Fixing the co-op forum II (continuing the discussion)

Folks. Dave has very graciuously opene dth ecoops again, but the problems will still exist so maybe we cna still find a solution for him.

Maybe if we think and watch more carefully we see more of the bugs and ways to elliminat ethem for himand Terry.

Thanks Terry for beign here with us and you to melody!

artemiss, we don't have any problem with a vendor (or the organizer) paying for a classified ad to announce a co-op type sale or discount. It's a token amount, and it keeps things on the up-and-up.

Kittylover, while a 20% discount would be a good deal for our members, your company would be receiving the benefit of the exposure to our members, and the sales that would result from that announcement.

To be fair to the vendors who DO pay for advertising, we can't make exceptions and promote a company for free just because they have a policy against paying for advertsing.

I think it's fair to say all vendors would love to be able to get free publicity to announce a sale if all they had to do was refuse to pay for an ad ;o)

I do understand what you mean about mentors trying to take over. I never learned to bake from my Grandma, despite her talents in the kitchen, because she would always take over what I was doing (mixing pie crust, forming biscuits) with a "let me, I can do it easier/faster." LOL Maybe a pool of mentors should be available rather than required... and if you see a new host offering a co-op without a mentor, you can judge for yourself how you think things will go (which might be just fine -- not saying first time co-ops never run smoothly, by any means).

I've Dmailed what I hope were taken as tactful and low-key constructive suggestions to hosts, especially when it seemed they might be overwhelmed by how large a co-op was getting (it's remarkable how a 20 person co-op can become 100 people overnight if you don't post a limit on participants). I Dmailed suggestions rather than posting them, especially if I thought they might be seen as critical. (Even constructive criticism is better in private.) Nobody told me to jump in the lake, LOL, but I know that doesn't mean nobody was frustrated by my attempts to help. I guess that's the sort of "mentoring" I would want as a co-op host, and when I host my first solo co-op, I will be asking for help of various sorts to be sure things run smoothly!

Terry - I wasn't suggesting - for free - No way- I am not looking for a free ride - LOL - Just think a minute - If I'm starting out with 20% discount - including free shipping - paying the sales tax for everyone not in TX which is 8.25% - 100% guaranteed satisfaction- seriously how much do you really think I'd be making - Just a thought - no problem - I do know how making exceptions can create problems

Just thanks again for allowing co-ops back - I will enjoy them!

Gonna second starlight again

When I did my first co-op I actually dmailed hosts from previous co-ops and asked for advise...etc. it was all thru dmail and helped me alot! I have never done a live plant co-op, but would like to do one in the future... for the live plant co-ops I believe smaller IS better, unless you have 4 or 5 reliable organized people who can come help pack ~ unfortunately I dont have that many fellow DGers in my area YET (still working on getting a few friends and neighbors to subscribe!) so a live plant co-op from me would be limited in plants and participants.

however for pens, plant tags, pots, bulbs, and gloves.... for myself... I know I am organized and anal enough to get all the orders out correctly and in a timely manner (as all my past co-ops can prove) so I think thats where a mentor could help play devils advocate (in private dmail) to a new host...gently suggesting that they need to cut off participants or number of items being ordered...etc.


I am eternally grateful that DG Admin has decided to give us another chance!!

Terry, Several Members have asked for the prohibition against member/vendors supplying coops to be removed. Several suggested charging the vendor an admisssion fee or making them become an advertizer.

Anjl, not everyone appreciates advice, gentle, private, or not. As was mentioned, folks have helped others quietly behind the scenes in various co-ops, too. However, if it is known to be the norm that more seasoned members would be keeping an eye on things, then maybe the advice would be considered a gift rather than a put-down. Perhaps we could establish a rotating system of seasoned co-opers who would be willing to be go-to folks for people new to co-ops as BUYERS as well as hosts.

Buyers with incorrect expectations can cause as much trouble as incompetent hosts.

Say, for the month of December critter, shihtzumom, notmartha, and Kittylover were the "go to" people. In January, others could volunteer to fill the roles (or in March, or however often is necessary). Or just keep a running list of people who want to help newbies. Where to keep that list, I don't know (yet).

I can't help but think Admin was on the right track with placing co-ops in Marketplace. If all co-ops paid a fee there would be no reason for anyone to "get around" the rule of self-promotion by finding a shill to hold a co-op for them. The small cost of the fee would be equally distributed among the participants. The participants will still be getting a bargain. It isn't about the money. It's about leveling the playing field.

