Membership rates

PH
Posts: 9393
Joined: 21 Jan 2007, 12:31am
Location: Derby
Contact:

Re: Membership rates

Postby PH » 12 Aug 2020, 10:48am

thirdcrank wrote:On the magazine, which surely would attract zero sales on the open market, AIUI, the advertising income is largely dependent on audited circulation.

I’d buy it. Even if it was an addition to the standard membership I’d pay it.
I know it gets a lot of stick on these boards, but they’re not very representative, I have many conversations with CTC riders based on the content.

thirdcrank
Posts: 29423
Joined: 9 Jan 2007, 2:44pm

Re: Membership rates

Postby thirdcrank » 12 Aug 2020, 11:14am

By open market, I meant on newsagents' shelves.

Jdsk
Posts: 2217
Joined: 5 Mar 2019, 5:42pm

Re: Membership rates

Postby Jdsk » 12 Aug 2020, 11:20am

PH wrote:
thirdcrank wrote:On the magazine, which surely would attract zero sales on the open market, AIUI, the advertising income is largely dependent on audited circulation.

I’d buy it. Even if it was an addition to the standard membership I’d pay it

Me too.

Jonathan

Bmblbzzz
Posts: 3471
Joined: 18 May 2012, 7:56pm
Location: From here to there.

Re: Membership rates

Postby Bmblbzzz » 12 Aug 2020, 1:57pm

Noting that the concessionary and junior rates are being raised too, while the standard rate is not, I'd hazard a guess the long term aim is towards one unitary rate.

thirdcrank
Posts: 29423
Joined: 9 Jan 2007, 2:44pm

Re: Membership rates

Postby thirdcrank » 12 Aug 2020, 2:10pm

It sounds as though potential sales of the mag are greater than I thought. Perhaps the trustees have a duty to consider selling copies of the mag on the open market both to increase charity income and promote cycling. (Clue: the title "The Comic" is already taken.)

Cyril Haearn
Posts: 14159
Joined: 30 Nov 2013, 11:26am
Location: Leafy suburbia

Re: Membership rates

Postby Cyril Haearn » 12 Aug 2020, 2:21pm

Simples, just call it 'Cycling Weakly' :wink:

It is worth scanning I think, but I have some older copies of the Gazette, 1960s on, they are worth reading again
Entertainer, intellectual, idealist, PoB, 30120
Cycling-of course, but it is far better on a Gillott
We love safety cameras, we hate bullies

geocycle
Posts: 1817
Joined: 11 Jan 2007, 9:46am

Re: Membership rates

Postby geocycle » 12 Aug 2020, 3:49pm

I like the magazine as well. In fact it is the only thing I really get from being a member. I have other insurance and I prefer solo riding. The reason I keep paying is that I like the fact there are touring groups for those so inclined and having a national voice for non racing cyclists alongside BC and Sustrans.

Bmblbzzz
Posts: 3471
Joined: 18 May 2012, 7:56pm
Location: From here to there.

Re: Membership rates

Postby Bmblbzzz » 13 Aug 2020, 11:45am

That's perhaps worth a thread in itself.

User avatar
mjr
Posts: 16037
Joined: 20 Jun 2011, 7:06pm
Location: Norfolk or Somerset, mostly
Contact:

Re: Membership rates

Postby mjr » 13 Aug 2020, 2:05pm

PeterT wrote:The proposal is, according to them based on a survey of approx 5000 people, 1000 being non members. Not exactly statistically significant.

I think you mean statistically robust and it easily could be, if the survey wasn't self-selecting. About 1500 people is often used to estimate the views of 66 million on very divisive questions, so 4000 members should be OK for estimating the views of 73,000 (or whatever today's membership figure is).

I agree it's a big hike and I think it could have been handled better.
MJR, mostly pedalling 3-speed roadsters. KL+West Norfolk BUG incl social easy rides http://www.klwnbug.co.uk
All the above is CC-By-SA and no other implied copyright license to Cycle magazine.

PeterT
Posts: 34
Joined: 25 Jul 2016, 8:58am

Re: Membership rates

Postby PeterT » 14 Aug 2020, 3:48pm

mjr wrote:
PeterT wrote:The proposal is, according to them based on a survey of approx 5000 people, 1000 being non members. Not exactly statistically significant.

I think you mean statistically robust and it easily could be, if the survey wasn't self-selecting. About 1500 people is often used to estimate the views of 66 million on very divisive questions, so 4000 members should be OK for estimating the views of 73,000 (or whatever today's membership figure is).

I agree it's a big hike and I think it could have been handled better.


I e-mailed CUK 10 days ago for information about the survey and have not received a reply. CUK have used the survey to justify a hike for those over 65, but there is nothing at all about houshold subscriptions being means tested. Are households a special category deserving of reduced rates? I think your comment about handling this better is generous.