Three year silver membership.

[Robert Stokes]

Last year I joined on-line as a silver member for 3 years. I did so because it would avoid having to remember renewing this year and next. I seem to remember paying £57. If I had joined for one year at the time I would have paid £18, i.e. £19 minus the £1 on-line discount.

I rather thought that the cost of £57 was to cover £19 and £20 in the following two years. I now find that renewal this year is again £18. This means that unless the cost next year is at least £21, I will be out of pocket. In fact it needs to be more than this to cover lost interest on the £39 the E.C.F. have had (although these days that isn't much it is something).

Have I missed something in the above reasoning? If not then I fell that I've been done!

Robert

[IM Jack Rudd]

Three-year memberships are there to protect you against future price rises; sometimes Council will vote not to increase membership fees and those future price rises will not actually materialise.

[Ian Thompson]

Have I missed something in the above reasoning? If not then I fell that I've been done!

No, you haven't missed anything. You have paid a premium of £2 to fix your membership costs for 3 years.

[John Philpott]

Robert Stokes wrote

I seem to remember paying £57.

The ECF's records indicate that you paid £56.

[Christopher Kreuzer]

Robert Stokes wrote

I seem to remember paying £57.

The ECF's records indicate that you paid £56.

This makes sense as the three-year membership minus £1 for joining online. The above comments about paying a premium to fix the price for three years are correct, but I must admit I'd never thought of it like that before. The issue here seems to be more that you get a £3 discount for joining online three times (for a membership period of a year in each case), and only a £1 discount if you join online once for a membership period of three years. Normally this would be swamped by price rises, but not in this case.

[Robert Stokes]

I can now see why it ended up as £56. However, I still think that it should have been £54 the same as joining separately in three successive years assuming no price increase. [Note that those who don't join on-line get three years for the same as three times the price of one year.]

I think the simplest answer is that the £1 discount for on-line three year membership was someone's mistake and that those of us who suffered because of it should be given a larger discount next time.

Does the E.C.F. want people to encourage people to join on-line for three years? It doesn't seem like it.

Robert

[John Philpott]

Robert Stokes wrote

I think the simplest answer is that the £1 discount for on-line three year membership was someone's mistake

There was absolutely no mistake: the amount charged was the amount intended, with the intention of the discount being to take account of the fact Office time is saved because a particular membership application does not have to be processed manually. The cost of a three year subscription compared with a one year subscription is clearly indicated on the rates offered for the various categories of membership when joining or renewing; if an individual does not regard a three year membership as a good deal he or she should not take out such a membership in the first place.

Some players clearly do regard it as a good deal. Renewals have begun to flow through in earnest today (over £8,000 has been received through PayPal alone). In renewing, 12 previously annual members have opted for three year silver, not to mention 24 for three year gold and 12 for three year bronze.

[Angus French]

Robert Stokes wrote

I think the simplest answer is that the £1 discount for on-line three year membership was someone's mistake

There was absolutely no mistake: the amount charged was the amount intended, with the intention of the discount being to take account of the fact Office time is saved because a particular membership application does not have to be processed manually.

That was the 'logic' put forward and accepted at the 2012 ECF Finance Council Meeting (and, in effect, at the same meeting in 2013 when it was agreed that subscription rates would remain unchanged). However, I would think it likely that the ECF will save in a number of ways with three-year subscriptions:
- Saving in office time where the subscription is acquired through Paysubsonline;
- Saving in office time since the subscription is in place of three annual subscriptions; and,
- Saving - presumably - in Paypal and credit card transaction charges since there is one payment transaction rather than three.

Have I missed anything? It would be interesting to quantify the savings and certainly I would be in favour of returning the savings to the member as appropriate - for example, a £2 discount for three-year subscriptions acquired through the Office and a £3 discount for three-year subscriptions acquired through Paysubsonline.

[MartinCarpenter]

Magazines tend to offer quite a chunky discount for three year subcriptions. I think the biggest thing there is locking down the cash flow for three years, which doesn't really apply so much for chess as it'll feel quite a bit less 'optional' to most people.

A modest discount might make sense but if enough people are finding it convenient enough to get three year subscriptions anyway its hardly a big thing.

[Martyn Harris]

Three year silver membership here too. Anticipated that the rate would be frozen for at least one year as politically it would not seem good to raise the rate immediately. Went in with my eyes open with respect to discounts, so no complaints on that score.

Vaguely interesting question. If I decide I want to upgrade to gold for one year can I do this or will I have to upgrade for both the remaining years? If I can do it for one how will it show on the membership database - Gold expires August 2014, Silver expires August 2015?

[Robert Stokes]

[quote="John Philpott"] " if an individual does not regard a three year membership as a good deal he or she should not take out such a membership in the first place."

I wish I hadn't as I remain convinced that I got a bad deal. With interest at 2% (I have such a savings account) I calculate that the price next year needs to be £21.16 on-line for me to just break even.

Robert

P.S. I can understand why some people are now converting to a three year deal as they expect an increase next year and the year after.

[Sean Hewitt]

I wish I hadn't as I remain convinced that I got a bad deal. With interest at 2% (I have such a savings account) I calculate that the price next year needs to be £21.16 on-line for me to just break even.

What you've bought is certainty. Saying (after the fact) that this was a bad deal is rather like saying that your purchase of house insurance was bad value because your house didn't burn down.

[Andrew Bak]

I just find it quite funny that people are now whinging because the membership prices didn't increase!

[John Philpott]

Andrew Bak wrote

I just find it quite funny that people are now whinging because the membership prices didn't increase!

Indeed. I sometimes think that the phrase "damned if you do, damned if you don't" might have been invented with the ECF in mind.

[Robert Stokes]

I think that some of you have misunderstood me, and so I will make one more contribution to this debate to clarify matters.

I should perhaps first explain that when I joined last year I did so too quickly without giving it enough thought. I merely noted that £57 = 3 x £19 and forgot to take into account the £1 discount. Yes, my mistake and I have to take the consequences.

My main gripe is not that the subscription has stayed the same this year, although I may have given that impression initially. No, my main gripe is that those who join for three years and do not do so on-line get their three years for three times the cost of one year and that those who do so on-line should get the same deal.

Robert