Jump to content

Member Drive


Recommended Posts

OK - I'm new on the block, but I have a plan to get more goecachers to buy the membership that doesn't involve adding amazing features to the site that would cause the membership cost to jump to $100... (not that I'm against amazing features - I'm still waiting on the members only faster server :( )

 

The reason I became a paying member was not because of pocket searches (I didn't even know what they were). I became a member because when I was out of town and caching, I went to a park that had three caches in it, but I could only get two of them. The third was a members only cache. It drives me crazy to think that I am in the park but cannot get the cache.

 

I know that some of you might be thinking... "That's because you must be one of those 'numbers' guys". Well, maybe I am - but there are many many users of gc.com that think the same way I do. They don't want to pass a cache by when they are right there. We can use this strong desire - weither its about the numbers, or just b/c they love to cache like me - to drive membership. Here's the plan:

 

In every park where we have a cache - or two - or more - we put a members only cache. I'm not suggesting that we make all caches members only, but a members only cache placed near a cache open to everyone would be a big incentive for many people.

 

What are your thoughts?

Link to comment

I think most people would pass by that lone cache. If someone for some reason doesn't want to spend $2.50 or $3 per month, I don't think they are going to no matter what. There are better reasons to join than a few extra caches. With new cachers, if they want to join, they will anyway for one reason or another anyway.

 

It's not a bad idea, I just don't think it will work.

 

BTW, welcome. 76 finds in a month is a heck of a start.

Link to comment

I became a paying member due to the fact it cost money and time for people to host such a site. If I’m going to utilize it on a regular basses for my entertainment I surly can contribute. Cost though is a factor. If the cost were to go to high, I would defiantly consider if I utilized the resources of the site to justify higher membership.

 

I do think member only cache are nice as well for it adds the extra hide for more dedicated cacher.

Link to comment

Most people join for the member benifits. Chiefly the pocket queries. A lot join to give back to the site. A small number join for the purpose of MO caches. I should do a poll in my area. There are a lot of MO caches now. It would be interesting to see who all joined because of them. My money would be on people joining to create them since they tend to be safe from a casual cache maggot.

Link to comment

I'm a lowly non-member, and I didn't know that I could even see members only caches listed on this site. If it were possible to see them listed with everything but the maps and coordinates...then it might be an incentive to some...but if we can't see them, it is like they do not exist. Hmmm...maybe the listings do show members only caches?...but if they do...I haven't noticed.

Link to comment

I joined because I wanted to give a little something back to help the website. This hobby has brought me closer to my kids than anything I have ever done. It's not just being outdoors and finding some trinkets, but the talks we've had along the way. Our rule is no radio either on the way to the cache or back home. I have had some the best times and I am so grateful for the hobby. 3 bucks a month! Come on, you can give up soda for 1 day a month and save that much. I have no problem with people not being premium members but I too would like to see more member only caches.

Have a great holiday weekend everyone and stay safe.

Bob in Minnesota. :unsure:

Link to comment
I'm a lowly non-member, and I didn't know that I could even see members only caches listed on this site. If it were possible to see them listed with everything but the maps and coordinates...then it might be an incentive to some...but if we can't see them, it is like they do not exist. Hmmm...maybe the listings do show members only caches?...but if they do...I haven't noticed.

Search functions lists the MO caches, and they are displayed with a small black head profile icon on a white background. If you, as a non-premium member, click on its link you will get a message saying it is a members only cache. So they are not totally hidden from non-premium members.

Link to comment

I think a good way to lure new mwmbers would be to offer a free trial of MO features. Let them have full access for a certain period of time and let them see how good some of the benefits are before they sign up.

Link to comment
Geocaching is not a "pay to play" type activity. Therefore I strongly oppose the topic starter's idea.

Funny I thought the OP just wanted to increase the number of existing cachers that support this site. I didn't get at all that they thought people should pay to play. So what if there are a few (MO) caches out there that not everyone has access to? It's not about the numbers right?

Link to comment
Subscriber-only caches, as the name implies, inherently carry the message that you should pay to play. Increasing their number amounts to pressurizing people into paying.

And besides TPTB stated commitment to always provide a free option, why shouldn't people be encouraged to pay to support the service?

 

I don't believe MO caches will significantly encourage people to join up and participate, but I have no problem with it.

 

edit for typing problems!

Edited by KoosKoos
Link to comment

Many people would just skip the MO caches and move on - not sure it would entice many to pay.

