I am all for the free stuff. I liked Kazaa, I love open source stuff, I have some cd’s that people burned for me, and I love getting the free cracker samples at Sam’s Club with the little pieces of cheese on them…they really are tasty. But here is a newsflash kiddies, here’s some macro economics in a nutshell…everything isn’t free. Sometimes, in order for people to make ends meet and feed their families, they have to CHARGE MONEY FOR WHAT THEY PRODUCE. Novel idea isn’t it?
I think we have all gotten a little too comfortable living our “I can get anything for free on the in-ter-net” lifestyles with our pirated music, copied software, and open source everything. We don’t want to pay for anything anymore. We want to use it, and we want to praise it as long as it is free, but once a company tries to introduce a fee for service model, the record player starts skipping and the room is suddenly empty.
The latest example is good old Meetup.com, which has been the golden child of the sites designed to facilitate offline meetings through online tools for the past 18 months or so. Recently, Meetup decided that giving away their services for free wasn’t sending them down the fast track to profitability, so they decided that Meetup organizers should pay a fee of $9-$19 to organize events through their site. Seems like a pretty reasonable thing in my opinion. I don’t personally use Meetup, but I have played with it and it seems pretty powerful. If, as event organizer, you are organizing events once per month with 10 people attending and you ask them all to chip in, $2 is very very reasonable for what you are getting.
This sentiment is apparently not shared by others, as there was immediate (and predictable) backlash from groups such as these Seattle bloggers who were appalled that they had to pay upwards of 8 quarters a piece to organize their event. These geniuses actually think that it makes more sense to build their own tool, than to pay the nominal fee and continue to use Meetup, which was the very tool that presumably got these coconut heads together in the first place.
My personal take on Meetup.com and I vocalized this to the group is that we could build our own event/organization website relatively quickly, but this would of course require volunteers and organization to pull off. The advantage of having our own meetup area would allow better exposure for all the bloggers among the group, easier sharing of OPML (containing RSS for the entire group attendees), perhaps even a shared aggregator that aggregates all Seattle bloggers blog entries, also easier blogger meetup registration and much, much more. It wouldn’t be very expensive to have hosted, and perhaps we could even get some Seattle-area hosting company to donate the necessary hosting in exchange for advertising on the site.
I noticed they reference a need for organazation if they want to accomplish the goal of creating their own site. Maybe they can use Meetup if it isn’t too much.
Meetup apologized for shitting on their little whine-up, and Peter Caputa thought it was nice that Meetup at least left the offending post up. I think both are being a little too nice here. These twits are acting like communist retards. Pay the fee and support a good product and stop whining.
12 Responses
TDavid
April 27th, 2005 at 5:01 pm
This is a totally uninformed, knee-jerk response. We all chipped in $2 to stay with Meetup, did you like miss that part?
The post you linked to is satirical (read the comments and look at the overblown captions), but it seems like you didn’t get the joke either.
What upset people in the group wasn’t only the price increase for the *organizer* (the person who actually does the work) it was that the PR guy Myles called the group “Belly achin’” — he didn’t get it either. You don’t call your customers names and then post it in the PRESS area of your website *after* they had said they put money in a hat and were staying with your website.
Myles apologized and so did one of the co-founders so your post here just seems a bit trollish to me. This post is just trying to fan flames that have already died out … whatever.
Linnea
April 27th, 2005 at 6:11 pm
I am a member of the Worcester newly single meetup.com group and have been for two months. Honestly, we don’t have enough people and we have not had a meeting since I have signed up anyways. I suppose I wouldn’t mind paying a portion of the $ 9 if I were to actually get something out of it, but I think it is clear why a group like this won’t continue to exist now that we have to pay for it.
Things That ... Make You Go Hmm
April 27th, 2005 at 7:06 pm
Roasting Seattle bloggers
This is funny! I laughed when I saw Peter Caputa (comments pictured above) taking breathless swings at our Seattle Blogger group for — how dare us — considering to organize an alternative meeting/event website? “Whiners,” he calls us.
Hmm, l…
PS
May 5th, 2005 at 8:08 pm
Hey Asshat - why should we pay for something we can get for free somewhere else? Yahoo groups offer equivalent features to meetup.com. And we don’t have to shell out a single quarter. Screw Meetup!
Signed, a whiney comunist retard twit from Seattle.
Andrew
May 6th, 2005 at 10:56 am
Great use of the word “Asshat”. Fark called and you owe them royalties. Also, great work misspelling both whiny and communist within the same sentence. Talk to your boy TDavid, as he was quick to point out a misspelling of ours a bit ago and I am sure he can tutor you on when to use an ‘ey’ versus a ‘y’. Well done.
dw
May 7th, 2005 at 2:21 am
I think you’re missing something: Building our own system was one option of three proposed. TDavid is taking it on himself to build his own system, but the stance of the group at this point is wait-and-see, continue paying Meetup in the meantime, and make a final decision in the future.
