An Analogy

[+2Est8Attys]

While I listened to NPR on my way to work this morning, the local station broke in with its fall fund raising campaign. The pitch mentioned that there are 300,000 listeners to our local affiliate, but less than 1 in 10 are members.

 

I can listen to public radio for free. I get the programming they offer in my car or home without paying for it. There are some benefits, though, to membership. Program guides, gifts, special "members only" functions. The member benefits are nice, but I think most people support public radio because they think that it is worth while, and worthy of their support.

 

There was a time when you never heard commercials on public radio, but now, every break seems to include a "thank you" to a corporate sponsor. I am one of those who doesn't get his tail in a knot over this change. I realize that the money generated by those sponsors helps keep the radio station running, and helps pay for all of those listeners who don't join.

 

I don't have any real beefs with the way the station is run. I don't assume that my being a member gives me a vote in how programming is selected, or what other "features" the station provides. I'm not a big fan of classical music, but I do enjoy the news, car talk, and a few other shows. I don't rant that the station plays too much classical music.

 

By and large, I'm happy with the service I get. If my station ever gets too commercial, or I stop enjoying the programs they provide, I can push another button on my radio.

 

Just my $.02

[+Robespierre]

fair analogy. good job.

[+Wander Lost]

Bravo!!!!!

[+sept1c_tank]

I love Garrison Keillor's "A Prarie Home Companion;" it reminds me of the forums.

 

Very nice analogy.

[+as77]

NPR is a not-for-profit organization while Groundspeak is a for-profit business.

[+Subterranean]

How much of public radio’s content is created by the listener?

[+The Puzzler]

I'm still at a loss to try and figure out what the problem is that people have with businesses making money. It is what keeps them around so that they can provide the goods and services that they do provide.

 

Diatribe below is obviously not for everyone.

 

As for the profitability or exploitation potential of non-profit vs. for-profit businesses, I guarentee that groudspeek executives make a great deal less money than many, many executives of non-profit organizations. You see, by being not-profit, you have to make sure you pay out all your profits to expenses, like executive salaries so you can maintain your non-profit status.

 

The bottom line, whether for profit or not for profit is whether or not you are getting your money's worth. Are you getting a fair deal. Not the best deal or a free deal, but a fair deal. In the case of Groundspeek, I think we are getting not only a fair deal, but one of the best deals in town. I doubt very much that you could put together a non-profit company that would do any better or even as good as groundspeek does. And, if you hide caches and feel exploited by groundspeek, go elsewhere, Groundspeek is not an absolute monopoly. Post your listings to somone else like navicache or GPSGames.org. Hey, the last one even has a .org extention so it feels more non-profit, regarless of whether it is or not.

 

Condeming Groundspeek for being for-profit is like condemning your landlord for owning the house you live in and then having the gaul to charge you rent. Without charging any rent, the landlord could not afford to keep the house, and you would be living in a tent. At least then the landlord wouldn't have to listen to you whining about paying rent.

Edited October 20, 2004 by The Puzzler

[+NoLemon]

Well said, Puzzler.

 

I am continually amazed at the number of people in the forums that constantly complain about Groundspeak and Groundspeak's business practices (most of which is guessing and speculation because Groundspeak is a privately held company and their business doings are not public information). One would think that if these people disagree with Groundspeak as intensely and vehemently as their posts represent, they would go elsewhere.

 

However, they stay -- using the forums, hiding and logging caches. Actions speak louder than words. Either they are deliberately stirring the pot because they need the attention or they simply aren't happy unless they are complaining. Whichever, it isn't productive nor beneficial to either Groundspeak or the geocaching community. It is just hypocritical.

 

In regards to the original post: despite some of the obvious differences that have been pointed out, I think the analogy is mostly valid. Groundspeak and NPR are both heavily user supported (NPR is financially supported, Groundspeak is supported by the caches, logs, etc.) and wouldn't exist without that support.

