The donate and subscribe options are all a bit like a book club where you cannot choose individual 'books', you get sent the books the club choose. I am not sure of the unintended consequences of option 4, but at first sight that looks most agreeable to me.

I would prefer a yearly subscription fee. We want people to look at our pictures and we want comments, don’t we? What about a system which don’t put a price on viewing and commenting, but on posting pictures? $20 a year for posting up to one picture a week, $50 for posting two pictures a week and $100 for posting up to seven pictures a week?

It may be difficult to get someone to pay for something they don’t know what is. Perhaps new members could get a free trial period of one month?

Can you think of anything which would be possible to make (which would work with the system) and which members would pay for? At the Norwegian photo site quite a few people are happy to pay $50 a year just to get a portfolio (design/function ready made – all we have to do is to make catalogues, upload pictures, choose background colours by writing the html codes etc – example http://skilbred.foto.no). Other stuff for those who pay the highest membership fee is email account/address with the name of the photo site included (for me it could be something like caroline@mft.com).

Other things which makes us want to pay the highest fee at the Norwegian site is:

.* Book marking favourite photographers .* Book marking pictures .* Take part in monthly competition .* View pictures full screen view (click on this picture to see how it works: http://foto.no/cgi-bin/bildekritikk/vis_bilde.cgi?id=89427) .* Possibility to post several versions of a picture (look at the link above – there are three thumbnails – the first is my original picture. The other two adjustments made after receiving suggestions from members. A very useful function which makes it possible in an easy way to let everyone see which suggestions work well and which don’t) .* Possibility to make it impossible for members to comment our pictures/ban certain members from commenting on our pictures .* Choose to only see pictures posted by paying members -* Choose to only get comments from paying members .* Not having to explain why we post a picture, what we think of it and what kind of comments we want (those who don’t pay have to sort of “justify” why they post a picture. Quite a lot of those who pay prefer their pictures to be open for interpretation/don’t want to accompany their pictures with text which can influence how the viewer view/interpret the pictures) .* Possibility to post advertisements for used cameras/equipment .* Vote for “The photographer of the Week” (they get their pictures presented at the top of the pages devoted for posting pictures – where the MFT highest rated image is) .* Possibility to recommend pictures (recommended pictures are kept in a special catalogue for about one week – latest recommended picture would be shown the same way as the random pictures at MFT are displayed)

I like your idea about photographic tips, but what about not sending members a DVD but keep the tips at a part of the site which is closed for everyone except those who pay (and perhaps only those who pay a higher fee)? Would probably be cheaper than making and sending DVDs to people.

Are there any photo book and magazine publishers or web shops you could cooperate with? Let them post for example book “reviews” (read: adverts which are a bit more descriptive/neutral than ordinary adverts) on MFT, make it possible for us to buy the books via MFT and give MFT a certain percentage of what we pay for the books/magazines?

I also buy photo equipment from web shops. If prices were competitive I would buy stuff from a shop which cooperated with (read: gave percentages of the profit) to MFT.

What about letting producers of cameras and photo equipment have their own “article section” where they can pay for giving information about their products?

I would also be happy to pay extra for getting the possibility to read really thorough/in depth critique of pictures. Didn’t even have to be pictures by a MFT-member as long as it was really thorough and picking the pictures to bits and pieces. :-)

PS I know I wouldn’t buy MFT merchandise or quality prints (not even if those prints were my 10 favourites among all posted pictures at MFT).

I've also ticked 4 and like Caroline's idea of posting-quantity by value. The shop-inclusion idea may work as well and I've seen this on other web-sites as well.

John, you're right with the "book-shop". That's not my taste.

I am affraid a subscription fee will have a very limiting effect on the number of (new) members; it's just one of those things that isn't really going to work with a website. First year, existing members will pay, but new-member growth will stop, and then everybody will slowly leave...

The really strong point of this site is the community it created. So I am in favor of all things that emphasize that (special products, mft-store, organised photographic trips, workshops, print-of-the-month, pc-wallpaper downloads, whatever can earn some $) and I am against things that would limit growth of the community, like paying for what is free everywhere else... It could then take just 1 new free site to mark the end of the MFT website... these things go fast on the web.

just my $0,02 Lourens

I agree with you John – I wouldn’t want MFT to become a blue print of another site. The examples I give of what could make people want to pay are just examples. Others may have other suggestions/examples – even from web sites where members pay or they may get new ideas by reading how it’s done elsewhere.

I also understand your “social-democratic”-argument and that is exactly why I suggest a very low fee for posting one picture a week and a much higher fee for posting seven pictures a week. In China a shop assistant earns less in a month than a shop assistant in UK earn in a day. In UK (as elsewhere) you have people who don’t have much (people out of work, retired with low pensions, students, people who receive low wages etc). For some it may be just too much to pay 50-60 US dollars a year. So to make it possible for more people to be able to take part I suggest a low fee, a medium fee and a high fee.

If there are different fees (as both you and I suggest) what can be done to make people pay the highest fees (presumed it is necessary to have some paying more to deal with the cost of running the site)? I think you have to tempt people by giving them something extra which those who pay less don’t get.

