GGC2005 - Call for Webmaster!

(Lunyma) stated:

God help me, but I have to agree with CC on this point. Although I doubt
that
any GGC generated $1M in revenue, ANY % of commission would be a hefty amount
to pocket for a TA. If they weren't making any money (and yes, they've all
said that they do it *for the group*), then they wouldn't be doing it at all.

Trust me... The hassle isn't worth it unless the bucks are there. Regardless
of how much anyone here respects the GGC TA's... NO ONE will take on this
job,
*just for fun*.... The TAs make money and in many cases, future customers and
future $$$...

I also find myself agreeing with the premise that the TA's offered a bid for
whatever they are offering to the group. Whether it is enough to cover their
"hassles" or not is their decision. If they did not include a website in their
offering, they should not NOW be expected to bear that expense. If the TA's
and/or the committee cannot/will not provide a website, the GGC will just have
to proceed without one, or not proceed at all. I do not see this as the end of
the world.

I am not sure what CC meant by revenue of $1M. In my limited bookkeeping
vernacular this means one thousand dollars; one million dollars is usually
represented by $1MM (a thousand times a thousand). So generating $1M of
revenue would not be difficult at all

The "real profit" for a TA is, as Pam stated, in building reputation (hopefully
good) and/or future sales.


Ray

Wishing light winds and smooth seas to all

In article , Zegarskis
wrote:

(Lunyma) stated:

God help me, but I have to agree with CC on this point. Although I doubt
that
any GGC generated $1M in revenue, ANY % of commission would be a hefty amount
to pocket for a TA. If they weren't making any money (and yes, they've all
said that they do it *for the group*), then they wouldn't be doing it at all.

Trust me... The hassle isn't worth it unless the bucks are there. Regardless
of how much anyone here respects the GGC TA's... NO ONE will take on this
job,
*just for fun*.... The TAs make money and in many cases, future customers and
future $$$...

I also find myself agreeing with the premise that the TA's offered a bid for
whatever they are offering to the group. Whether it is enough to cover their
"hassles" or not is their decision. If they did not include a website in
their
offering, they should not NOW be expected to bear that expense. If the TA's
and/or the committee cannot/will not provide a website, the GGC will just have
to proceed without one, or not proceed at all. I do not see this as the end
of
the world.

I am not sure what CC meant by revenue of $1M. In my limited bookkeeping
vernacular this means one thousand dollars; one million dollars is usually
represented by $1MM (a thousand times a thousand). So generating $1M of
revenue would not be difficult at all

The "real profit" for a TA is, as Pam stated, in building reputation
(hopefully
good) and/or future sales.


Ray

Ray,

The winning TA is tasked with paying for the domain name for 2 years
and the hosting of the website. They are not tasked with creating the
website. That has been done by volunteers.

I already have a new webmaster which I will announce a bit later when
she is ready to publish the new website.

Lloyd

My point stands. How do you know they are taking a profit hit? Because
they said so? So what? They bid the GGC, they took the business, if
they aren't satisfied with their profit, tuff ****ski.

On Wed, 28 Apr 2004 15:19:52 GMT, Lloyd Parsons
wrote:

One last time to try to get you to see it. They did take the bid, they
did take whatever the profit was -- now we get a suggestion that they
take a cost hit -- which either reduces profit, or raises cost to the
buyer.

If they took the bid and didn't have enough business sense to make
room in their profit for unseen or unknown costs, they need to go
(back) to Business School.

What is a "good" margin on a group cruise anyway? Depends on a sorts
of things, doesn't it?

If there is a $1m in revenue, 2% might make all kinds of sense.
Especially if that revenue kicks a TAgency into a higher commish rate.

Show me a GGC that would generate anywhere near that much revenue.

I just did one.

And
btw, I wouldn't take 2% on any sale that I make, regardless of revenue.

Then you don't understand the TAgency business.

On Wed, 28 Apr 2004 15:41:28 GMT, (Kurt Ullman)
wrote:

Put it out for bid with the webmaster thingy attached and get the bids. If
no one wants to bid, then the market rather nicely answered the question.

Correct.

On Wed, 28 Apr 2004 19:19:18 GMT, Lloyd Parsons
wrote:

Bid packets have already gone out and they won't be changed. Maybe the
next committee will do that.

Put out an Addendum To Bid.

