Forum / Boardroom Changes

[Paul Ash]

Hmmmm

Well I have organised 5/6 Simpson Exhaust Group buys over the years, not that I needed one myself, just ended up having a good relationship having originally purchased an Exhaust system from them.

The benefit of letting a WSCC member organise the GB saves the suppllier the time & effort of dealing with all the enquiries, emails , phone calls. Which is why they are more likely to offer a better discount.

So what your now saying is that can no longer be the case, & also charge them £120 for the privelage.

Well I certainly wont be organising anymore if this is the case.

Re the cam cover infill bulk buy I am currently running, this is through a machine shop as a favour to me personally, as I do lots of other business with them. So are you now saying they will have to pay £120 to continue ?

I think the committee is missing the point , We members do a lot of the work for these bulk buys, not neccesarliy the suppliers. hence why we get the better prices & attract the supppier interest !! I cannot see many of the smaller companies getting excited about this.

I await your response

[markcoopers]

I think there are now more than 4 people against this, so presumably this is stronger evidence to go back and reconsider?

I know you guys on the committee, and see that you are all company leaders and significant people, so am staggered that you can not see this as wrong. The members want to organise bulk buys, they want to have the best cars for sale and the best offers for membership and yet more barriers are placed in the way and the only logical conclusion to this path is a dilution/removal of the benefits/significance of the WSCC. It will become a place where speed series chaps discuss regs and showers, is this the vission for the boardroom?

I hold you in higher esteem than this, there is no shame in admitting an error, but there is plenty in ignoring it.

[XTR2Turbo]

IMHO - the new trader membership could be a good idea to accommodate a number of companies that want to promote services but would not generate sufficient paypack to justify the sponsors option.

Clearly a challenge to get this commercial balance right - both in attracting sufficient new trade members and not having sponsors drop down to trade members. I can accept that to facilitate this it probably does means tighter enforcement of rules over commercial promotion 'through the back door' and this will need to include group buys, loaded postings and signatures. Otherwise why will one company pay for what someone else is getting for free.

I can see the reason for the direction we are taking but it also feels like it needs a bit more refining. As an example perhaps we could define more clearly what we mean by group buys and those that possibly could be allowed without trader membership being required. (e.g. not for profit such as Norman's efforts, clearly volume needed - e.g. tooling or design for a special part making it cost effective, grouped shipping to one member, less than a certain commercial threshold etc) I think this would go some way to eliminating the concerns.

From what I have seen this year, I actually suspect that many of the 'group buys' we see and at the discounts offered are not really group buys at all and most companies would just as readily offer as a negotiated wscc member discount - even if time limited. Especially so if there is a more prominent mechanism for the discount and their company to be promoted.

[markcoopers]

I think David that you make my point for me.

A £120 fee could remove the competitions seats from being offered or a deal done. This is indeed a good deal for traders, it is a poor deal for members and we are a club for members less we forget that.

[John Loudon - Sponsorship Liaison]

Do I have this correct? Supposing someone organuses a bulk buy with say Compomotive wheels and posts about it on here as has been done in the past. Are Compomotive wheels then expected to pay £120 for the privilidge? If so, then it seems a bit barmy to me. If I have misinterpreted the situation then please tell me

I can however see that if the trader (in this case say Compomotive Wheels) wanted to post on our forum advertising a bulk buy then the £120 fee would be acceptable, especially as it is a yearly fee and they could conduct as many group buys as they wished for that period. It just seems to be counter productive to expect a company that a member on here has appraoched for a group buy deal to have to pay £120 when they wer initially approached and not vice versa

[XTR2Turbo]

I think David that you make my point for me.

A £120 fee could remove the competitions seats from being offered or a deal done. This is indeed a good deal for traders, it is a poor deal for members and we are a club for members less we forget that.

Mark that is not how I see it. I don't think it is about reducing competition - infact it could do the opposite. £120 is much less than the entry point for being a sponsor.

No doubt it is about ensuring the club gives sponsors, advertisers and new traders value for money.

The forum already has a rule about no commercial posting other than sponsors and that has been in place for a long time but I understand has become harder and harder to regulate and has been stretched over time. I have never complained about a company or a member posting commercial links but I understand that others have.

A number of threads get deleted or moderated before many members even see the 'problem' but we are all aware of some individuals and companies pushing the rule to the limits.

My interpretation is that the committee are trying to make a distinction between active and passive promotion. If passive then fine for free - the directory of links will list lots of companies even with wscc discounts but they wouldn't be able to reply to threads and 'drum' up business in a proactive way.

Of course £120 may be a threshold that works for one company but not another but the line has to be drawn somewhere.