I've known people whom have been proven wrong three different ways and still believed they are right. Those people will still be banging on Admin door demanding everyone view things from their point of view. It is impossible to please everyone 100% of the time.

I like the idea of a "Buffer" committee between the co-op forum and Admin. As noted above it won't/can't eliminate Admin from being called on to solve every issue but it should have the ability to cut down on the number of requests received by Admin. I think a target of 90% reduction is not too lofty of a goal to pursue. Hopefully, there will be enough volunteers for the committee so they can rotate in and out on a short enough basis to keep them from getting crispy around the edges.

Gary

Stormy, I don't think any vendor should be allowed to run a coop if all they're doing is circumventing the advertising venues via a coop. I do think a lot of very skilled people - best skilled to know how to run a coop - were tossed out when it was decided to essentially expand the description of "vendor" to include anyone who sells anything anywhere anytime. My thinking here is that these are exactly the people who know how to pack and ship, keep good records and have contacts for the best deals.

If someone offers coop items at the base coop price without tacking on any fees not directly related to the coop, such as shipping, what difference does it make if they periodically sell plants through Ebay or wherever. If someone is a member here and is able to get plants at wholesale and offer them in a coop at the wholesale price without making any profit for themselves, why should they be prohibited? That's NOT the same as offering a mere discount.

Kittylover, I think the real issue with your company would be best addressed with the company rather than trying to bend DG to accomodate their refusal to advertise anywhere. This is where an interest thread might be helpful to you. If you could show them that xx number of people said they would be interested if such a discount was offered via classifieds, you might be able to change their mind.

You might even consider contacting some of the vendors who have had classifieds and getting some data on what their sales were per $5 ad. I don't think it would be hard at all to show them they're biting off their nose to spite their face in refusing to pay a small ad fee for the business they would get from DG members.

Reading Terry's post in the other thread, it sounds to me like a lot of the problems with coops have really grown out of a lack of policing by adminstration here. I can certainly understand not wanting to be the bad guy, but no one should mind being reminded that something doesn't comply with the rules. Better to nip something in the bud from the beginning than allow it to mushroom into a big problem. I think you'll find once everyone knows that non-complying coops will be halted will mean eventually fewer problems pop up at all. And perhaps clarifying exactly what the rules mean insofar as what is or isn't eligible for a coop vs requiring an ad would help.

hart - appreciate your view - company way too established - not flexible -It's not a problem - just figured while we were discussing co-ops and alternative - I'd bring it up - It doesn't work - that's fine - I respect and will abide by Dave's decision - as I answered an e-mail already - I will not circumvent this -please do not ask me to - do not send me your e-mail address - You still would have found out about it here - I wouldn't feel right - I have to live with myself - C'est la vie

I will be happy to help in any way I can as 4paws suggested

As I understand it - hart - Vendors are people who have plant related businesses only - Admin - correct me if I am wrong -

Hart, my suggestion based upon other member's request was that vendor members be allowed to supply or host a coop if they would agree to pay a fee or purchase some advertising.

gk, those are exactly my thoughts on a buffer.

Looks like some of the ideas are coming together. YAAY! There seems to be a lot of agreement on the need for the disclaimer button, eligibibility criteria for hosts, standardization of the process and an exit poll to allow venting and to improve future co-ops. I know that none of this has yet been approved by admin but would think something concrete would be easier to work with. Personally, if the bones are there I find it much easier to visualize. We can get a general form together and change it until it looks and feels right. Should we start to write those up do you think?

This message was edited Nov 11, 2008 8:18 PM

Terry, by moving a coop to the Classified or DG Marketplace, would it still act like a coop? That seems to be the objection to this idea. Coops are fun. classifieds are not.

Thanks Dave and Admin for giving us another chance. Hopefully some of the ideas on these threads can be put into place and help cut down on problems in the future. And thanks everyone who contributed on here. Sighing a big sigh of relief! I just hope everyone can act like adults and we can keep them now.

Terry, can a member who is also a vendor supply a coop?

Can a member who is also a vendor Host a coop in which they are also the supplier??

There is a lot of confusion on this subject.

This message was edited Nov 11, 2008 9:26 PM

I think the biggest problem with the "vendor" co-op's being moved to the classifieds is the lack of a thread with which to discuss things..I know there are many things I wouldn't have bought had I not been able to see others input on them, or ask questions.

For example, I am in NW ohio..we can have a pretty harsh climate..I have found some things just don't do well here, and it's more complex than just the zone/temperature. Some things don't like the summer humidity, others thrive on it. I really feel more comfortable buying a particular plant if I see others in similar areas having success. Ditto on certain products..it was member input that led me to try some new things, and I am grateful for it.

