From: greg@netcom.com (Greg Bullough)
Newsgroups: ba.singles
Subject: Re: ba.singles and BATMAN II -- 6/20/92  Post #1
Date: 16 Apr 92 19:08:59 GMT
Distribution: ba
Organization: Netcom - Online Communication Services  (408 241-9760 guest)

In article <h9zjxbj.marv@netcom.com> marv@netcom.com (Marvin Raab) writes:
>In article <1992Apr16.085647.11214@clarinet.com> funnyr@clarinet.com (Funny Guy) writes:
>>marv@netcom.com (Marvin Raab) writes:
>> >On June 19, 1992, Batman II, entitled Batman Returns will premier around
>> >the country. Lines will be long and media coverage will be extensive. Ticket
>> >prices in the Bay Area will be $7.00 for an evening show.
>>
>>And $3.75 in quantity 1 for a Matinee, if Star Trek was an example.
>>Hey, Marvin, I think what you're doing is great, and I don't mind if you
>>make a small profit on it -- you have to work to do this, so more power
>>too you.    I just think it's misleading to quote this figure to make your
>>$6 seem like a bargain.    I'll send in my order, though.
>
>
>I wouldn't call it misleading, I'd call it advertising  :-)
 
And there's the rub. I have mixed feelings on the subject. On one hand, such
events clearly benefit a lot of people, in the sense they get to have a good
time and meet each other. On the other hand, there's a clear agreement that,
if you're in business, you won't use the net to advertise that business, 
except in specially designated spaces. Do we except Marvin because he is a
net.god and social director?

>Seriously, I do put ALOT of work into my events not to mention my entire 
>heart and soul. As anyone who's ever attended any event of mine can tell
>you, they're well-coordinated and just plain fun. Besides the enormous amount
>of work and middle-of-the-night phonecalls, there's also risk and
>anxiety involved. For these movie events, I need to *rent* the theater...
>in advance...I also need to guarantee a rather large number of tickets.
>For Star Trek, this number was 250. For Batman, it's 400. I don't know
>about anyone else, but guaranteeing that I can get 400 people to do anything
>is a little scary for me.
 
And it seems entirely legitimate to get some money "ahead" against the 
inevitable time when there will be a snafu in organizing an event, and
there's a few hundred dollar loss. Marv, knowing full well that he will
continue to organize events for the forseeable future can keep applying
the funds "forward." If he wants to be fully legitimate, he might want
to put the money in a distinct account. If he ever decides to pack it in
as a net.social.organizer, he can give the slush fund to someone towards
hosting a boink.
>
>I'm also putting my name into this and I have big dreams of eventually 
>starting a business for singles that the world has never seen
>before. I actually already have the business but lack the full courage and
>capital needed to turn it into the full-blown reality I conceive.
 
However, Teri also puts her "name" onto the events she organizes. I suspect
she doesn't make a profit; far from it. Perhaps what you're saying is that
you're making the transition from doing this for free and doing this for
profit. That's fine, and more power to you. However, it is necessary to
make a clean transition.

>So, if paying an extra dollar or two for 2 hours of pure, hasslefree fun
>angers you (generic), please let me know and don't attend. I'd rather 
>cater to people who have no hesitancy about paying a small reimbursement
>for my efforts than to people who pay and then continually complain 
>about how I'm making a profit.

Like it or not, the dynamic changes when people are getting paid to organize
things. The rules change. The expectations change. It is entirely legitimate
for the ba.singles community to debate the issue of how they feel about your
operating a profit-making operation in their midst, over their communications
resources.
 
So let's ask ourselves: given the choice do we prefer to have fewer events to
choose from, or to be assured that events aren't being organized at a profit?
 
Greg
Newsgroups: ba.singles