My point stands. How do you know they are taking a profit hit? Because
they said so? So what? They bid the GGC, they took the business, if
they aren't satisfied with their profit, tuff ****ski.

What is a "good" margin on a group cruise anyway? Depends on a sorts
of things, doesn't it?

If there is a $1m in revenue, 2% might make all kinds of sense.
Especially if that revenue kicks a TAgency into a higher commish rate.


On 28 Apr 2004 16:25:45 GMT, (Lunyma) wrote:

God help me, but I have to agree with CC on this point.

Oh, it's not that bad.

Although I doubt that
any GGC generated $1M in revenue, ANY % of commission would be a hefty amount
to pocket for a TA. If they weren't making any money (and yes, they've all
said that they do it *for the group*), then they wouldn't be doing it at all.

For all the hassle, you bet they wouldn't.

Trust me... The hassle isn't worth it unless the bucks are there. Regardless
of how much anyone here respects the GGC TA's... NO ONE will take on this job,
*just for fun*.... The TAs make money and in many cases, future customers and
future $$$...

Perks galore.

On 28 Apr 2004 21:42:56 GMT, pamnot (Zegarskis)
wrote:

I also find myself agreeing with the premise that the TA's offered a bid for
whatever they are offering to the group. Whether it is enough to cover their
"hassles" or not is their decision. If they did not include a website in their
offering, they should not NOW be expected to bear that expense.

Agree.

If the TA's
and/or the committee cannot/will not provide a website, the GGC will just have
to proceed without one, or not proceed at all. I do not see this as the end of
the world.

Agree again. It's all LES! fault for being unreliable anyway.

I am not sure what CC meant by revenue of $1M. In my limited bookkeeping
vernacular this means one thousand dollars; one million dollars is usually
represented by $1MM (a thousand times a thousand). So generating $1M of
revenue would not be difficult at all

Meant $1 million. $1m vs $1K

The "real profit" for a TA is, as Pam stated, in building reputation (hopefully
good) and/or future sales.

Well, some of it.

On Wed, 28 Apr 2004 21:58:49 GMT, Lloyd Parsons
wrote:


I already have a new webmaster which I will announce a bit later when
she is ready to publish the new website.

Good for you. I'd dump LES! too.

In article , Cruising
Chrissy wrote:

On Wed, 28 Apr 2004 21:58:49 GMT, Lloyd Parsons
wrote:


I already have a new webmaster which I will announce a bit later when
she is ready to publish the new website.

Good for you. I'd dump LES! too.

I didn't dump him....

You are right Sue, the Agent should be responsible for the GGC site.

Web site, web master, web hosting, it should all be a part of the bid
from the agent.

It should be the agent's choice of web master as it really their show
from a web marketing standpoint.

Most agencies have a staff or project web master for their own sites, so
what's the big deal. If the agent does not have a web site, they
shouldn't even be bidding for the GGC. All agents have to do is add a
couple of dollars to the cabin fare bid and the cost is recovered.

As a successful bidder for GGC, I was always prepared to create the web
site as a part of package. It was nice that you and Joe always
volunteered. The $150 web fee that you charged for the hosting service
was the least I could have done, considering the fine job you did for free.

Peter Berlin
Peter Berlin's Travel Center
Host Agency, GGC2003 / GGC2004
http://PeterBerlin.com



Sue Keenan wrote:
Lloyd Parsons wrote:

GGC2005 is really in need of a Webmaster.

I've got the space available and can handle almost anything. Otherwise
I'll have to try and make something myself and you really don't want
that to happen! G

The pay is lousy (none!), the hours terrible and everyone will tell you
how it could be done better! What better volunteer job is there? ;-)

Lloyd

Tropicale 2000
Sensation GGC2002
Golden Princess GGC2003
Radiance of the Seas GGC2004
Celebrity Millenium GLC2005


Why not hand the responsibility for a GGC2005 website back to the
GGC2005 TA?

Since you're going back to rtc voting, there's really no reason for the
committee to have a website ready before the GGC2005 cruise and TA is
chosen. Once the cruise is chosen, the responsibility to find a
webmaster can fall on the TA like it did before GGC2003 and GGC2004.

A professional looking website really is too much work for someone to do
without being compensated. When the GGC website was the TA's
responsibility, the GGC webmasters were compensated, like they should be.

Sue