suggestion about maintaining free access to old threads is a very reasonable way to address the concerns some participants have raised about their supposed "intellectual property" in the contributions they have made to FC over the past seven years. Prior to the announced change, contributors to FC made posts on the assumption that the forum is freely accessible to all members who have been admitted to the community. It's easy to understand why they may react so strongly when suddenly faced with the prospect that they will have to pay for access to the very content that they had a hand in creating.
It would be most unfortunate if the decision to impose a fee for future access to FC gives rise to a destructive legal debate over who has "intellectual property" rights to the old content. At the same time, the decision to charge a fee for access to future content is entirely reasonable. As many contributors to this thread have noted, there are very real costs involved in maintaining the forum. It is also reasonable that Ryan and his colleagues at Strider derive some profit from the investment they have made in building FC. Let the market dictate what future membership is worth. I for one wholeheartedly agree that $100 is a worthwhile investment for the direct economic benefit that I receive from FC and I'm willing to pay.
How difficult would it be, from a technical perspective, to establish a read-only archive of the existing threads, accessible to any present member, regardless whether they pay the new fee to gain access to future threads and the promised "premium content"? If there is some cost associated with maintaining and hosting such an archive, people should be prepared to pay a nominal fee to cover these costs even if they are not prepared to pay for access to new content. However, I suspect that many of those who have raised objections-in-principle to the supposed appropriation of their alleged intellectual property in past threads, will gladly pay the new fee for future access to FC when they see the great value it provides on an ongoing basis.
The acrimony and innuendo that is evident in some of the posts made in this thread is most unfortunate and contrary to the spirit of community that makes FC such a worthwhile forum. A clear distinction should be maintained between what Ryan has announced with regard to the new annual fee and his comments about possible new projects, whatever these might be. He has every right to withhold the details about his planned future projects until such time as he sees fit to go public to invite invite others to invest in these projects. What he is offering at the present time is a fee-for-service community forum for professional florists and others with an interest in the floral trade. This is completely separate from these other unspecified future projects.
John Frecker
Holland Nurseries
St. John's NL
It would be most unfortunate if the decision to impose a fee for future access to FC gives rise to a destructive legal debate over who has "intellectual property" rights to the old content. At the same time, the decision to charge a fee for access to future content is entirely reasonable. As many contributors to this thread have noted, there are very real costs involved in maintaining the forum. It is also reasonable that Ryan and his colleagues at Strider derive some profit from the investment they have made in building FC. Let the market dictate what future membership is worth. I for one wholeheartedly agree that $100 is a worthwhile investment for the direct economic benefit that I receive from FC and I'm willing to pay.
How difficult would it be, from a technical perspective, to establish a read-only archive of the existing threads, accessible to any present member, regardless whether they pay the new fee to gain access to future threads and the promised "premium content"? If there is some cost associated with maintaining and hosting such an archive, people should be prepared to pay a nominal fee to cover these costs even if they are not prepared to pay for access to new content. However, I suspect that many of those who have raised objections-in-principle to the supposed appropriation of their alleged intellectual property in past threads, will gladly pay the new fee for future access to FC when they see the great value it provides on an ongoing basis.
The acrimony and innuendo that is evident in some of the posts made in this thread is most unfortunate and contrary to the spirit of community that makes FC such a worthwhile forum. A clear distinction should be maintained between what Ryan has announced with regard to the new annual fee and his comments about possible new projects, whatever these might be. He has every right to withhold the details about his planned future projects until such time as he sees fit to go public to invite invite others to invest in these projects. What he is offering at the present time is a fee-for-service community forum for professional florists and others with an interest in the floral trade. This is completely separate from these other unspecified future projects.
John Frecker
Holland Nurseries
St. John's NL
BTW - I just checked logs for last year and we received a few hundred dollars in online orders via direct links from the FC gallery. Even at 50% call vs online (and we all know the B&M rate is more call vs online), the link had value. Far better return ROI than many of the so-called 'florist directories'.