 

Edit: My spelling is fine, it is the typing that gets messed up.

Edited October 20, 2004 by NoLemon

[+AuntieWeasel]

Well, if Groundspeak ever institutes bumper music, I'm outta here! Commercials are one thing, but who wants to sit through five minutes of improvisational klezmer played on Tibetan yak horn flutes between news segments?

[+welch]

And now back to the focus of this thread, flaming Groundspeak

[+rusty_tlc]

NPR is a not-for-profit organization while Groundspeak is a for-profit business.

A`nal´o`gy

Noun 1. analogy - an inference that if things agree in some respects they probably agree in others

illation, inference - the reasoning involved in drawing a conclusion or making a logical judgment on the basis of circumstantial evidence and prior conclusions rather than on the basis of direct observation

 

2. analogy - drawing a comparison in order to show a similarity in some respect; "the operation of a computer presents and interesting analogy to the working of the brain"; "the models show by analogy how matter is built up"

comparing, comparison - examining resemblances or differences

 

3. analogy - the religious belief that between creature and creator no similarity can be found so great but that the dissimilarity is always greater; language can point in the right direction but any analogy between God and humans will always be inadequate

doctrine of analogy

faith, religion, religious belief - a strong belief in a supernatural power or powers that control human destiny; "he lost his faith but not his morality"

I think the analogy is valid, in many ways NPR and Groundspeak are alike.

[+as77]

I think the analogy is valid, in many ways NPR and Groundspeak are alike.

And in many other ways they are not.

 

When discussing an analogy, I think it is adequate to point out the differences as well. The more differences the more flawed the analogy. I feel that the fact that NPR is a non-profit organization while Groundspeak is for-profit is a fundamental difference which makes this analogy flawed. But then again, every analogy is flawed in some way or another.

[CoyoteRed]

Decent analogy.

 

However, if NPR were more like Groundspeak the total content would be listener contributions, they would then control how much you hear, they would control what you say and how you say it, all content had to be pre-approved before airing, no subject could be too close to the previous or following subjects, you could get the total content in bulk if you were a member, some segments would be static unless you were a member, ideas and constructive critisism would fall on deaf ears, ideas acknowledged to be good would take forever to implement while workarounds advantageous to the user would be fixed ASAP, and if you complained they would tell you to change the station. (Oh yeah, the only other station would be outside your area except for the ones where you are the only contributor.)

 

[+Gambrinus & Crew]

When discussing an analogy, I think it is adequate to point out the differences as well. The more differences the more flawed the analogy. I feel that the fact that NPR is a non-profit organization while Groundspeak is for-profit is a fundamental difference which makes this analogy flawed.

I disagree. I don't think the fact that one is for-profit and one is not is really the basis of the analogy. The basis of the analogy seems, to me at least, to be that both services can be either used for free or said users can support the organizations through membership.

 

Regardless of whether Groundspeak is for-profit or not, anyone can still use the service for free, just like NPR. I prefer to pay the small fee and support the service, however. I've wasted more than the yearly fee that I paid for this service in restaurants on less-than-satisfying dinners plenty of times.

[+rusty_tlc]

Decent analogy.

 

However, if NPR were more like Groundspeak the total content would be listener contributions, they would then control how much you hear, they would control what you say and how you say it, all content had to be pre-approved before airing, no subject could be too close to the previous or following subjects, you could get the total content in bulk if you were a member, some segments would be static unless you were a member, ideas and constructive critisism would fall on deaf ears, ideas acknowledged to be good would take forever to implement while workarounds advantageous to the user would be fixed ASAP, and if you complained they would tell you to change the station. (Oh yeah, the only other station would be outside your area except for the ones where you are the only contributor.)

 

Everything you mention is exactly like NPR, except the statement about listener contributions.

I certainly don't have any control over the programing.

They to avoid running two very similar programs in a row, unless it is a special.

I'm sure they get volumes of mail with suggestions and only implement the ones that they find practical.

