A New Change For Luminous-Landscape

[Slobodan Blagojevic]

... It's proper to disclose these things...

Why? Are they running for a public office? Or financed by taxpayers?  Is "transparency" a PC translation for "I have the right to stick my nose in other people's business"?

[Rob C]

You are missing my key point which is not the right of the site owners to gift anyone they please.  Clearly that is their right and you are correct that the the fee is low which I acknowledged as well.  It's proper to disclose these things and not just issue a flippant, "....I guess that is for us to know and others to speculate about." 

I'll throw this back at you, if you think this is correct behavior then, "I feel sorry for you."  We may agree that $12 is piddling but what if the membership fee was $25, $50, $100 a year?  Would you feel the same way?

For this question to make sense, you must ask yourself: would the freebie gesture have then made sense to the proprietor? If not, your argument is simply a reduction to the absurd. As the current re-evaluation of the infamous trial in South Africa shows, one has to consider all the nuances alongside ultimate result as well as of intent. Clever council will ever discover some arcane point that makes a difference to any argument. Is it worth  the man-hours in this case? But hey, some simply enjoy the argument, which is fine, too.

Rob

[Eric Myrvaagnes]

I'll throw this back at you, if you think this is correct behavior then, "I feel sorry for you."  We may agree that $12 is piddling but what if the membership fee was $25, $50, $100 a year?  Would you feel the same way?

I'm not Manoli, but I certainly would feel the same way. Michael and friends own the site. What they do with it is entirely their business (unless they use it to promote heinous acts, like terrorism, for instance).

Whether I subscribe or not is entirely my business.

In my view they have bent over backward to be responsive to issues brought up concerning the monetizing of their site.

As soon as there is a "Donate" button, I will donate something more than the $12 they are asking for, for access to the main site and all the videos. The forum remains free (unless you want to sell something, and that seems to me quite reasonable, too).

I find it somewhat ironic that a vocal minority is taking advantage of it to complain repeatedly about aspects of the monetization of what was previously a free site, but with fairly expensive videos, if you wanted several of them. (If you want all the videos, it is now much less expensive.)

Eric

[Manoli]

I'll throw this back at you, if you think this is correct behavior then, "I feel sorry for you."  We may agree that $12 is piddling but what if the membership fee was $25, $50, $100 a year?  Would you feel the same way?

Absolutely, because the choice is mine and mine alone.

What's offered to others , either as a means of financial inducement or ex-gratia payment is simply not my concern. Equally, whether I choose to accept or decline a gratuitous gesture is mine alone.

What I do see is a considered gesture, (the import of which changed abruptly) which a majority neither anticipated nor accepted. Of those who have accepted (and many would have been given no alternative simply because the act of registration confirmed their membership) a large number have, within this thread, stated that they feel more disposed to supporting a site that, up until now, has existed thanks to the generosity of its owner(s) and in recognition wish to contribute financially, either by way of a subscription fee or contribution.

Broadening this discussion to include aspersions on the intent and 'correct behaviour', IMO, doesn't become you.

[digitaldog]

I've already stated that I'd pay up twelve bucks if only in gratitude to the good that LuLa has done me in furthering my education in matters digital, a service that they rendered me after earlier such kindnesses from members of the original BJP forum did much the same.

Me as well. But it doesn't appear to be an option. My suggestion to Kevin is that be an option.

[Alan Goldhammer]

Why? Are they running for a public office? Or financed by taxpayers?  Is "transparency" a PC translation for "I have the right to stick my nose in other people's business"?

Ok, her is a simplistic example that maybe even you can understand.  I own a restaurant that has 10 customers a day (keeping it simple).  My break even point is $1000/day and let's say I want to make a $200 profit per day.  This means that I need to charge the 10 customers $120/meal to make that profit.  Now two of these people are photographers and really great pals and on my day off we go out into the field and take pictures.  I decide that because these two people have been good contributors to my avocation that I will gift them free meals.  Now I still need to make the $200 profit so I can save up for a new camera lens.  This means that the other eight customers will be charged $150 per meal.  Now I don't disclose on the menu that some people will be charged more because of the freebies.  If I were one of those customers paying the extra $30, I might feel aggrieved.

Obviously LuLa is operating on a different scale.  My point is that Chris's comment blowing things off was offensive to me.  Maybe it wasn't to you.  I spent my working career in an industry that spent a lot of time and effort fighting transparency and that fight ultimately failed.  Perhaps this has made me more sensitive to these issues and if so that's my right.  For you and the others who don't seem to think this is wrong, that's OK; it's your opinion and you have the right to express it.  Just don't come at me like an anti-PC jackal, that's not your right and it's offensive.

I'll leave it at that and just reiterate that I am disappointed that this was done behind the veil of secrecy.

[Nick Walker]

People getting troubled over an annual fee of only $12 for LULA is beyond me.

[Martin Kristiansen]

All we need to care about actually is do we see value in the offering. Is what is on offer worth the price to you. If it is you buy it. If it is it isn't then don't. Why stress about what someone else is paying?

I don't charge all my clients the same price. I do special deals with certain clients for all sorts of reasons. Top pros get free equipment all the time. I don't get offended.

In this case it's $12. The rest of it is a debate about ego in my opinion.

[Alan Smallbone]

Why? Are they running for a public office? Or financed by taxpayers?  Is "transparency" a PC translation for "I have the right to stick my nose in other people's business"?