 

Best reason to pay is simply to support the site. Computers, Servers, Programming, expert advice and Internet bandwidth are expensive items. Somebody's got to pay to keep the site running smoothly. I enjoy it so I pay.

Link to comment

If the percentage of caches that are subscriber-only starts increasing, a new policy should be implemented that limits this percentage and restricts the placement of new subscriber-only caches. Otherwise all caches, or all caches in a particular area could become subscriber-only and the game would become completely pay-to-play, which is contrary to Groundspeak's well-publicized commitment to keep the basic game free forever.

Link to comment
Subscriber-only caches, as the name implies, inherently carry the message that you should pay to play. Increasing their number amounts to pressurizing people into paying.

And we all know what happens when you "pressurize" people----they blow up and maybe even explode! :huh::unsure::ph34r:

 

I'm all for members only caches. I don't see where that harms the casual cacher.

Link to comment
Geocaching is not a "pay to play" type activity. Therefore I strongly oppose the topic starter's idea.

I'm not suggesting that we all place MO caches from now on. I only suggest that we place more MO caches in the same park WITH caches that are available to everyone.

 

I love this sport and I don't want to see it as a pay to play only activity. There should always be free caches out there - the more the better.

 

I guess not a lot of the people in these forums think like me when it comes to caching - if I know there are two caches in the same park - I want to get them both. I am not the kinda guy that would simply skip over the MO cache - when I saw that I could not get a cache b/c I wasn't a member, I thought -

 

Man, if only I were a member I could have grabed "MOCache01" when I grabed "FreeCache01", they're in the same park!

 

I don't want to take away the ability of users to play for free, I just want people to support the site so we can continue to grow - plus I don't want to see a lot of pop-up ads or spam coming from the site so that gc.com can continue...

Link to comment
If the percentage of caches that are subscriber-only starts increasing, a new policy should be implemented that limits this percentage and restricts the placement of new subscriber-only caches. Otherwise all caches, or all caches in a particular area could become subscriber-only and the game would become completely pay-to-play, which is contrary to Groundspeak's well-publicized commitment to keep the basic game free forever.

MOC's have been around since Spring of 2002 and in most areas they are few and far between. There's never been a rash of them despite occasional forum topics like this one to encourage them. Recently I placed my first MOC -- it is a tricky, technical hide and it's 700 feet from my house, so I had my reasons. I believe it's the only one within 50 miles.

 

If people like the OP want to place a few MOC's as "bonuses" to enhance caching for premium members in nice parks, that's fine. No particular reason is needed. And unless and until there's tens of thousands of them, I don't see an issue. Recently there's been two forum threads saying "where are the members only caches, I can't find any" but I've never seen a thread complaining that there's too many MOC's and not enough regular caches to find.

Link to comment
I'm not suggesting that we all place MO caches from now on. I only suggest that we place more MO caches in the same park WITH caches that are available to everyone.

That is fair. My worry is, though, that if people see that a significant percentage of caches are subscriber-only then they would feel more inclined to place subscriber-only caches themselves. It would be a slippery slope, and in the end the result would be a lot of parks where all caches are subscriber-only. That is something I definitely wouldn't want.

 

Every subscriber-only cache pushes geocaching towards becoming a pay-to-play activity. We don't want this, therefore I think other ways should be found to encourage people to become premium members.

Link to comment
We don't want this, therefore I think other ways should be found to encourage people to become premium members.

 

Like shaming them for being freeloaders while the rest of us foot the bill?

 

My next cache series is going to be Subscribers only caches to "give back" to all of those who don't think twice about spending $3.00 per month, to support such a fun activity.

 

I would love to see a whole area with nothing but MO caches. There is a series of caches in Ventura County (Lynmere Trail) where all the caches are for premium members. I think it's a great idea.

 

If this is too much pressure, go find the other caches in your state.

Link to comment

Kit Fox's post just made my point stronger. We need rules against oversaturating an area with MO caches.

 

I suggest two rules similar to these ones:

 

1. Any cacher must place at least 3 non-MO caches before he is allowed to place an MO cache. Reason: let's not allow more than 25% of caches to be MO caches.

 

2. No MO cache can be placed within 2 miles from an existing MO cache. Reason: let's leave appropriate space for non-MO caches to be placed among MO caches.

Link to comment

Given that it's only $3/month, I'm not sure us 'premium' members are doing much more than freeloading ourselves. :unsure:

 

Maybe there needs to be a membership level above premium. Something that costs a bit more, like $15/month, that gives you special swag, maybe access to an exclusive server for increased site surfing, and the "executive" level caches.