And I'm pretty sure they will tell you not to listen if you constantly criticize the programing.

And, around here anyway, there is only one public radio station to listen to. So you don't even have a bad alternative choice.

[+as77]

The basis of the analogy seems, to me at least, to be that both services can be either used for free or said users can support the organizations through membership.

 

Regardless of whether Groundspeak is for-profit or not, anyone can still use the service for free, just like NPR.

Well, not really. There are no restrictions to non-member NPR listeners while non-subscriber gc.com users are restricted and don't get full service.

 

If we are looking for an analogy, I think the shareware analogy is better. You get some limited-functionality software for free and you get full functionality if you pay. Note that this is not the same as donationware where you get the same (full) functionality regardless of whether you pay or not.

[+RichardMoore]

The YMCA is non-profit, and I believe would cost me $75 a year to belong. If I don't pay I can't use the facility. (At least that's what I was told last week, I am not a member.)

Geocaching.com is for-profit, and costs me $30 a year. If I don't pay I still have access to the service, with the exception of some benefits that I don't really use anyway.

[Pto]

I dont recall NPR ever blocking access to its radio signal to users with high power antennea's, causing to much drain on the station....

[+rusty_tlc]

...

Well, not really. There are no restrictions to non-member NPR listeners while non-subscriber gc.com users are restricted and don't get full service.

 

.....

There benefits, as mentioned, that supporters of NPR have access to that aren't available to all listeners.

 

Note: I added bold face to some text in the quote to emphasize my statement.

Edited October 20, 2004 by rusty_tlc

[+rusty_tlc]

I dont recall NPR ever blocking access to its radio signal to users with high power antennea's, causing to much drain on the station....

This is an example of a bad analogy. It violates the laws of physics for somebody to build such an antenna.

[+as77]

The YMCA is non-profit, and I believe would cost me $75 a year to belong. If I don't pay I can't use the facility.

The YMCA homepage says: "No one is turned away for inability to pay."

Of course if you are able to pay but you just don't want to, that's another matter.

[+Sputnik 57]

As has been mentioned, no analogy is perfect (unless you are comparing something to itself, which is pointless). Any analogy can be pushed too far.

 

The OP offered an interesting way to view some of the much "cussed and discussed" features of Groundspeak policies. I think the similarities are striking, but agree that there are some differences, which have been well articulated in this thread. I, for one, think that the OP provided a new and helpful way to think about the membership idea. I think the shareware analogy also has merit.

[Pto]

Of course if you are able to pay but you just don't want to, that's another matter.

 

Thats another analogy in and of itself, isnt it?

[+The Puzzler]

However, if NPR were more like Groundspeak . . .

This is just begging for a reply.

 

> . . . the total content would be listener contributions . . .

 

Thank god it's not.

 

> . . . they would then control how much you hear . . .

 

Which, of course they do, more so that Groundspeak does given the medium.

 

> . . . they would control what you say and how you say it . . .

 

And when is the last time you were given an oportunity to say ANYTHING on NPR?

When was the last time you were allowed to say something controversial in Groundspeak forums?

 

> . . . all content had to be pre-approved before airing . . .

 

As I'm sure it already is, unlike Groundspeak that lets us mouth off pretty much however we like, certainly with some firm (sometimes too firm) direction, but with very little actual editing.

 

> . . . no subject could be too close to the previous or following subjects . . .

 

Are you suggesting that NPR does not have a program director that pays attention to these sorts of things.

 

> . . . you could get the total content in bulk if you were a member, some segments would be static unless you were a member . . .

 

You mean like the extra articles that NPR sends out only to its members as inscentive and reward for being a supporting member?

 

> . . . ideas and constructive critisism would fall on deaf ears . . .

