I have a BT Broadband package at home and an O2 mobile phone package. I also have agreements/payments plans for my gas and electricity bills. I've had them for years and review and update them now and then so they are cost effective. If they weren't, I'd move on to another provider, simple as.
However, there are people that became customers of these same providers before and after me that were entitled to different 'deals' at the time. Do I know what they are? No way. That's between them and the provider and that's life! I've bought and sold houses and cars as most of us will have done in life too - sometimes you lose and sometimes you gain but you are the one that makes the choice at the time of the transaction, nobody else.
I also see offers from time to time for 'new' customers from these same providers I mention above, that seem 'better' than what I have. Again, that's life, I made my choice at the time I signed up and like I say, if I don't feel I'm getting a competitive price and service, then I'd go elsewhere. That's my decision.
I'd suggest some of you apply the same logic to this place. It's a business. Mark said he'd never sell the place but he did as the offer was clearly too good to turn down and Symbiosis sensed a great opportunity - good on them, I say.
We all know there are other sites - are they are as sophisticated as this in terms of content etc? No. If you don't like or need the sophistication (and are paying for it) then go elsewhere for free. If not, then don't spend page after page whining about it. I'd think that the Forum is a very small part of this site in terms of the revenue it generates for Symbiosis... and meanwhile, while we're all typing, there a shed load of drunken straight (mostly!) blokes getting their credit cards out to sit in Chat watching cams and bang one out.
Symbiosis is a business and it's owners are likely better at running it then worrying about being your mothers, fathers and agony aunts. It's not run from somebody's 'back garden shed' any more, that's for sure. Do you expect the CEO of BT to come and 'make it all better' each time you have an issue with your phone bill? Probably not.
Most of the rising costs have been brought about by IT technical developments, and 'sundry' business costs. Therefore any new ideas are going to incur such costs again to be implemented.
Again the paying members will be hit. But if non paying members leave, you are left with a higher bill to pay, as the hoped for revenue would not be realised.
payers want to lower their costs or keep them the same. it is expected that by charging the free members sufficient revenue is raised to do this.
but if free members don't rejoin, then the revenue won't be raised. a costly technical, admin and business exercise will still need to be paid for.
who pays? the existing paid members.
so is it a reasonable risk for paid members to take?
How about looking at it this way?
What's one of the key things paying members bring to the site? Commitment. It shows they want to use the site, it's features, and to reap it's benefits in terms of getting something out of their investment.
What's one of the key things pre-takeover free members bring to the site? Commitment. It shows that they've continued to use the site, it's features, and to reap it's benefits in terms of getting something out of the years they've put into it and the experience they've gained.
How many truly free sites can promise that level of commitment from all it's members?
;-)
From what I have read my understanding is as follows;
Paying members make up 72% of the site, free full access members are 28%.
Paying members will always pay for any and every improvement while the free full access members still pay nothing towards anything.
Paying members will not get any service over and above the free full access members, regardless of paying.
Paying members will not be informed of full free access members prior to joining until they either find a debate in the forum or another member informs them.
Paying members once they know about full free access members can then make the informed choice, after payment, that they can renew and still pay all the costs, or go elsewhere, but if you are unhappy on discovering, the terms and conditions do state "no refunds" given.
Paying members that raise the pay/free member subject will always be told by many "Don't pay then and go elsewhere, you have choice".
Now, thats commitment ;) xxxxxxx
Hi Aurora - Ive only managed to read a coupel of the pages of this thread, but Im startled to read that 28% of the site dont pay. If true thats astounding. I also wonder how Im missing out having been a 'member' of this site for many years.
I have no problem paying a minimal fee - but when you think of all the free sites that offer a lot more out there, you do wonder wher all the profit goes.
As you say we have a choice, but I my choice is I dont want to leave the site. I have made many friends on here, and love the forums and cams on the main.
The introduction of some of the new features are good in theory , but only seem to part work . eg the site grounds to a virtual halt on my pc if I try and use muti-room.
I think there should be some sort of incentive for people to renew each year - eg it should be cheaper to renew than join.
I always find any ticket I raise is answered quickly and politely.
The true gauge of the site though is that there does seem to have been a drop in new couples and females, which is worrying.
By the way , at what point was the site free ? Ive just checked and I joined at the start of 2006. People who joined in 2005 seemed to be non-payers.
Ive just read that the fees are going up to £70 .... has this site heard about the recession ?????? Were are strugling to pay bills.. If they dont manage the numbers the site will fail anyway. Come on guys keep this site nos 1
How many members (paying or free) are actually active? If we say that accessing the site for any reason is being 'active', how many do it on a reasonably regular basis - say once a month or more. Is it possible (the info is there so we could be told) that a higher proportion of free members are irregular or even lapsed users than paying ones?
I would be very interested to see usage figures published. No names needed - just broad figures.
Without that info - these arguments are bit moot.
No disrespect to anyone Freckle, but if one of the owners says what I have quoted, then I tend to believe that and he did say "Free for life", if he means for basic free members with no site access then I will retract that but that is not mine nor some others' understanding. Maybe st3v3 will confirm either way, whether the "free for life, around 345,000" is full access free members or not.
Actually I think what is happening is no different from a company who puts out a big promotion and giveaways of 'free' stuff, in order to create business. Usually no one questions that, and is happy to pocket a free or cheap product.
In this case there is more of a family/community aspect and therefore the feeling, for some, of a visible equal share. We free punters knew where we stood. But for newbies it comes as an awakening.
But its no different from ordinary life. Our life is what it is because people before us made the houses and transport, the industry etc. It's how progress works, someone does the groundwork and the next lot have it easier. Except they effectively pay their dues.
We all get nobbled somewhere in life like this.
I'm only on page one of this, but thought I'd throw in a reply at this point, so sorry if this has already been said.
I totally understand people not wanting to pay when there are free members, but I don't think charging the free members is the way to go.
I am a free member and the way I see it is this...
The reason this site was so attractive to the company which bought it, was because of the massive existing userbase. That userbase is what made/makes the site. Without those users, this site would not have been worth anyone paying for. I doubt many of the paying members would have signed up in the first place. I have a little experience with that. I was party to a new swinging site start-up a few years ago. It started well, small but fun. At first it was free for us lot who helped start it and free for newbies. Then due to financial matters it was only free for 3 months for new users, then it was only free for a month due to low revenues. The problem was that there was no 'free' time to build the userbase to make it worth paying for, and that is what the free users did for this site.
As a free user I have to say that my activity on this site is sporadic. If I had to pay I would go elsewhere (nevermind any recriminations about the promise that was made, to never charge existing members (indeed, there was initially a similar promise to never introduce tiered paid membership, which there now is)) as would a lot of others, I believe.
Yes there are new features, but just as they CAN be an aide to finding a good swing meet, they also make it easier and more attractive to the people who don't actually understand swinging and thin it's all about a quick shag (not to slight the genuine swingers who like their swinging that way).
Aside from the potential ramifications of a mass exodus of free members, you ask the question about it being unfair to charge the ones who joined after the takeover.
Well is it fair to charge the people who made the site what it is?
my actual post/question a few threads back. 
