90p Admin

Still looking at and thinking about our OASIS group. My opinion sways back and forth on what level of fee to charge in year 2 and for new members --- and presently I'm leaning more toward a higher fee based largely on the fact that we have an already organized and highly functional group. That deserves a premium. I don't think we should become a refuge for partners who suddenly wake up and discover that their lack of planning leaves them with very few resources. If we do that we may have a group of 250 with shallow participation and skills. The last thing we want is to undercharge and attract a bunch of incompetent people who are leaning on the group for support.

Wayne you are right. Have you looked at the stats on the current oasis members to see if they are contributing at all?

How can we differentiate someone who is incompetent and who is not? Do we have a screening process? I think the higher fee will keep a certain element out because the people that won't see the value are exactly the ones that won't want to pay and won't contribute. The partners that I've spoken to have never questioned the current fees. All of the above is opinions / anecdotal so take it for what it is.

@MarkChinsky - some are, some aren't. The same could be said of full 90 Minds members too though. Should we get rid of the deadbeats? Personally, I'm ok with having lurkers that contribute once every great while. I would also be easily swayed to get rid of them too. No strong opinion there.

We have weeded the 90Minds garden in the past. I think the herd will thin a bit more when the upcoming fee is accessed. Yes, not everybody lives to post here, but if you aren't making a minimal contribution, then the doorway of opportunity should be closed.

I can definitely understand that approach. Isn't there something to be said for the non-contributors subsidizing shared activities and software licenses though? If we shift MoM (Meeting of the Minds) to MoO (Meeting of OASIS), attendees will have some of their fees, costs spread among the folks that don't want to join in, right? Same applies for shared software licenses, web site fees, etc.

Good food for thought - What are we really trying to do here? Monitize the brand or get people to participate. By getting group partcipation up, we naturally will have more resources to do more things with. But to me, the key is participation. We've opened OASIS up to competitors which I can live with if the competitors participate by sharing their knowledge. If they are going to lurk (as measured by the number of posts, then they aren't adding value and I don't think they have any reason to belong even if they pay.

Raising the fee in the 2nd year and beyond for new sign ups is a good idea. In theory we will have built something of greater value for them to join. I don't think the real purpose is to monetize the brand, but with additional funds we could do some things that benefit the group as a whole. Participation is the key.

Good points -- I'm thinking of OASIS being much more a training ground for full 90 Minds members. Broadly thinking out loud -- we'd expect new 90 Minds members to spend a year at OASIS and if active could move to 90 Minds and if not (insert option here but most likely stay OASIS). My thinking is on the OASIS side we make it more expensive -- maybe in the $1,000 and up range for first year --- so that we weed out the tire kickers. Heck we have this group going well and can consider the initial OASIS part of the ""beta"". We went into this knowing that maybe something like 10% would actually become active participants. My thoughts are make it even more expensive to gain access since we have created a working ""ecosystem"" for support and we don't want to bring in people who are going to lurk -- especially if they're competitors. However if we're charging $1,000 to $2,000 to get in - I'm not sure I care as much if a competitor is lurking but I could be convinced otherwise. All thinking out loud ...

I'm in agreement with Wayne's line of thinking on this.

I definitely think we need to add a participation level into our membership requirements. (100 post a year) We have metrics in socialcast to determine this.

@JimWoodhead There was a good point that oasis members don't have exclusive territories, so if somebody is a 'lurker' but shelling out say $1k/year, who cares? Key is, we need to use the $1k to upgrade to top shelf liquor at our meetings :-)

I agree with Mark on this - if the lurkers are going to spend $$$ to be a member, we need to find smart ways to use the funds to benefit the group. Any benefits will typically reward active members more than lurkers so it's their choice.

I total agree with that @MarkChinsky. But our goal is collaboration not to make money. I think participation should be rewarded.

I am also planning for the day when Sage asks to participate and I tell them $5,000 per month ... and get it .... I'm only half serious. When we are at 150 people there will be a good chance they'll get real interested...

And... re: the collaboration issue ... the key is to have collaborators - which we do - so the next goal is to find good candidates for the 90 Minds group. OASIS members can stay in OASIS and keep paying dues and not collaborating as far as I care. The good ones will become full 90 Minds members.

The other thing about having a bigger group is that we can form informal consensus among members. Not sure how we would use this but it could become a necessary bargaining chip if Sage starts / continues to head for the rocks.