Joe Mioux
Well-Known Member
Mark, who says what you want for this industry is the same thing that others want.
No one elected you leader, that is a self imposed appointment.
If a florist wants to be in a ws fine, if they do not fine also. If a person wants to be a part of SAF that is also fine, but for you to imply that these organizations are the root of all that is bad in this industry is incorrect. Do I like the idea that Og's exist? No. but its competition. Look around your own town. CVS and walgreens have replaced mom and pop drug stores, Best buy and Ultimate electronics have replaced the local appliance stores. TV repairmen barely exist anymore. and then there is Walmart. All of these examples are similar to what we as florists have to deal with when we see OG's come to town (our local phone books).
This is a forum for florists to discuss stuff, nothing more nothing less.
This whole paid forum thing is more than just covering the costs of operating it and if you want to start a new floral alliance, then you should have told the members that from the beginning. However, you chose to keep that part of your plan secret until now. If you want to form an association you need to establish it with all the legal processes and from our conversations and from your post here I have seen no plan. I am not giving anyone a $100 without knowing the direction and goals of an association, especially if the new alliance has not even been legally established. There are legal ramifications for an assn and ramifications for its actions if something or someone is damaged. I sure do not want to be a part of that without knowing if certain protections are in place to protect its members.
I would not want to be a part of a lawsuit brought on by the actions of an assn without proper protections in place.
Well I have said enough about that.
I can't believe you just said what I highlighted in bold text!
It's the authors' property and now that property is being taken away from us (Unless you give all current members access to archived threads).
Your comments sound like extortion to me; "we will give you your property back once you pay us $100 per year." I don't think you want FC members to think of you that way.
Mark, when you and I spoke, you said you wanted to create unity because we are so fragmented as an industry. I disagree. Your actions have accomplished the opposite. Your goals for unity are backfiring.
Joe Mioux
Well-Known Member
Sorry Cathy, but if this was so important, Ryan would have included it in his opening post.
You have a gift for turning a phrase, but if this was so significant, why didn't you post it earlier.
Now with that said, I am not denying what you claim is false. It probably has helped some sites. How do I measure the worth of that part of this forum on my own website?
I really am interested in knowing.
holland1
Member
- Jul 21, 2009
- 22
- 34
- 13
- State / Prov
- NL
Joe, your're raising two different points in your reply to Mark and the debate is in danger of getting bogged down on your concerns about supposed hidden agenda of the people on FC who feel there is a need for some sort of new floral alliance. The first point, which you raised in your earlier post, suggesting establishment of an archive of old FC content that remains accessible to current members who may elect not to join the paid forum, may get lost if we get derailed on a discussion about what sort of new floral alliance there should be and and how such an alliance might come into existence.
I agree with your point : "If a florist wants to be in a ws fine, if they do not fine also. If a person wants to be a part of SAF that is also fine". But your concern that Mark, Ryan and Co. are pushing a different agenda with regard to establishment of a new floral alliance may be premature. Even if that is their ultimate goal, the money anyone pays to join FC on a go-forward basis in no way commits that person to supporting any of the unspecified projects that may be in the offing. The immediate question with respect to the fee that is now being charged is whether FC as an online forum for persons with an interest in the flower business provides sufficient value to warrant an investment of $100. Every individual's take on that will differ and we can choose to join or not. Meanwhile, we should not lose sight of your other suggestion, which is to leave the present content of old threads open to anyone who has has been legitimately admitted as a member of the previous free forum.
Mark's comment that "we will give you your property back once you pay us the $100 per year" sounds pretty aggressive when it is read in isolation, but I am inclined to look at it simply as an example of Mark's forceful way of expressing his opinions rather than some form of "extortion" as you suggest.
One of the reasons that FC generates such lively discussion is that participants express strong opinions. But you are right to sound the warning that over-heated rhetoric may fragment the industry further at a time when we need to be more united than ever.