I rarely agree with posts from SB, but I have to say this one hits the nail on the head for me. It is their web site and they can do whatever they damn well want to without justifying to anyone the reasons. Period. I could care less that they gifted some memberships, and I actually think rewarding valued contributors in that way is an excellent idea. They absolutely do not have to be "transparent" in how they operate. Nor does a restaurant and everyone has a choice, don't like it, hit the bricks so to speak. No one is locked in to coming here. All by free choice and a desire to participate and receive and disseminate what ever knowledge you have that is relevant at the time.

Alan

[Telecaster]

A guitarist I was in a band with in the 1980's had one of these:

https://www.gbase.com/gear/gretsch-single-anniversary-1960-two-tone-gree

It was a lovely thing.

Yeah, essentially the same thing as the Chet Atkins single-cut hollowbody guitars (and typically available at lower prices). Gretsch used the same template for many different models. This one has the same aluminum Bigsby bridge as my Chet. The bridge doesn't get much love from Gretsch fans, as the preset intonation isn't good with lighter gauge strings, but it works fine with my prefered 12 gauge flatwounds.

-Dave-

[Slobodan Blagojevic]

P.S. Michael says Hi from Ethiopia where he is taking enviably compelling photographs

Yup, very suspicious.  Sounds to me like he is really on the lam.

Nah, not yet at least.

If you suddenly see Chris and Kevin joining him in Ethiopia (which I presume has no extradition agreements with neither Canada nor USA) and LuLa suddenly goes dark, I would be very, very concerned for the $12 million dollars they just collected from us

[LesPalenik]

Well, with all that money they could get rid of the forums and do just the videos.

[jeremyrh]

Ok, her is a simplistic example that maybe even you can understand.  I own a restaurant that has 10 customers a day (keeping it simple).  My break even point is $1000/day and let's say I want to make a $200 profit per day.  This means that I need to charge the 10 customers $120/meal to make that profit.  Now two of these people are photographers and really great pals and on my day off we go out into the field and take pictures.  I decide that because these two people have been good contributors to my avocation that I will gift them free meals.  Now I still need to make the $200 profit so I can save up for a new camera lens.  This means that the other eight customers will be charged $150 per meal.  Now I don't disclose on the menu that some people will be charged more because of the freebies.  If I were one of those customers paying the extra $30, I might feel aggrieved.

For me the analogy is more like I attend a workshop and the leader buys coffee for a little group of his pals every day. Of course the money is a) small and b) his to do as he pleases. But it feels exclusionary. My problem? Yes, maybe. Unless the leader cares about the impression he wants to give, as a personal and business matter.

[kencameron1949@gmail.com]

Ok, her is a simplistic example that maybe even you can understand...If I were one of those customers paying the extra $30, I might feel aggrieved.

I suspect you meant a simple example. I am afraid you came up with a simplistic one. When I eat in a restaurant I am happy if I get what I consider to be value for money and I have no expectation whatsoever that the proprietor disclose to me the financial arrangements (including freebies) that sit behind his or her pricing.

[kencameron1949@gmail.com]

For me the analogy is more like I attend a workshop and the leader buys coffee for a little group of his pals every day. Of course the money is a) small and b) his to do as he pleases. But it feels exclusionary. My problem? Yes, maybe. Unless the leader cares about the impression he wants to give, as a personal and business matter.

Interesting point. I guess I have always considered LuLa to be more like a restaurant than a workshop - ie, a business, of a certain scale, with a certain duration, in which the background financial arrangements are none of my business. But for what it is worth, the leaders have  not created any negative impressions a result of the way they have managed this change.

[AlterEgo]

For me the analogy is more like I attend a workshop and the leader buys coffee for a little group of his pals every day.

you mix once and every day... also "pals" can hardly be applicable to me specifically for example...  yet, I received that EMAIL...  actually I did not read it past the line that some changes are coming to LuLa and deleted it the same minute... however after somebody posted here several pages ago I tried out of sheer curiousity to login with my email address and to my very genuine surprise discovered that I was indeed given the free membership or whatever is the term... I actually used an opportunity to watch a video of KR talking with LK about C1 internals and was very, very disappointed that most of the hour was wasted on wordly niceties instead of asking tough technical questions... what a waste !

[Slobodan Blagojevic]

For me the analogy is more like I attend a workshop and the leader buys coffee for a little group of his pals every day...

Given LuLa visitors' size, a more appropriate analogy would be a concert at a stadium, where a few pals would get a free pass. Big deal.

[John Hollenberg]

Ok, her is a simplistic example that maybe even you can understand.  I own a restaurant that has 10 customers a day (keeping it simple).  My break even point is $1000/day and let's say I want to make a $200 profit per day.  This means that I need to charge the 10 customers $120/meal to make that profit.  Now two of these people are photographers and really great pals and on my day off we go out into the field and take pictures.  I decide that because these two people have been good contributors to my avocation that I will gift them free meals.  Now I still need to make the $200 profit so I can save up for a new camera lens.  This means that the other eight customers will be charged $150 per meal.

My thought would be, "Here is a guy who does right by his friends.  That is the kind of guy I want to do business with."  If I thought the meal was worth $150, I would still eat there.  If not, I would eat somewhere else.  How he sets his prices and who he charges what is not my concern, other than what he charges me for the meal.  I would reserve "fairness and transparency" for the realm of elected office and the deals those in elected office make with private corporations.

[Christopher Sanderson]

...
I think people are willing to pay,  but they do want to be treated equally.

And all are free to comment (with respect) as they see fit.

Chris

[Dohmnuill]

Slobodan has nailed it, again.

This site is a privately owned one and no one is compelled to use it. In common with another photography site which I once frequently visited (the owner is now apparently chasing ghosts and spirits , certain readers imagine they are part of some "community" and become self-appointed guardians who ride shotgun or demand equality and rights akin to the owners. Time for them to get out more.