Comment by jszymborski
2 years ago
It's not "social washing" if it's actually a working co-operative.
We all collectively own the funds, and if we ever want to lower yearly rates or pay our members dividends from surpluses, members are free to put it to a vote.
Part of the reason we run a surplus is to deal with any unexpected costs (they don't just scale with users, but also the popularity of users on our server), but FWIW I think we should open up a pay-what-you-can tier much like social.coop has. Thanks for reminding me, I'll send it to the coop for consideration.
What would be the point of "paying dividends from surpluses", if the funds are getting in and out of the same (collective) pockets?
And if "everyone" owns the coop, then why do you need to get the surplus in the first place? Seems to be it would be just fine to say "Every month we run a report of the total expenses, and every member pays an equal share".
It's easier (both psychologically and financially) for users to budget for $x per period - with an explicit or implied promise that it won't ever be more than that - and it's easier for the org to plan for y users at $x, than it would be for either to adjust to paying / chasing $z period.
It's a fairly common pricing strategy, which offers stability to both clients and organizations surviving on shoestring budgets and good-will.
If you want to be protected against unexpected costs, you buy insurance, you don't overpay "just in case".
All I am saying is that the coop (at least cosocial.ca) is not more capital and resource efficient than any good old service provider. We are talking here at a 250% price difference for less functionality. How would you justify that for orgs on a shoestring?
5 replies →
I imagine bulk buying, less packaging, easier budgeting, among other things.
How does that apply to a coop offering digital services, which have no physical shipping and costs can be easily fractioned/metered?