I agree with your point : "If a florist wants to be in a ws fine, if they do not fine also. If a person wants to be a part of SAF that is also fine". But your concern that Mark, Ryan and Co. are pushing a different agenda with regard to establishment of a new floral alliance may be premature. Even if that is their ultimate goal, the money anyone pays to join FC on a go-forward basis in no way commits that person to supporting any of the unspecified projects that may be in the offing. The immediate question with respect to the fee that is now being charged is whether FC as an online forum for persons with an interest in the flower business provides sufficient value to warrant an investment of $100. Every individual's take on that will differ and we can choose to join or not. Meanwhile, we should not lose sight of your other suggestion, which is to leave the present content of old threads open to anyone who has has been legitimately admitted as a member of the previous free forum.
Mark's comment that "we will give you your property back once you pay us the $100 per year" sounds pretty aggressive when it is read in isolation, but I am inclined to look at it simply as an example of Mark's forceful way of expressing his opinions rather than some form of "extortion" as you suggest.
One of the reasons that FC generates such lively discussion is that participants express strong opinions. But you are right to sound the warning that over-heated rhetoric may fragment the industry further at a time when we need to be more united than ever.
BOSS
FlowerChat Administrator
I'm not in charge, and I doubt that what I really want is what everyone else wants, but I do know there are shops failing every day and that change must occur otherwise many, many more will do the same.
Agreed, and I would never tell someone else what they should do. My position is to point out the obvious, and allow others to decide what their future will encompass. Joe, I am a paid member of SAF.
Past tense.
That will be up to the membership going forward. I have never kept *my agenda* a secret, and you know it. The comment expressed in my post was mine, not Ryan's (he believes in wire services) and it's the same stance I have held for 5 years or more.
Agreed.
You know from personally talking to me that this is under consideration.
Not at all, and your quote above is your typing and not what I said.
MY goals for unity in the floral industry have nothing to do with, nor are they based on the changes at FlowerChat. They are principles I have held since the days of Bad Bobby. Like you I am a lifer in this game, and it's time to turn the tables, and get a new deck of cards. I'm sorry if you think my personal agenda is somehow connected to Ryan's change in FlowerChat, that is not the case, I held this agenda before FlowerChat even existed, and have never hidden that fact from anyone.
Joe Mioux
Well-Known Member
I know i shouldn't have used quotes with the above statement, I should have said to paraphrase what you are suggesting......
However, with that said, Mark, the implication of closing access of one's own written words, articles and ideas in the archived threads unless one pays the $100 fee is a form of extortion.
I really hope you and the other two find a solution.
Do you want to use some of the money raised with the new forum to form a new association? alliance? lobby? etc?
and did you clearly state that early on in this thread?
joe
However, with that said, Mark, the implication of closing access of one's own written words, articles and ideas in the archived threads unless one pays the $100 fee is a form of extortion.
I really hope you and the other two find a solution.
Do you want to use some of the money raised with the new forum to form a new association? alliance? lobby? etc?
and did you clearly state that early on in this thread?
joe
steve
Well-Known Member
I am not suprised at the fact that many would not want to pay the $100.00 I am surprised by who some of that many turned out to be. Since my coming into this industry 16 years ago I have found that most florist spend very little in marketing to grow their business we are in trouble as an idustry because we do a lousey job of promoting it and we as a group are to cheap to invest in it. I know there was a time many moons ago that a florist could open there doors for almost nothing today that is not the case. Most here invested 1000s to open there doors you had the guts to do that but $100.00 is scareing you silly!!! And lastly some people no matter what you do just like to argue and fight and frankly nothing will ever please those people and that is very sad to say but it be the facts.
BOSS
FlowerChat Administrator
Short answer, NO.
Should such an endeavor be undertaken, it would be up to the individuals involved to form and fund such an organization. I am more interested in effecting change in the current model than I am in building a complete new one.