I suggested a co-op fee so that we could keep the same open-discussion type format, without fear of a vendor taking advantage of the "free" system.

I have never run a coop but have participated in several and am waiting for merchandise from two recent ones. All have worked out very well for me. When a vendor sent me the wrong plant last year I contacted the vendor directly and he addressed the problem immediately. The host never got involved.
So I really like the idea of hosts making arrangements with vendors to ship items directly to the buyers where possible.
I was very upset to hear that the Coop site was closed but am delighted that we have a reprieve to continue improving past mistakes. (I must admit like many other members I was clueless about some of the issues in the background)

Also like many DG members I have been lurking on all these co-op threads and am very impressed with the excellent ideas put forth. Each time I get organized to add my 2 cents the next few replies often echo my views. While there are some fix-its I can take or leave (like committees - I see the pros and cons so don't care what the final decision is there), I strongly support the following:

Having a button to hit where the participants agree to the rules of the co-op before taking part. This could also include how any grievances should or should not be handled.
Having a statement from the host and vendor as to how they will address any problems with merchandise (refunds, replacements,etc.) This could also be under the original button. Participants then click to acknowledge they have read and understand everything about the Coop.

Having a mentor or "back-up" person which a host has access to for help and suggestions as well as monitoring how things are going. Whether the mentor is visible to the participants is up to those who make the final decision on the mentor's specific role.

The more I have been following this the more I agree with Dave and gk1153 that Co-ops belong under DG Marketplace. While I have never used the Marketplace section of this site I believe it is the logical place for the Co-ops. A Co-op is "Marketing", after all!

The Co-ops would always pay a small fee so that there could no longer be any issues with vendors avoiding fees, or those that tread a fine line (are they really a vendor or not, etc?) hosting.
A new category "Co-ops" would be added to the Marketplace section. I don't know if one can run threads on or from the Marketplace - but the offering could be posted and then the correct thread listed for ordering (unless one can go directly to the vendor - then the Website would be provided) That's a technical aspect I don't understand but should be easily solved by Administration.

The Coop Forum would best be changed to Coop Interest Forum. Once a Coop is a go then it is listed under the Marketplace for ordering.

I think you have all covered just about everything else. Soon it will be time to decide which ideas are the ones you want to keep and then tweak them. Stormyla's summary was most welcome. Like others I was about to do that for my own sanity but she saved me the trouble! Glad to have the Co-ops back! Let's hope it won't be "Temporarily"! Thanks, Dave

Jessica

But, and forgive me for repeating myself,..it's not necessarily the vendor that I am asking questions of and chatting with..the vendor might be in Texas, or Florida or Timbuktu ..which is a long way away and a whole different climate than Ohio.
They (the vendor/host) might truly have no idea how well (or poorly) something would do in my area, where as someone else from the Great Lakes might jump in with a picture, or an anecdote, or even advice that is more pertinent to my particular situation than anything the vendor has at their disposal. Make sense?


It's the other participants that I am looking to discuss with, more so than the vendor. I can certainly say that they, the other members, are the ones who seem to have the best, and most relevant input in the co-ops I have participated in. I expect a vendor to say their product is the best thing since sliced bread. It's when other's folks I know from the rest of the forum jump in and say "yeah X is great" or "X only works in Y situation for me" that I feel I have enough information to make a sound decision on some new things.

Artemiss, there was some crossing (in fact we crossed twice and may again while I edit this!) while I was typing up my post so now I understand some of the problems with the Marketplace a little better.
I can see the problem using the Marketplace if there is no way to go to a thread from there. It would only work with direct ordering from the vendor. So is it possible to still leave Co-ops in the Forum but charge a fee for each Co-op? Or does someone have another solution to where the Co-ops should be placed? I agree with you, artemiss, that a discussion section is very useful and should be available even if you move the Co-ops to a different section for ordering. Jessica

This message was edited Nov 11, 2008 10:30 PM

This message was edited Nov 11, 2008 10:31 PM

Gardalore, if the order thread goes over to marketplace, would it be visible to the general public or only paying members? The only aspect of marketplace I'm familiar with is classifieds.

Would we have to repeat all the disclaimers again on the order thread that's in Marketplace?
Could folks in marketplace be able to buy at the same time or before the people who are in the original interest group? Would we risk getting more people out of the general membership not understanding the co-op process and taking time to think it through, so blinded by desire the co-op ad has caused?