 

Have you ever tried to get a response from NPR? I wouldn't be too sure of a faster or more possitive response. Of course, NPR has a much bigger budget and staff. But then, changes also come more slowly because the NPR infrastructure is much larger. I highly doubt you would be able to get personal feedback from the CEO of NPR like we do on a nearly daily basis on Groundspeak forums, even if the content is about raingear instead of the latest programing frustrations. . . I don't keep an eye on the web page forum, just the general forum.

 

> . . . ideas acknowledged to be good would take forever to implement while workarounds advantageous to the user would be fixed ASAP

 

This is too vague to be able to comment inteligently on.

 

> . . . and if you complained they would tell you to change the station.

 

Has Groundspeak ever done this to you. I have personally suggested it as a fellow customer suggesting that people use their consumer power to speak. But, I have not seen it from Groundspeak (although i would not consider it out of line under certain cercumstances). I would suggest that if you complain about the fundamental structure of the corperation then maybe being on Groundspeak is not for you. I would hope that if you complain constructively about issues that a significant number of other users share that you would get possitive feedback.

 

Other than one particularly heavy handed moderator, I have not seen any Groundspeak condemnation of what appeared to me as well intentioned criticisms.

 

> . . . Oh yeah, the only other station would be outside your area except for the ones where you are the only contributor. . .

 

And that, you cannot blame on Groundspeak unless it is that they do too good of a job, and so there is no effective competition. Personally, always try to crosspost my caches on other sites to encourage that competition. Do you?

[CoyoteRed]

Well then, maybe NPR isn't like Groundspeak after all.

 

EDIT: BTW, we contribute to NPR, too. Just thought you would like to know.

Edited October 20, 2004 by CoyoteRed

[+NoLemon]

I dont recall NPR ever blocking access to its radio signal to users with high power antennea's, causing to much drain on the station....

This analogy doesn't work. One person's radio reception is independent of anothers. The radio station's transmitter emits the same about of power whether 1, 10, 100,000 or 0 radios are tuned in. One user or a group of users reception doesn't affect the reception of others.

 

However, Groundspeak's servers and Internet bandwith are load dependent. The servers can only service a limited number of requests over a given period of time; the bandwidth can only handle so data at a time. One user or a group of users can adversely affect the use of the site by others.

[Pto]

And when is the last time you were given an oportunity to say ANYTHING on NPR? When was the last time you were allowed to say something controversial in Groundspeak forums?

 

They, too have Free forums for discussion. The moderation over there is very limited.

When was the last time you were moderated?

[+The Puzzler]

Personally, I think this thread is a lot like a snowball. Layer upon layer of the same stuff until it gets so big it's no fun to roll any more and in the end it all melts away into a soggy mess.

 

Yes, I like making snowball too.

[+The Puzzler]

They, too have Free forums for discussion. The moderation over there is very limited.

When was the last time you were moderated?

Yes, NPR has very good open discussions. Probably because they limit the number and/or choose the participants carefully so that the discussion stays on track and accomplishes something.

 

I have never be "moderated" on Groundspeek, regardless of how edgy some of my posts have been.

 

I have had a rather rude response from my least favorite moderator when I sent a flaming email complaining about the way one of the threads I was reading was moderated. I thought terminating the tread had been in order, just not the manner in which it had been done.

 

Although I would do less moderation if I were TPTB, asside from my least favorite moderator, I have only seen what I thought has been quite constructive moderation. I will not hold all of Groundspeak to blame for one volunteer that, although he/she may not be as construtive as I would like to see, is none-the-less trying to do a thankless job.

 

Just my two bits.

[+Renegade Knight]

I'm still at a loss to try and figure out what the problem is that people have with businesses making money. It is what keeps them around so that they can provide the goods and services that they do provide....

The analogy is an interesting one and I think it’s apt in how people use the services of listing sites. For most people it’s about the fun. This is their hobby, their recreation and the site that makes it easiest for them wins. Grounspeak’s GC.com does a bang up job of that and earned something like 90% or more of the market share of listed caches. It’s also the only site that has managed to offer services that cache finders are willing to pay for. For those who pay to play it is about the value you get. For some it’s about supporting geocaching. Some lesser number would pony up for their local organization though, and the odds are that local organization is non profit if it’s taken on a role beyond a method of socializing.

