>Based on my experiences editing and publishing club newsletters, a good
one will cost >nearly $3 by the time it reaches the reader. So, dues for
somebody who is "net
>challenged" might cost $25
Is this a monthly, semi-monthly, or quarterly publication? Either way the math is wrong.
>While you dedicated 'puterheads would only have to pony up $12 or so.
Gee, that's $12 more than we pay now. What are the costs involved in an electronic newsletter?
>Simple fact is that less that 20% of the target membership will be on
> the net. . . . Why throw away 80% of your membership before you even
start?
I don't know that to be a fact at all, and I submit it depends on how you define your target membership. I would rather have 2 members who show up than 8 who have a car under a dusty tarp in the garage they haven't touched for 10 years. I do know that anyone who opts to sift through all these messages about Sunbeams daily has demonstrated some level of interest and commitment. These are important ingredients in any club membership. No one is suggesting that we exclude the not-yet-connected; but we do have a system to distribute information that works, and that reaches and involves hundreds of people daily. So let's extend it. I would gladly download an on-line newsletter for a fellow Rootes owner who is not on line, and I have yet to hear anyone on the list balk at doing the same. Printed hard copy or a fax reads just as well in the bathroom, and is a lot cheaper to distribute. Who knows, it might even motivate a few people to get connected.
Of course, I made these suggestions long before I realized that there was an expreienced and committed core of people who are dedicated to a snail-mail newsletter. We are indeed fortunate. Other clubs have a dickens of a time enlisting anyone to publish and distribute newsletters. I hereby nominate these folks to the publications committee. We await your proposals for organization, content, budget for publication and mailing costs, etc.
>However, I think it would be a mistake to form a group totally
>centered around the net and without a hard-copy newsletter.
It looks like we're in agreement on both of these points.
>And many of those NOT on the net are among the most
> interesting owners... the old dudes who have been pursuing their roots
> longer than many of you young netters have even been around.
Turns out (at least in my case) that net involvement is not a good
predictor of age or years of Sunbeam invlovement. I bought my first Alpine
in 1962, and I suspect that others on the list have been involved even
longer. I find the people on this list to be among the most interesting
and knowledgeable Sunbeam owners I have met. Maybe that's because we touch
in every day, and I can co-miserate with them.
> Please forgive an intrusion by one of those nasty Tiger owners who
> lurks on the Alpine list because he plans to buy a nice Alpine one of
> these days soon.
No intrusion at all. You've brought up some good points, caused us to do some thinking, and your taste in cars seems to be improving.
Rex Funk