 

Those upper level caches could even need to be a bit more...everything. A bit more challenging, a bit more classy, a bit more of what it is people look for in caches. Somethign to reward people for putting that extra $ towards the website.

 

I can even see those caches being independant of the 580ft rule, with reguards to other caches in the area, maybe limited to a certain number of caches per $$ members in the area.

Edited by EleriandBlade
Link to comment

I'm not sure we need a rule on how many MOC can be placed - The only thing I wouldn't mind seeing is a place one to play rule - lemme explain:

 

Everyone could join gc.com for free and use the site for say 30, 60, or 90 days with all the features it has now, but then you would have to hide a cache to continue searching for caches.

 

Many of you have expressed that you feel paying for the membership helps gc.com continue, but what about placing caches?

 

Just a thought - I know it's off topic and could even be considered 'hijacking' the tread, but it's my thread and I'll hijack it if I want to :unsure:

Link to comment
Given that it's only $3/month, I'm not sure us 'premium' members are doing much more than freeloading ourselves. :ph34r:

 

Maybe there needs to be a membership level above premium. Something that costs a bit more, like $15/month, that gives you special swag, maybe access to an exclusive server for increased site surfing, and the "executive" level caches.

 

Those upper level caches could even need to be a bit more...everything. A bit more challenging, a bit more classy, a bit more of what it is people look for in caches. Somethign to reward people for putting that extra $ towards the website.

 

I can even see those caches being independant of the 580ft rule, with reguards to other caches in the area, maybe limited to a certain number of caches per $$ members in the area.

Yeah, what they said.....

And, until a person actually JOINS the site, it should be 50 cents for every cache page downloaded too.....

 

Am I serious about this? You decide..... :unsure:

Link to comment
Kit Fox's post just made my point stronger. We need rules against oversaturating an area with MO caches. ...

Ummm, do you really see this as an issue? I've never seen an area with more than just a few MOCs. I personally don't see this as an issue.

 

One thing you probably haven't noticed about MOCs is that they don't get very many visits. This results in many MOC owners ot convert them to 'regular' after a short time.

 

Besides, the only way an area would become saturated with MOCs is if most of the cachers placing caches were members. The fact is, only a small percentage of cachers are premium members. Even if all the premium members in an area decided to saturate the market, I can't imagine how these few cachers could take over an area.

Link to comment
Yeah, what they said.....

And, until a person actually JOINS the site, it should be 50 cents for every cache page downloaded too.....

 

Am I serious about this? You decide..... :unsure:

I think this goes against Jeremy's vow that GC.com will never be pay-to-play. I also think it would be bad for business. If you charge people before they are hooked, they will just not play the game.

Link to comment
I'm not sure we need a rule on how many MOC can be placed - The only thing I wouldn't mind seeing is a place one to play rule - lemme explain:

 

Everyone could join gc.com for free and use the site for say 30, 60, or 90 days with all the features it has now, but then you would have to hide a cache to continue searching for caches.  ...

While this is off-topic, I'll give my opinion on it.

 

One of the interesting thing about this game is that there are many ways to 'give back to the game'. Some people give back by buying a membership. Someone else gives by hiding great caches. Another may do his part by practicing CITO often. Still another gives by spreading the word about the game in a positive, responsible manner. Another may produce and sell cool and useful caching stuff. One might develop software that cachers can use (free or not). Another cacher might hang out on the forums giving good advice or just providing entertainment. A cacher might plan and manage awesome events. He (or she) might become an approver or moderator.

 

Requiring someone to place a cache to play the game will only result in more lame caches. It will not improve the game.

Edited by sbell111
Link to comment
Requiring someone to place a cache to play the game will only result in more lame caches.  It will not improve the game.

Good point.

 

I love the game and b/c of that I naturally wanted to hide some. I'm sure others feel the same. I've only hidden one so far but I just got four ammo cases and two micro containers from ebay today - I'll be busy hidden more soon... :unsure:

Link to comment

I have about 75 MOC out of about 150 active caches and dozens of folks , yes dozens tell me they became Premium Members because of my caches, so yes to the OP it will work

 

It kinda makes me feel all warm and fuzzy when I hear that, because they are playing the game the way that I do and that’s Tooooooooo Cool …….. JOE

Link to comment
Ummm, do you really see this as an issue? I've never seen an area with more than just a few MOCs. I personally don't see this as an issue.

