From: shannah@netcom.com (Teri Miller)
Newsgroups: ba.singles
Subject: Re: ba.singles and BATMAN II -- 6/20/92  Post #1
Date: 16 Apr 92 20:05:35 GMT
Distribution: ba
Organization: Netcom - Online Communication Services  (408 241-9760 guest)

In article <y+1j5g-.greg@netcom.com> greg@netcom.com (Greg Bullough) writes:
> 
>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.
>
In Marvin's case, were he using his business, and getting a clear
profit, I would agree with you.  However, he is holding the event as
a private citizen, and not getting what I would consider an amazing
profit out of it.  Nonprofit organizations do pay their staff, and
if Marvin is making a few bucks, I'm not sure that's a big deal.

To compare and contrast with myself, I do put my name onto the events
I organize.  You're absolutely right that I don't make a profit from
it.  Boinks generally cost me between $150 and $350.  On the other
hand, after the guests leave, I am left with extra sodas, desserts,
or whatever else isn't used.  I guess I view the cash that Marvin
has left over as being like "leftovers" and it doesn't really bother
me.

However, based on the letter of the net.rules, I can understand how
it might bother others.  I think the one thing I would say is that
since it isn't (IMHO) blatantly commercial, and that his interest
seems to be more with trying to get people together than make money,
it might be worthwhile to just not worry about it.

Marvin says:
>>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.
>
For a theatre size of 400 seats, this is maybe 800 dollars.  Once one
subtracts any leftover seats that Marvin pays for, that's less.  If there
are any charges for renting the theatre, like deposits that aren't 
completely refundable, that comes out of there, too.  If Marvin is like
many of us, and puts the fee on his credit card, there might be some
interest, too.  Then, if you count all the money he could have lost
at other events he hosted, it's not unreasonable that he might just be
breaking even, over the various events he's held.

It doesn't seem terribly profitable to me - what do others think?
Does the amount of profit make a difference?

>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?
> 
I agree with you, Greg, that the dynamic changes when people are getting
paid to organize events.  I don't see anything wrong with people talking
about how they feel about the concept.

I do think it's worthwhile to consider the primary motivation for
organizing events.  If I host an event to get people together, and
just happen to have sodas left over, am I making a profit?  On the
other hand, if I post to the net that I want sodas, and would people
please drop them off at my house, isn't that pretty commercial?

I don't think I have a clear-cut answer, but I think it's worth thinking
about.