If you look at the first picture, it’s pretty clear. The $2 was, well, a Better Off Dead reference, not some “we all have to pay $2″ thing.
I mean, reframe it this way: If you had “free checking” at your bank, and out of the blue they started charging you $9/month for the “privilege” of taking your money, wouldn’t you look consider looking at other banking options? That’s all we’re doing here, considering other options. What’s Communist about considering other options?
Andrew
May 7th, 2005 at 11:09 am
I guess I just see this new fee as so painfully nominal, and I also see such a fuss over it (although some say they are joking, which I doubt) that it is hard not to call you guys out on this one. I mean really, if you are getting any use out of Meetup over any extended period of time, and clearly you were, why not show some appreciation and actually pay the sub $20 fee per month to support a business that has provided a valuable service? Bailing out, creating a mini fuss over it, and proposing an exodus to Yahoo or building your own system, just really seems a bit absurd. We are not talking about $100 a month here. Meetup is trying to sustain a business and is doing so (in my opinion) in a very fair way.
I think your analogy on banking is a little off. Let’s look at Wordpress instead…it is more apples to apples. If WP decided that they wanted me to pay $3/month to continue to use their software to run my blog and to have access to the support community, I would pay it. That isn’t bullshit, I would pay it. WP has provided a great piece of software that I have gotten a great deal of use from. I have even made some good income from blogging, so I would have no issue with paying a very nominal fee if they decided to try and make a business from it.
Camille
May 20th, 2005 at 1:34 am
The fee is nominal, yes, but mainly for those who have common interests. By common I mean common across a community. Single mothers, for example. There are many of those and it isn’t too difficult to meet one at random. However, If you, like myself, suffer from a rare gentic condition that is rare enough that only seven members are registered in Sydney, Australia, then there is an issue. We haven’t managed to acutally meet yet and after the fee was introduced, the interest dwindled. I have never met another person who is not related to me with this disorder and chances are I never will the way things are going.
Iain
June 1st, 2005 at 5:16 pm
I think it is not in my interests to pay for a service when I have no idea if there will be any takers for a group if I start one and the idea of people paying another website for me to let them know when we will meet in London Uk is ludicrous in the extreme as far as I can see.
This is a rip off or a scam to get money for nothing.
Andrew
June 2nd, 2005 at 8:45 am
Yes, that is what it is. It is a scam to get your money for nothing. You have figured it out. Meetup is in the business of fooling people into paying them, and then not providing a service in return. The cat is officially out of the bag.
Bruce
June 4th, 2005 at 10:34 am
Christian Crumlish did a nice writeup on the new Meetup fees at the Personal Democracy Forum, on April 19.
I did a couple of posts, in the last few days, on The Daily Kos which declared Meetup.com to be dead or dying.
One hung out on the recommended list all day. Then Scott Heiferman, CEO of Meetup, emailed me. His email started with “Dude” . It went something like this : “Dude. Meetup’s not dead. it’s just begun. We working on a whole new set of tools to give people even more power…..”
He left his NYC number. I called it. He wasn’t in and I left a message letting him know that since I’d declared his business kaput that I felt a responsibility to let him know what I thought could be done to salvage the mess and that I’d been willing to have a chat about it. I also suggested that he might want to consult with Mark Kraft.
I asked Mark Kraft about Meetup. Mark Was very succesful in getting lots of people to somehow work together for free in a way that met their needs and also his. Mark’s the ex-business manager of LiveJournal , which recently sold out to Six-Apart. He told me that he didn’t think Meetup’s business model was very sound : so-so software and too many employees.
That’s about what I thought.
One funny aspect of it has been that, because of the way in which Meetup facillitated the Dean campaign I assume, DFA folks weren’t willing to take action or criticize Meetup even as most of Meetup’s members were fleeing the crazy new fee system that punished group leaders.
So, grassroots Democratic organizing took a body blow.
It was all pretty dumb, and what I couldn’t figure out was this : why not just ask all Meetup members for a flat $5 yearly fee ? That would have raised far more money and only deterred a few from joining.
I’m still scratching my head.
Bruce
June 4th, 2005 at 10:44 am
One more thing.
To make my underlying logic explicit :
Why impose fees on the people who are doing the work to organize Meetup groups ? Doesn’t that punish the very people who are putting in the most work ? Would it be unreasonable, then, for those folks to view the new fees as punitive ? Obviously they did, because Meetup seems to have largely collapsed.
Google “Meetup, fees”, and see what you pull up.
There were many other possible financial models Meetup could have pursued.
RSS feed for comments on this post · TrackBack URI
Archives
Friends
Categories
Recent Comments
Recent Posts
Thoughtlets
(Jul 18 ) - Why doesn’t MySpace offer RSS feeds of their status updates?
(Jul 17 ) - Alyssa Milano writes an MLB blog. And it’s actually ok.