 

The issues when it comes to profit and non profit run far deeper than the anology. Another analogy is in order. Think of farmers who grow a crop called caches. The farmers sell their listings for free to the listing sites who re-sell them to finders. The farmers have no say. At some point a caching coop will seem like a much better deal for the farmers.

 

As for all players we can use the NSS analogy. We rely on other peoples lands to play our game. So do they. They are a non profit and member controlled, for a lot of good reasons.

[+as77]

There benefits, as mentioned, that supporters of NPR have access to that aren't available to all listeners.

Those benefits are not related to getting more or higher-quality radio programming. Usually they are discounts for concert tickets, etc. Essentially they are thank-you gifts, as opposed to improved or extra service.

Edited October 20, 2004 by as77

[+cache_us_if_you_can]

There benefits, as mentioned, that supporters of NPR have access to that aren't available to all listeners.

Those benefits are not related to getting more or higher-quality radio programming. Usually they are discounts for concert tickets, etc.

Nor does GC.com offer higher-quality caches if your a premium member. A benefit is a benefit in my book, regardless of quality.

[+rusty_tlc]

There benefits, as mentioned, that supporters of NPR have access to that aren't available to all listeners.

Those benefits are not related to getting more or higher-quality radio programming. Usually they are discounts for concert tickets, etc.

Or progam listing guides.

Direct analogy:

Program listing guide -> PQ'q

Concert ticket offers -> MOC's

 

I still find the analogy valid.

[+carleenp]

Whether perfect or flawed, I liked the analogy because it was friendly. I like friendly people. Hence I liked the friendly analogy.

Edited October 20, 2004 by carleenp

[+as77]

There benefits, as mentioned, that supporters of NPR have access to that aren't available to all listeners.

Those benefits are not related to getting more or higher-quality radio programming. Usually they are discounts for concert tickets, etc.

Nor does GC.com offer higher-quality caches if your a premium member. A benefit is a benefit in my book, regardless of quality.

It provides extra and improved services closely related to geocaching, services that enhance the functionality of the web site. What gc.com provides when you are a subscriber is not a thank-you gift.

[+cache_us_if_you_can]

Whether perfect or flawed, I liked the analogy because it was friendly. I like friendly people. Hence I liked the friendly analogy.

I also liked it decause it was friendly and beauce it is one of the best analogy I've seen used.

[+Prime Suspect]

I dont recall NPR ever blocking access to its radio signal to users with high power antennea's, causing to much drain on the station....

Wanna bet? This is from out local NPR station streaming audio page:

 

Why does KERA 90.1's stream cut off after an hour? KERA 90.1 pays for the amount of bandwidth we stream each month. Users who log onto our stream and leave their computers for extended periods of time raise the amount of bandwidth we use. We apologize for the inconvenience and appreciate your help in controlling our costs.

[koz]

strange enough, i agree w/a** on this one...geojeremy is a for profit thing (not that there's anything wrong w/that to paraphrase seinfeld) and i don't see the value in kicking in the motlley $30 as i see no value to me...as a for profit enterprside (unlike npr) i don't lose any sleep over being an el cheapo

[+rusty_tlc]

I dont recall NPR ever blocking access to its radio signal to users with high power antennea's, causing  to much drain on the station....

Wanna bet? This is from out local NPR station streaming audio page:

 

Why does KERA 90.1's stream cut off after an hour? KERA 90.1 pays for the amount of bandwidth we stream each month. Users who log onto our stream and leave their computers for extended periods of time raise the amount of bandwidth we use. We apologize for the inconvenience and appreciate your help in controlling our costs.

Strictly speaking I don't think thats the radio signal, it may be considered the radio broadcast though.

