[Noisebridge-discuss] Charging for classes at NB - summary

Albert Sweigart asweigart at gmail.com
Wed Jul 21 18:06:42 UTC 2010


Of course, all of the following is just my opinion and perception of
the matter having read through the thread:

* Charging for classes for the profit of the instructor is not banned
nor encouraged by official Noisebridge policy currently.

* There is no plan to make a consensus item banning for-pay classes.
Setting official policy either way is not something anyone [weasel
word] wants to do.

* IMO, these two points make a lot of this discussion moot. People
will either charge or not charge for classes they lead at NB. So I
guess we are trying to establish what "Noisebridge culture's" stance
is on this issue. I think this is (mostly) moot too, since (again,
IMO) NB culture is more defined by the actions at NB rather than
talking about what they should be.

* "For-pay" in this discussion means for the profit of the
instruction/organizer of the class (who may or may not be a
dues-paying NB member). It does not include (in the sense we are
talking about here):
  1) asking for donations (via kickstarter-type system or passing a hat),
  2) demanding payment to cover the cost of materials,
  3) charging for classes but saying "no one turned away for lack of funds",
  4) charging a deposit for a class and refunding it (to make sure
people actually show up for the class), or
  5) charging above the cost of materials but having 100% of the funds go to NB.

Most people[weasel word] seems to agree that these are fine, though
some [weasel word] people see these as a barrier to entry.

* The vast majority (IMO) for-pay classes would fall into one of these
five categories.

* Nobody [weasel word] wants NB to become a space where free classes
are discouraged, or where expensive & exclusive for-pay classes
predominate. Applying capitalism in the sense of trying to maximize
profit is not something we want.

* Nobody seems  to want an outside, for-profit entity using NB as a
free space to hold classes for their own profit.

* It is argued that charging a nominal fee (say $5) increases
participation in a class, and makes the audience and teacher more
invested. It is argued that people sometimes find free classes too
flakey to attend and/or teach.

* One-off workshops seem to be easy to teach/attend without the money
incentive, but regularly occurring classes are difficult. Charging may
or may not improve that.

* Everyone seems to agree [weasel words, I know] that NB should get a
portion of the fees collected. There are currently no mandated
percentage that goes to NB, nor are there plans to  make such mandates
(which may have 501c3 issues to consider).

* Charging for classes could [weasel word] also act as a minor source
of income for NB. It also provides incentive for the instructor to get
non-members and new people into the space, and thus new NB members.

* Either way, NB does not offer any guarantees about the space,
including availability or noise considerations or class crashers.

* It is argued that charging for classes can be done at other venues.
It is argued that these venues are prohibitively expensive to rent,
especially considering that most [weasel word] charging classes would
charge a nominal amount.


Questions we should consider:
* Everyone seems to agree that charging to cover the cost of materials
is okay, because someone shouldn't have to lose money on materials in
order to teach a class. Do we value an instructor's time "costs" in
the same way we value money and material cost?

* Is there a chilling effect on free classes if some classes charge?
Is there a chilling effect on potential classes by not having for-pay
classes?

* Can we even measure or predict these chilling effects, or is it just
slippery slope/hypothetical arguments? Will this have any effect at
all on NB either way?


IMO, I think having for-pay courses are not a bad thing and probably
will even provide a significant benefit to NB.

-Al



More information about the Noisebridge-discuss mailing list