No, not now, but if people start an MOC-craze it could become a problem.

 

BTW I would guess that a significantly larger percentage of people who hide caches are PMs than of those who just look for them.

 

What I wouldn't like to see is all the great spots occupied by MOCs.

Link to comment
Ummm, do you really see this as an issue?  I've never seen an area with more than just a few MOCs.  I personally don't see this as an issue.

No, not now, but if people start an MOC-craze it could become a problem. ...

Actually, I think Joe's post just above proves you wrong. His seventy-five MOCs are not enough to saturate the market. Could you imagine how many it would take? How would the cachers who would be trying to saturate the market get rid of all the non-MOCs? This would be necessary in order for their dasterdly plan to work.

Edited by sbell111
Link to comment
How would the cachers who would be trying to saturate the market get rid of all the non-MOCs? This would be necessary in order for their dasterdly plan to work.

I noticed that even in larger county or state parks where there are, say, about 10 caches, usually only 2 or 3 people own all the caches, and they are usually veteran cachers and of course premium members. It's enough if those 2-3 people decide to convert their caches to MOCs to make all caches MO in the park. So the best hiding spots are occupied by MOCs. Add in a park management policy that says no off-trail caching and no more than 10 caches in the entire park, and there you have it: non-PMs are excluded from the park as far as caching is concerned.

Link to comment
Thank you! I was beginning to think I was I was an idiot :unsure:

Certainly not an idiot. :) However, there are probably huge regional differences. I'm in the middle of a caching hot spot right now, and many of the cachers are premium members. Yet, the closest MOC is 45 miles away. MOCs just do not seem to float anyone's boat around here, and as such I doubt any premium members joined for MOCs. I suspect this is the case for many areas, as well. Yet, I'm sure there are areas such as yours where MOCs are a huge enticement to premium membership.

 

I think it is just as effective to turn folks on to the activity with quality caches, of any kind, and toss the premium membership numbers to fate that these excited geocachers have a conscience and desire to support, if they are able, the very activity they enjoy.

Link to comment
Everyone could join gc.com for free and use the site for say 30, 60, or 90 days with all the features it has now, but then you would have to hide a cache to continue searching for caches.

And people think there are lame caches now????? :unsure:

 

While I encourage people to go out an hide a cache when they're ready, I'd much rather see someone play the game and NEVER hide a cache than have people throwing caches on the side of the road just to keep up membership.

 

And back on the original topic, I still don't worry that ALL caches will suddenly become MO. And even if they do in a single park, what's the loss really?

 

If someone wants to cache in that park badly enough, they can pony up the $3 and get access to them. And if they don't want to spend the $3, then they just won't see caches in a small area...there are plenty of other caches for them to seek.

Link to comment
...In mine, if the three biggest hiders converted all of their caches to MOC, they still wouldn't dominate the game.

I went ahead and looked at the caches within 10 miles of my home.

 

Of these 141 caches, 12 were MOCs. The top three cachers hid 66 caches. The remaining caches were hidden by 30 individual cachers.

 

I don't see how MOCs could dominate an area like mine.

 

EDIT: Remember that thread way back when that guestimated the location of peoples' homes based on their cache finds. I wonder if I just gave enough info that someone could locate me?

Edited by sbell111
Link to comment
Take a look at your area....

 

In mine, if the three biggest hiders converted all of their caches to MOC, they still wouldn't dominate the game.

I'm not talking about an entire metropolitan area. If they just convert a big park that is a very popular caching destination to MOC-only, that's bothering enough.

Link to comment

I'm a paying member but primarily because I feel it is a website worth paying for. $3.00 a month is practically nothing for the exercise and enjoyment I get from being able to go caching.

 

I think I would continue to contribute three bucks a month just as a donation if there weren't any additional features whatsoever. (Heck. It costs $10.00 just to go to the movies and double it if you want snacks...and that only lasts a couple hours!!)

 

:unsure:

Link to comment
I'm not talking about an entire metropolitan area. If they just convert a big park that is a very popular caching destination to MOC-only, that's bothering enough.

Doesn't bother me...First, I don't think a large park would ever become exclusively MO and if it did, then people who wanted to search for the MO caches in that park could pay $3 for a month and treat it as an "entrance" fee to cache that day (or week or month).

 

Who knows, maybe that gets back to the OP's point that people might figure the $3/month was worth it to get at those "exclusive" caches.