Where does everyone go to talk about their orders and keep track of payment/shipping and changes of events (orders delayed due to weather, etc). Back to the co-op thread?

I don't think I like the idea of ordering in another forum, but definately in putting a $5 ad in the classifieds once the co-op has been decided to be viable. Perfect place to post the rules and the vendors policies. Link only to the co-op forum not the order thread, to force some exploratory time there. Or link to the information stickies.

Artemiss, I agree, I don't need to talk to vendors directly as a buyer; I trust my host and the group's decision once we've decided to buy. I like that the host has that role. However, I know members who do successfully go directly to the vendor with issues after buying from a co-op . I'm not sure how I feel about that, however, particularly when double shipping has occurred.

If a vendor is right there on the co-op threads, it's hard to be candid about product experiences. We all have soft hearts.


This message was edited Nov 11, 2008 7:54 PM

Very good questions, 4 Paws. I also thought about the problem of the Marketplace being open to the public after checking the spot and posting. In retrospect the Marketplace could be more of a hassle than a help. I didn't fully understand about the thread problem when I said it would be a logical place for the Co-ops. It still is the "Logical" place in the sense of marketing but frankly, if the problem of paying the fees is settled, then I don't care how it's set up. Going back to the forums is fine with me since it certainly does seem easier for the host with all the spreadsheets, questions, updates, etc. I'll be satisfied with any solution that solves our problems. We don't need to complicate the situation! Jessica

Artemis, I was sure that item #2 under vendor in my summary presented your fee suggestion, but as I reviewed it, and upon reading Terry's answers to my questions, I see now that my summary needs editing.

LO, I've reached my editing limit for the day! LOL Didn't know the threads had an editing limit. I'll fix it tomorrow.

No Classified ad ever tells you if a plant can withstand wind or whether it will reseed or become invasive. Coops are educational. Classifieds are not.

Terry, The problem with banning member vendors from hosting coops is that members know, trust and enjoy doing business and socializing with them. Also some members feel these folks would provide more trouble free coops.This ban is what some members want changed, but also want to find a way within a COOP like venue, to see that advertizing vendors are not disadvantaged. Hence all of the suggestions for charging coop fees, higher vendor membership fees or requiring these vendors to purchase advertising..

It's great you are participating with ideas, gardalore. Everyone's input is important; I'm kinda hogging the floor a lot, so if I need to step back for others to step in, someone poke me... :-)

Right, classifieds are not educational as co-ops are, unless they link you to somewhere else. If someone lists plants and links them to the plant files, I'm much more likely to buy something new and different than if only from a list.

i still am wondering if the dg member/vendors cant put up an add in the classifieds and then link it to the co-op, co-op being run by a different dg member?

other vendors can also advertise that they have something for sale and ask for a member to do a co-op in their ads?

is this not a way around the vendor co-ops?

I'm just thinking cause I loved the iris from Snow peak and would love to do another co-op with them, it was really a great product.

1Anjl, A member vendor can supply a coop, just not also Host it.

Terry answered your first question, AnjL, a few posts up. Yes, a member vendor can put an ad in the classifieds for the co-op and have a member run it, provided the member approached the vendor and not viceversa. I appreciate that clarification, because it will make it easy for a member to refuse such a request. Cut/dried, no gray area. Of course, there is always the matter of personal integrity.

Not sure about asking in an ad for a member to run a co-op. Hmmm... Terry? It wouldn't be furtive and it would be open to anyone with qualifications who understood there is no financial gain (but lots of postitive vibes from buyers). That's an interesting thought.

1Anjl, if you approach Snow Peak Iris about doing the coop with your as Host, there shouldn't be a problem with that.

lol, well there was some prior discussion with terry and I on that one, so maybe I'll just dmail her for more clarification :o)


just thinking that if any vendor can advertise, and ask for a co-op hostess...well if its a product we dont want... it would be a no-go. but if its a product that there is interest in...maybe something I dont know that I NEED yet! lol! then it would be fair to all vendors, wether dg members or not...if they are paying for the ad space.

I know I dont check the ad thread personally, and some vendors have said they advertised and got no response so stopped advertising. might bring more people to the whole advertising forum (i definitely would look more often) and then bring more vendors to post ads. vendors are more willing to give bigger discounts if hostesses are volunteering to do most of the work (packaging, tracking orders, collecting money, etc) so I can see why a vendor would be more inclined to do a co-op than an ad.