Next question – we want comments to our pictures and every now and then members write that not enough comments are written on MFT. If you put a price on/make people pay for writing comments I think the only result will be even fewer comments written. I don’t think most people are active on photo sites to get the opportunity to write comments, but they write because they know it won’t be much of a photo site if comments are not written. *lol* You may have the impression that I write comments because I think that’s great fun. It’s not - it’s hard work (and bl***y difficult in English), but I write because I want to read others comments and because I want to give people something back.

I think we all agree that there can never be too many good (!!) or interesting pictures on photo sites and of course being able or willing to pay to post many pictures doesn’t necessarily mean that the photographer actually make and post good pictures. But there is a possibility that one who is willing to pay is sufficiently interested in photography to make good (or at least interesting) pictures (and that one who is not willing to pay is less interested and make poorer pictures). Just the same way as the poorest pictures on MFT are better than the poorest pictures on other photo sites – people who buy E-1/E-300 are in general more interested in photography than those who go for the cheapest compacts.

One way to “adjust” for this (good photographer with limited economical resources) could be to upgrade the membership for competition winners (and maybe also for Hall of Fame members). If I was a good photographer who couldn’t pay more than 20 US dollars a year, my membership could be upgraded to “medium”/two pictures a week when I won a competition. And if I won again I could be upgraded to “high”/seven pictures a week. You would be able to enjoy my great pictures every single day even though I couldn’t be able to pay the high fee. :-) And if I was a lousy photographer who didn’t want to or couldn’t pay, you wouldn’t have to see my pictures more than once a week.

All that said I think it might be a good idea to try donations again – maybe at least twice a year. Take away the present dollar signs behind our names (they were for last year) and give us new signs as we pay for this year (or spring term). :-) (I don’t like the dollar signs or thanks to those who have contributed, but I guess it can work as sort of “group pressure”).

If there are going to be further restrictions on posting of pictures I hope Alan and Mario will consider rewarding competition winners a larger quota per week than other members will have (not for all future, but for a year from the day they won. And then they would have to win again to be able to post more than others).

.*bright idea* If I find and deposit one empty Coke bottle a day and donate the deposit money to MFT that will make up more than 100 US dollars a year. :-) *lol* I won’t be searching for empty bottles in the streets, but if we divide 20, 50, 100 US dollars or whatever on number of days we visit MFT in a year it won’t be much to pay for each visit. I spend more money (and less time I hate to admit) on newspapers than on fees/donations at photo sites.

Its late and I need to get some shut-eye. I voted for option 4. Perhaps we could also have the MFT shop as well. I still want to buy the T Shirt :-) To be brutally honest, I think that if you can afford to buy the E1 system, and you choose to regularly use the site, then you can afford to donate to the site and not to do so is, imho, an act of witholding made by conscious decision. Lets face it, when this system came out, it cost the guts of two and a half grand for the camera body and lens. Dont tell me that poor people buy this camera. Please. BTW, I think if Caroline's idea is accepted, I think it should be retrospectively applied for one year :-)

I take your point John but for what one gets, a donation of $10, 20, 30, 40, 50 set against the cost of the system is really not all that much and I stand over my comment even though it may not be palatable. There's no such thing as a free lunch as they say. Alan and Mario put in an enormous amount of work to set up the site and keep running. That costs. We all know that. I

Gremlins are at work again. I did not say buying the full system. I was talking about the initial system when it came out - the camera and lens - which was the 14-54mm. For what one gets here, the donation is quite reasonable and it seems fair to me to ask for it. We all know what you get - belonging to a group of people, some of whom, will, by and large, comment on your images and give encouragement in a respectful way. You get the opportunity to show your images and learn form considered comments. You get the opportunity to view other's images and learn from those too. You get the opportunity to participate in debates/ discussions and learn from that too. Anyway, we all know this. My own view is that if you use the site continuously and regularly, then it is a reasonable proposition to donate to the facility that you are benefitting from.

Good points Eugene. Unless people live on subsistence level paying for photo equipment and subscription fees is about prioritizing (and even if I was living on subsistence level I would be more than happy to skip a meal or ten to contribute financially to a site I spend several hours a week on).

Until you decide on a different system...DON'T BE SO AFRAID TO TELL PEOPLE WHAT THE CURRENT ONE IS! When I signed on I wondered how the site was supported. Surely the little PayPal button could not be generating enough money. It is so easy to ignore because the pitch is so meek. Alan and Mario must simply be rich and generous people!

A very direct, concise and polite statement that this is a member supported site should be a proud and permanent "sales pitch" on the front page (with more detailed information given when registering) This should be done IMMEDIATELY. Personally, I would include a suggested donation amount, maybe not on the front page but at least on a secondary page when you start the process to donate. This would get my money faster. (after a short trial period of course)

If a different system needs to be put in place, a mandatory fee seems the most logical. I would lean towards the same fee for everyone to keep it as low as possible and grant additional posting privileges based on things like length of (paid!) membership, participation in competitions, ratings of submissions etc.

I too would be cautious about assuming peoples ability and willingness to pay simply because these cameras are in a certain price range.

