Psamathe wrote:(I've not been a member for ages so just expressing a personal observation)
One assumes that CUK needs money (they are still wanting donations) and that more money means more campaigning and better outcomes for cyclists, I'm surprised that options to reduce the value to members without affecting the services to members has not been explored more (maybe it has?).
For example, printing and posting a magazine must cost a bit and I assume counts towards membership "value". But why not make it downloadable with an option to request a printed version (that is what my Astronomy Society did). Members still get the magazine in a format suitable to them (and "greener" for many) yet costs and average "value" reduced.
For example, why not make 3rd arty insurance cover a free option. Many get it anyway with their household insurance (and being covered twice can complicate claims anyway). Fewer members needing/taking it reduces costs (maybe) and reduces average "value" of membership.
I don't know what other benefits there are but maybe most members don't make use of them so making them free options could help further.
Many will both reduce costs (e.g. magazine) and possible return benefits to a level where Gift Aid might be allowed.
Ian
Yes, all this kind of stuff was considered. It's a bit of a change to see someone on here arguing for fewer member benefits!
There's work continuing to find the right balance of benefits for different types of member; there was a big survey of both members and potential members to find out what benefits appealed to them and what they weren't bothered about, and that differed quite a lot across different target audiences. The decision was made not to try and cut back on benefits drastically for the main membership offering.
With the insurance obviously CUK benefits from its bulk buying. Reducing the number of people covered by 1 or 1000 probably wouldn't make much difference to the overall cost.
Just to be clear, nobody disallowed Gift Aid: we weren't forced to stop using it. It was a decision based on the balance of risks and benefits to the charity.
The magazine is another example of how ludicrous the HMRC Gift Aid rules are, by the way, but don't get me started on that again...