Classifieds are not the only advertisements available to vendors, it's just that subscribers can turn them off, which I only appreciated today when visiting another sight.

Classifieds are kind of buried, imho. When they were first established, there was a tab at the top of my homepage, so I clicked on it regularly, probably daily. Now it is too many steps to go look at very few advertisements. When I see something good however, I beeline it to tell all my friends in other forums. I love to share a deal.

On the issue of mentoring, I also think that there should be one assigned to each for behind the scenes help. I know I would ask for one, since I haven't hosted one to date. It could work out that the person that needed one most would not think that they need one, if this makes sense...but this may prevent many problems up front. Of all the people that have volunteered to give their time and expertise to mentor are people known to me to be most tactful and positive in their advice. Some people by nature hear any constructive postive advice in a defensive nature...people are people.

I don't look at all the "regulations" as a negative...the more structure and expectations that can be clarified up front...I believe it will act to prevent more problems. Less problems...better co ops.

I do not think that all co ops are the same, though. Sizes and products...host packing vs. vendor delivery...there has to be room in the structure to take it all in. I feel positive about the committee pieces, too. The one issue to prevent problems and that the administration has asked that it not have the problems come to them. I urge you to reconsider them and give them the responsibilities, authority and accountability to make co ops an asset to DG. Even try this for a trial period...say a probationary 3 or 6 months?

As for the vendor issue...it has been asked for in slightly different ways or restating the same...but can a vendor pay for a classified and then have a link to a co op thread for discussion? It could even have a distinct labeling or titling in the forum area. This would allow for the discussion, questions to be answered (many FAQ would be answered this way more efficiently), members could help each other as we have before in the threads, and the social aspect would be met. DG would get their fee also to meet this piece. As for not everyone looking at the classifieds...it would give people a heads-up to check out their whole ad. And lastly, as a member, I would have the privilege to be able to use the discussion forum as an asset to me vs. anyone coming to view an ad and that is all I would be able to view.

For $5 a week, I would think some vendors would find this small enough to pay without a co op needing to absorb the cost, though. Others may comment on this. I haven't hosted a co op yet, but knowing the buying power of this group, would a large vendor make or break a deal on the cost to this? Just wondering...

Thanks, Dave, for allowing us to continue for now...it is greatly appreciated.
RatherB

Terry said: That is pretty much along the same lines as our suggestion to move co-ops to the classified ads or DG Marketplace--it totally removes any question about a vendor using the co-op for free advertising, even if all they pay is $5 for the classified ad.

Personally, I don't know why anyone would object to requiring a $5 supplier fee, just to keep things on the up-and-up. If that will get rid of half of the problems, then we'd be crazy not to jump at it!

But... I do think that it should apply across the board, not just to member/vendors. I'm one of those who voted for the removal of the member/vendor restrictions. I guess I still have a lot of questions about why we have to have those restrictions.

I do understand why DG does not want itself to be right in the middle of someone else's free profit. The problem is, the rule we have now doesn't cure that dilemma. There are regular periodic coops held with non-member vendors (Blooming Bulbs, Foxfire, etc.). All of those coop hosts have an established relationship with their vendors. I can perfectly envision Steven at Foxfire e-mailing Marie (just an example, Marie!) and saying, "Hey, we've had several great coops; how would you feel about another this year?" How is that different than if he were a subscriber and did the same thing? And what difference does it make if he e-mails Marie in January, before she gets around to e-mailing him?

As it stands now, the rule just takes away some of the incentive for vendors to subscribe. And here is where I have to point out that most of them already DO buy classified ads fairly regularly. (That's one way we even know that they are vendors.) So, they must be thinking, "My competition can shill a coop because they haven't paid the DG subscription fee, but since I have, I can't. Doesn't matter that my competition doesn't pay for any advertising, while I pay for both a subscription AND classified ads."

I know that we'd all hate to lose our members who are also sellers. We need them, their knowledge and expertise and friendship.

Another problem is that, when you draw a distinction between member/vendors and non-member vendors, the member/vendors who DO supply a coop are automatically put under scrutiny, if not outright suspicion. They can be accused of shilling whether they really are or not. (As I learned last week to my chagrin.) If shilling means who asked whom to do the coop, there are only two people who will ever know the truth about that. If shilling is that the host merely offers the coop and the vendor does all the work, well, a lot of the non-members do that too, and I think we all agree it usually makes the coop a lot smoother for everyone.

Both you & Dave have said that shilling is one of the two problems with coops. If the restriction was lifted, there would be no shilling, and half of the problem would automatically go away. We'd also get back some of our great hosts who occasionally sell unrelated plants.