I also support a tiered system, 4 or some variation of 4. One thought, which may not have been mentioned (I have only scanned the posts) is to reduce cost by requiring posters to store their pictures elsewhere, but to allow displaying at My Four Thirds. For example, people often display pictures in the forums at DPR that are stored elsewhere. So DPR does not have to pay and provide the storage. I assume a fee would still be necessary, but it would be less.

Ok then, on reflection, I will moderate my post above in respect of donation payment as a result of John's and David's comments. I think there is substance to what is being said and perthaps I ought to have considered it more before posting. I agree with David's suggestion about a clear message re this being a member supported site and it's interesting to see it being said by someone new to the site

I would have not problem with the site supplementing Member fees by its having a list of companies (as phot.net does) from which My Four Thirds would receive some compensation if we buy equipment from them through a link at this site. I would not like advertising though.

My personal limit for an annual fee would be $50.

Reiterating my point (and in full support of David's similar point above), I do believe that the funding issue can be largely, if not completely, solved by more prominently asking for support. This is Sales & Marketing 101: ASK! There is no shame in putting the fact that this needs the monetary support of the participants in a place that it will be seen, and in putting that fact in participants' faces, front and center, once every 6 months. Our local public radio station has 4 pledge drives a year, each lasting 10 days. It's certainly annoying, but here in the States where everything lives (or doesn't) by Darwinian law we recognize it's a necessary evil and dig into our pockets when the time comes. The extraordinary contortions and products and events Alan & Mario have floated as disguises for asking for money are all fine ideas, but they should not (and don't need to be) the primary means of supporting MFT.

As an aside, I have another idea for something I'd like to see which could generate contributions, but I'd like it for itself, not because it's a fundraiser. Out this under the category of thinking outside the lines a little: I'd certainly pay to be able to choose one of my images to be "picked over thoroughly" as Caroline said, and would gladly put it out there for a public forum. I'd guess others would do this, too. I was originally thinking about having the pro photogs do this, but it would be fine to give it a place of prominence for a week and have it picked over by MFT members or a group of MFT senior participants picked on a rolling basis by Alan & Mario or by poll or whatever. Or some combination of the above. It could be done once a week or once a month. (If pros were doing the critiquing, and you were of a mind, you could even auction this off on eBay or here, for that matter). To keep the John Ellis' in the running, you could still offer this as the prize to the monthly competition winner; the other three weeks it goes to paying "customers."

Colleagues:

I checked '4'.

I value this site and the community it nourishes. I would be happy to pay a modest fee (~ $50 US per year) to participate.

Up to this point, I have failed to contribute voluntarily for what is perhaps a bad reason. The reason is that I do not trust the security of the method of payment.

I deal regularily with reputable e-commerse merchants (e.g. amazon.com, B&H Photo). But, I have some problems with "PayPal". Perhaps I am mis-informed. But, I recall hearing of an incident a couple of years ago in which their security was breached and "identity theft" occurred. I would welcome being corrected on this. And, of course, breaches of security can occur with even the most reputable of e-merchants.

Aside from this problem with "4", it surely needs a bit more careful consideration as others (who have clearly thought more about this than I) have pointed out.

In principle, I have no problem with adverts, provided they are not obtrusive, germane to the subject matter and do not drive content. After all, most high quality photo magazines I occasionally read have adverts. But, I suspect conttrolling advert content is not something the managers of the site can and/or want to do.

Finally, I really appreciate the time and thought the organizers and some members of the community have put into this issue.

Best wishes...

joe

John E: OK – I understand that you don’t want to pay more than the average cost per member of running the site. But the problem is that if there were to be a low fee for some members, someone else will have to pay more to make up for the gap between what those pay and what their activities cost. The other alternative (if subscription fee is chosen) is to have a flat fee for everyone (as David suggests).

It may be too idealistic of me thinking that people who post many pictures (and possibly have an user activity that cost more than the average) and spend much time on MFT are more willing than others to pay more (for getting extra privileges as posting more pictures than those who pay less or nothing), but I’m not stupid or kind to a fault. I will not skip meals so that others won’t have to skip meals. :-)

David and Eugene have good points, and 20, 50 or 100 US dollars per member (or whatever it cost to run the site) is not all that much. *lol* I’m no longer in the “social democratic”-mood – I vote for a flat fee for everyone (with a free trial period for new members) – no matter how low or high that fee will be, and no matter how few or how many pictures members post. Let the out of work, hungry photographers in low cost/income countries (if they exist) trade their Olympus equipment for the cheap, old Canon stuff, move to the Cannon site and use the profit from the trade to pay the annual subscription fees there if they can’t afford MFT-fees.

And I also think that Alan and Mario should get paid for providing and running this site for us. Things can’t go on forever on just enthusiasm (or charity and generosity).

I clicked on other because I don't really like any of the options listed. I would purchase a great T-shirt. May be I'd subscribe but I am not well off (I'm an E-300 type!). I get a lot from the site and sure would like to put something back. I like the idea of Olympus giving back something to purchasers of their equipment but at the same time MyFourThirds must remain independant.

Andrew