> $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.
The sucking part is that it is unnecessary. I am not convinced there is any significant reward. I'm am not convinced "green" hosting is going to play a significant contributing factor to why someone chooses to host with us. We already have a pledge system in place so we can pay for members that don't exist. Why should we add to this? Aside from this, its the principle of the matter. > 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. I'm not convinced that anything about this is 'the right thing'. > 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. Thats fine. Lets call it what it is. Project: Fictitious Energy Marketing Plan. Call me a horrible person, but I have no sense of moral obligation to purchase feel good energy. -Rob _______________________________________________ HCoop-Discuss mailing list [email protected] http://hcoop.net/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/hcoop-discuss