Which puts us right back at the AUP wall. But maybe those problems aren't so black and white. Maybe member/vendors contribute in multiple ways. Maybe ALL coop suppliers are profiteering, and we're only penalizing those who pay for a subscription. If it's about which vendors advertise and which benefit for free on coops, a $5 classified ad for all coops would equalize the field.

Just trying to give you some other things to consider. Don't know what to do about the complaint part; sorry!

Ok, I'm trying to clarify things in my head. Not always easy.
The purpose of a co-op is to buy in quantity for a discounted price. The host calls a vendor and sets it up. The host takes orders, collects money, answers questions, receives plants, repacked and resends to members.

A classified ad is where a vendor pays $5 for a 2 weeks ad and offers plants for sale to DG members, often at a discounted price.

So, if a vendor took out an ad and said he was offering a special sale to DG members only from 12-1 thru 12/15 and listed certain plants with price breakpoints depending on the number of sales by the end of the time frame, wouldn't that be basically the same as a co-op but avoiding the middleman?

It just occurred to me to take a look at the posts on the sticky thread in the top of the co-op forum. If we're considering how to post new guidelines or how to word "I accept this risk" buttons, there are 2 posts there worth reading again.

Dave's post at the top of the thread, when co-ops re-opened after the first closing: http://davesgarden.com/community/forums/p.php?pid=2116456

and Terry's more recent post, which has some very clear and concise statements: http://davesgarden.com/community/forums/p.php?pid=5747815

Most of you may already have read both of these posts, but I figured I'd linked in case anybody else (like me) had missed them.

Budgie, yes.

pbtxlady, you're right--it's very difficult (if not impossible) to know exactly what relationship an organizer has with the vendor. You can sometimes get an inkling from the way the co-op starts out whether there is an established relationship or not. If we ask the parties, and they deny any wrongdoing, there's not much we can do, but it isn't fair to the vendors who play by the rules.

That's one of the reasons we are considering moving all co-ops to a more commercial status, and requiring a payment (even if it's a small stipend) to run them. It would put every vendor and advertiser here on a level playing field, and it would (hopefully) encourage all organizers to be more professional in their dealings when they are working alongside business owners who sell and ship for a living.

And yes, we have some organizers who handle things very professionally, but some of the past problems were caused (or exacerbated) by organizers failing to handle problems in a business-like way.

Is there any thoughts on large vendors that will only ship to 1 address. I believe (not positive but pretty sure) Pacific Calla is one of them. If there is anyone listening who has spoken to the companies themselves, do you have a feeling of there willingness to ship to multiple addresses?

Some will ship to multiple addresses and some will not. Some want the entire purchase to be treated like a wholesale order and others can accommodate multiple small customers.

Members here need to be aware that either situation is possible when discussing these alternatives.

The large vendor who only ships to one address should not be dismissed for this. They may simply be set up to handle it this way.

Right... for example, wholesalers who ship entire flats of plants in cell trays are not equipped to ship individual orders with 1 of this and 5 of that. And I was preparing to do a bulk seed purchase co-op where I would be repackaging the seeds in smaller lots... the vendor I had in mind does not have small packets available for purchase.

I'm happy to see the discussion turn to the vendor issue. My background naturally drives me to consider the business aspects of these endeavors. Also in rereading all of the posts on this forum, I noticed that Terry raised the vendor problem even before the complaint issue. That may have been happenstance, but maybe not.

It could be that it is the most important issue for DG as it directly affects the site's financial health. Regardless of how any of us view DG, it is a business and their need to prosper is symbiotically tied to our ability to use and enjoy the site, rightfully so.

In thinking on the vendor issue, I can't help but run the numbers through my brain. 7000 members x $20 = $140,000 of revenue. 25 cllassifieds a week x $5 = $125 x 52 = $6500. There are at least 3 salaries, technical costs and other overhead, not to mention money to the owner.

The advertising revenue must be substantial to meet all of these costs and I don't know the fee structure for regular ads, but it seems that they would have to be more than $5 a week. This leads me to believe that despite Terry's comments, the use of Classified ads by vendors would not be enough to level the field. In fact if the regular advertisers switched to classified ads it might actually be a decrease in revenue. I'm not sure that the subscription advertisers would be happy with the membor vendors having direct access to sales for a cost of only $5 a week or two.

None of this is really our business, but I post this hypothetical scenario in the hopes that it may help us to solve management's (and our) dilemma.