I don't disagree that the proposals may need refining but I think the intentions behind the initiatives are well meaning and about easing access rather than precluding companies offering services for members and at the same time trying to enhance / protect the clubs finances.

[GreigM]

It just seems to be counter productive to expect a company that a member on here has appraoched for a group buy deal to have to pay £120 when they wer initially approached and not vice versa

Indeed. Most of the good deals on here are ones that the member initiates and does all the hard work for.

On the forum I used to run (one which was many times the size of WSCC) we had a rule for smaller traders posting - basically their posts had to be advantageous to the members. If they want to post up offering at reasonable discount to members then they can go ahead - the cost to them being the discount to the members. That way they can't post/advertise without the members getting a direct benefit, and the mods reserved the right to remove a post if they didn't feel the discount/offer was good enough - something to consider which would support the current member driven deals while allowing attractive offers from smaller traders.

[Rory's Dad]

The issue of bulk buys is dominating the other changes being proposed. If it were down to me, I'd make these other changes asap because there seems to me tacit agreement.

I'd leave the bulk buy issue to be resolved in the fullness of time. It's clear that there are two types of bulk buy 1) that is offered directly by suppliers and 2) that offered directly by members. The club is wrong to try and profit by either of these - they are just bound to be passed on to the customers - our members. The Committee need some time to come to this conclusion too.

All in my opinion of course!

Rory's Dad

[Rhett Turner - Black Country AO]

I also think that the proposed restrictions on bulk purchase discounts are to the detriment of WSCC members and need to be re-considered.

[FILFAN]

Why not put it to a vote and create a poll

[John Loudon - Sponsorship Liaison]

I can see 2 scenarios for bulk buys - those initiated by members and those initiated by companies. Both cases should be treated separately in my opinion

[XTR2Turbo]

I can see 2 scenarios for bulk buys - those initiated by members and those initiated by companies. Both cases should be treated separately in my opinion

I think that this is only part of the distinction.

For me the main distinction for a true bulk buy is that the discount or feasibility is really only possible because of the numbers targetted. So for example the supplier saves because they can buy in more bulk from their supplier or do a large production run or save on shipping or it covers new tooling costs etc. This should still be possible to accommodate somehow. I have no issues whether member or company led in this scenario. For example where Westfield have asked about making some special SDV components if volumes justify the tooling. It helps members and allows a part to be made that might otherwise not be.

However anything that is a normal stock item or business as usual is just a discount / promotion dressed up as a bulk buy and I think could easily abe covered by the proposed supplier discount listing or trade member options.

I think in the new model many offers that were previously called bulk buys will still go ahead but be posted up as XYZ is offering 10% discount to members. All such discounts will be grouped and listed where easy for all to see.

Also, for all we know, some of the companies mentioned - Compomotive, Simpson Exhausts etc may have already been approached and could become trade members? They have done quite well from member purchases so may be keen to support the club also.

Anyway enough from me - I'm not on the committee but can see the thinking behind their decisions and as with all things I am sure they will take on feedback and evolve. They all put in massive amounts of time and effort and they have my trust in taking the club forward.

[markcoopers]

You make sensible points David, but the simple truth is that now less members will be willing to start up a bulk buy and thus less offers will reach the members. Less offers means that there is some dilution to being a member and thus even if a small spiral to start with is the wrong direction to take.

I don't doubt that effort and time was poored into the debate and I strongly suspect it was reached to give sponsors, advertisers and traders value for money. I simply question where the membership view was added.

As to the other changes, allowing members to advertise a car or parts for non members was I thought going to be allowed but this too failed and again is a loss to the wider membership in my opinion.

[Rory's Dad]

As to the other changes, allowing members to advertise a car or parts for non members was I thought going to be allowed but this too failed and again is a loss to the wider membership in my opinion.

We've talked about this before. There are two options. The first is for members to put their phone or email address thus circumventing the PM issue or for the advert to fail to open for non-members untill 2 or 3 days has elapsed (a la locost builders)

Rory's Dad

[Captain Colonial]

Being able to sell parts and cars between members, who do tend to trust each other more than usual simply because they are both members of the same club, has always been one of the benefits of club membership. Having said that, please do notice that we have now relaxed the advert area so that non-members (Forum Users) may reply to ads in all areas, which they were unable to do before, thus opening up more potential avenues to members who place adverts. (Forum Users can now also PM - that is also new.)

The bottom area of the advert section has been renamed to Links to External Website Ads. If a member wishes to assist his non-member friend in selling something he has on eBay, Pistonheads, or just a plain old web page they're thrown together, the member can place the link there. So there is an avenue to advertise off-site cars and parts.

Finally, one needs to appreciate keeping a fine balance between offering value for money through membership benefits against giving away too many privileges for free to non-members and devaluing the reason for purchasing membership in the first place.