> I think it would be > easier because the amount each person had to pay would begin to > approach zero.
$0.00 per member for the first year is in fact zero. $0.05 (or less) per month per member in subsequent years is awfully close to zero. If you try it for a year and it sucks, then you don't even need to spend that $0.05/mo/member in the second year. Bottom line: there's no financial risk and a potentially significant reward. As has been pointed out already, the payback would be achieved in purely direct economic terms if only one or two new members join as a result of HCoop bragging about how it did the right thing. As we've seen in the US from the sudden surge in 'green' marketing over the last few years, people do indeed buy green. Even Sun Microsystems is playing the green card in their marketing. So, if you consider this a marketing expense, then it's hard to do much better than to engage in an effective marketing campaign at a two-year cost of less than 0.5% of revenues. How much closer to zero would it need to be in order for this fallacious economic argument to go away? If there's a policy discussion to be had, fine, but arguing about small quantities of pennies is really silly. Graham Freeman Cernio Technology Cooperative www.cernio.com [EMAIL PROTECTED] _______________________________________________ HCoop-Discuss mailing list [email protected] http://hcoop.net/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/hcoop-discuss