[+NoLemon]

I dont recall NPR ever blocking access to its radio signal to users with high power antennea's, causing  to much drain on the station....

Wanna bet? This is from out local NPR station streaming audio page:

 

Why does KERA 90.1's stream cut off after an hour? KERA 90.1 pays for the amount of bandwidth we stream each month. Users who log onto our stream and leave their computers for extended periods of time raise the amount of bandwidth we use. We apologize for the inconvenience and appreciate your help in controlling our costs.

Strictly speaking I don't think thats the radio signal, it may be considered the radio broadcast though.

Rusty is correct. Distribution of radio programming content over the internet is now considered broadcasting. But, for the vast majority of radio stations it is not their primary means of content distribution.

 

In regards to content distribution and user's reception:

Cache listings on the website is analagous to traditional radio broadcast (airwaves)

Cache listings via PQ is analagous to radio over the Internet

[+vree]

[snip] who wants to sit through five minutes of improvisational klezmer played on Tibetan yak horn flutes between news segments?

OMG, that is too funny. I love NPR, but you've got to giggle at this.

 

I don't have much money to give to support GC or NPR, but I use their services and think they are both worthwhile, so I'll give the little bit that they ask for. It's worth it to me, but not required by either.

[+Alan2]

Wouldn't a better analogy be Groundspeak to let's say Yahoo. Yahoo is free to get an email address and use their forums for free. Like Groundspeak, the users create much of the content; the users probably more so on Groundspeak. Both sell products and ads. Both Groundspeak and Yahoo sell additional services to their "members". You can pay for more Yahoo memory or add PQ's to Groundspeak membership.

[Jeremy]

What a shocker. A topic overanalyzing an analogy.

 

Consider this statement:

 

Rocks are not like chickens.

 

Argue why rocks are actually like chickens.

 

Go.

 

Good idea though: Get the government to subsidize the web site and I guarantee this site will be more like NPR. Whatever that means.

[+Renegade Knight]

...Argue why rocks are actually like chickens...

Some rocks are caches.

 

If the dead animal was allowed as a cache the chicken would have been a cache soon enough.

 

Or:

 

I've seen rocks and chickens while caching and those are only separated by three degrees from Snoogans.

 

Or:

 

NPR has talked about rocks, and chickens.

 

Or:

 

Chuck a rock at a chiken and that will connect them.

 

Or:

 

Freeze a chicken and it goes through train windows like a rock.

[Cholo]

What a shocker. A topic overanalyzing an analogy.

 

Consider this statement:

 

Rocks are not like chickens.

 

Argue why rocks are actually like chickens.

 

Go.

 

Good idea though: Get the government to subsidize the web site and I guarantee this site will be more like NPR. Whatever that means.

Rocks are more like chicken nuggets. As for analogy, is that the study of all the planets or just Uranus?

[+The Jester]

Consider this statement:

 

Rocks are not like chickens.

 

Argue why rocks are actually like chickens.

 

Go.

Rocks are made up of minerals. Chickens are made up of minerals. Therefore rocks and chickens are similar.

 

If a rock and a chicken are dropped from the same height on the moon, both will hit the surface at the same time, and make the same amount of noise (zilch - it's a vacuum!).

 

Chickens swallow rocks to help digestion. When chickens die, some will become fosselized (i.e.. become rocks) and may be eaten by other chickens to help digestion. Therefore, in this case, chickens and rocks are the same.

[+cache_us_if_you_can]

Consider this statement:

 

Rocks are not like chickens.

 

Argue why rocks are actually like chickens.

 

Go.

Rocks are like chickens:

 

Both are found on farms.

 

Both can be shades of orange yellow and brown.

 

Neither fly very well.

 

Neither listen to NPR.

 

[+cache_us_if_you_can]

What a shocker. A topic overanalyzing an analogy.

Are you really that shocked?

[+Stunod]

Leave me out of this...

[+cache_us_if_you_can]

Leave me out of this...

Good idea