Edited by KoosKoos
Link to comment
I'm not talking about an entire metropolitan area. If they just convert a big park that is a very popular caching destination to MOC-only, that's bothering enough.

Doesn't bother me...First, I don't think a large park would ever become exclusively MO and if it did, then people who wanted to search for the MO caches in that park could pay $3 for a month and treat it as an "entrance" fee to cache that day (or week or month).

We should not allow geocaching to become a pay-to-play activity. That was my starting point.

Link to comment
We should not allow geocaching to become a pay-to-play activity. That was my starting point.

I guess we disagree on what defines that...free caches won't disappear...there's a very small chance that a single park could go away (not likely, but we'll go with it). So what?

 

People already pay to enter many state parks to get caches...around here, without a season pass, that will often run you $3 - $5 per DAY...the site only costs $3 per month.

 

If people want to participate in this activity, they're already spending a lot more money on equipment and gas to get to these caches...we're not going to lose too many people just because they may need to pay to see a few caches. (especially given the fact that there will still be non-MO caches available).

Link to comment
We should not allow geocaching to become a pay-to-play activity. That was my starting point.

I guess we disagree on what defines that...free caches won't disappear...there's a very small chance that a single park could go away (not likely, but we'll go with it). So what?

 

People already pay to enter many state parks to get caches...around here, without a season pass, that will often run you $3 - $5 per DAY...the site only costs $3 per month.

 

If people want to participate in this activity, they're already spending a lot more money on equipment and gas to get to these caches...we're not going to lose too many people just because they may need to pay to see a few caches. (especially given the fact that there will still be non-MO caches available).

For new cachers, caches at great, attractive locations are a strong attractive force. If most caches at those places become MOCs, this attractive power will be largely lost and fewer people will take up caching. That means fewer paying members, too, and a general decrease of the popularity of caching. Also, it will promote the perception that geocaching has a commercial character to it.

 

There is a huge difference between having to pay the costs associated with caching (like gas, park entrance fee, swag, etc.) and one player telling the other player "if you wanna find my cache, you gotta pay, dude, otherwise I won't let you hunt for it".

Link to comment
For new cachers, caches at great, attractive locations are a strong attractive force. If most caches at those places become MOCs, this attractive power will be largely lost and fewer people will take up caching. That means fewer paying members, too, and a general decrease of the popularity of caching. Also, it will promote the perception that geocaching has a commercial character to it.

 

Just like another thread, what is the big deal about promoting geocaching to more people? Since when has there been a shortage of cachers?

 

Who really cares if new, potential cachers are turned off by a couple of MOCs? Show me one area in any country where the majority of caches are MOCs. Your fear of a MOC takeover are baseless and unfounded.

 

I for one wouldn't lose any sleep if the "something for nothing crowd" decided that caching wasn't for them because of a few MOCs.

 

There is a huge difference between having to pay the costs associated with caching (like gas, park entrance fee, swag, etc.) and one player telling the other player "if you wanna find my cache, you gotta pay, dude, otherwise I won't let you hunt for it".

 

You keep forgetting one of the key reasons why MOCs were created. They were created to reduce the muggling of caches by cache maggots. Although this method is not fullproof, it does reduce the chance that some yahoo with a GPS will trash your cache for no good reason.

Link to comment
I have about 75 MOC out of about 150 active caches and dozens of folks , yes dozens tell me they became Premium Members because of my caches, so yes to the OP it will work

 

It kinda makes me feel all warm and fuzzy when I hear that, because they are playing the game the way that I do and that’s Tooooooooo Cool …….. JOE

So you're saying that it's people like you who annoy the heck out of people like me? :anibad:

 

Story: Went on a cache run with a member. Made sure that we grabbed this one MO cache that was the closest unfound to my house. Why was this cache a MO? No frigging clue - it was a micro in a light pole. Definately not reason enough to become a member. I'll just be annoyed by the MO and overlook them or arrive with members.

 

Sbell - not sure what area of middle tennessee you're in, but here, half of my first page of unfound caches is members only.

 

38 caches out of 184 if we go out ten miles (counting caches I've found)

Link to comment

Join the conversation

You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.
Note: Your post will require moderator approval before it will be visible.

Guest
Reply to this topic...

×   Pasted as rich text.   Paste as plain text instead

  Only 75 emoji are allowed.

×   Your link has been automatically embedded.   Display as a link instead

×   Your previous content has been restored.   Clear editor

×   You cannot paste images directly. Upload or insert images from URL.

Loading...
×
×
  • Create New...