This is a CTP of initiative: Hackspace 4 (South-Central England, UK)
This CTP describes the decision of the board of directors not to raise their membership dues, as the process of doing so would sever ties with members who supported the organisation at distance. By re-evaluating its funding models, the organisation thus was moved to articulate its changing values and ideologies over time, and as it had grown.
As described in earlier CTPs, the hackspace was unexpectedly popular, attracting a high level of interest and a large number of members. The founders were somewhat uneasy about the rapid growth – but mindful that in order to be sustainable, they needed a strong revenue stream which (as a non-profit organisation) they could then plough back into the hackspace. One of the co-founders described how, when 300 members had joined (in early 2011), a line had been crossed:
“We knew when we passed 300 people that it was too big, it was not a good thing; but we didn’t know what to do about it. Because it was [a big city], we needed the money and we needed the people to fund the thing in the first place, so we kept riding it all the way up. This was very much the wrong thing to do”.
After initially received a small sum of seed-funding from a local technology social enterprise, the co-founders decided not to introduce membership fees until around 2 months after the company was founded. At this time, the hackspace had no physical premises, with members meeting in pubs to chat instead. When looking at the cost of buildings in the area, the co-founders realised they would need to raise a deposit; thus, the voluntary fees were seen as an act of trust, and investment in the future: “We framed it as – if you believe in this thing we’re doing, please chip in £10 a month. We chose that because £10 was a round number and seemed affordable, and people seemed to think it was ok”.
Following acquisition of premises, the directors switched the fee structure to ‘pay what you like’ with a monthly minimum of £5 (“We say it’s for accounting reasons but really, if you’re paying less than £5 per month you’re taking the piss”).. After frequent querying about whether this should be raised in line with inflation, and as the hackspace moved later to larger premises, one of the co-founders conducted research into why members chose to contribute at the rate that they did. This research indicated that a great many “members” did not in fact visit the space at all, but continued to contribute a small amount monthly as an ongoing act of charity and faith in the organisation’s aims. If fees were raised, this group would withdraw their contributions. As a result of this research, and the subsequent discussion, the £5 minimum fee structure was kept in place, and the organisation learned more about the financial and social relations between itself and its members.
This CTP was shaped in the first instance by the hackspace’s move to their first premises in July 2010, at which point the funding model was switched to ‘pay what you like’. As a result of the new premises, the space had attracted a new wave of members which included a number of students, “and people started saying, well I can’t really afford [£10/month] but I want to give some money. So it was the right thing to do – we set it at £5 minimum, just so people weren’t giving one penny”.
The increasing cost of rents in London has created ongoing pressures to generate sufficient, constant, and sustainable revenue streams in order to be able to support the organisation’s survival. The minimum fee structure has been queried over the course of the organisation’s lifespan, with members questioning whether it should be raised. In the 2013 Annual General Meeting, this query was framed as a motion. In response, one of the co-founders compiled a body of research which indicated that raising fees would end poorly for the organisation.
His research indicated that 30% of the hackspace’s members would be on site at any one time (although these would not always be the same members). However, the members who rarely attended the space also paid regular fees, because they wanted to support the aims of the hackspace – half of this group lived outside of London, and some even outside of the UK. When asked if they would pay some form of ‘supporter’ fees (and thus would stop being members), this group said that they would stop paying. When asked if they would pay to to £7 per month, the group also said that they would stop paying. When these result were presented to the AGM, the £5 minimum was kept in place.
Events shaping this CTP included the move to premises in July 2010; the querying of the minimum fee structure by the hackspace’s members at the 2013 AGM; and the research conducted by the hackspace’s co-founder.
It would be excessive to describe the discussions around funding models as conflicted; but instead that they have been part of ongoing background noise for the hackspace over the course of its lifespan. Whilst the stakes for this CTP - the continued use of workshop space and the survival of the organisation - are high, the need to constantly calibrate the organisation’s health and wider external factors (ie. number of members, cost of rent) means that this particular issue will never have a one-time transformative ‘silver bullet’. The discussions that have taken place around the membership fees have been described as civil and inquisitive, with no particular friction or tension associated with them.
This CTP was understood to be critical, inasmuch as changing it would have reduced in reduced fees and income for the organisation. As described above, it took place as part of an ongoing set of negotiations and discussions, meaning that it was constantly anticipated. What was unexpected about this CTP was the results of the research, and how these activitis forced the organisation to re-evaluate its funding model by means of assessing the purpose of the fee structure to members, and the reasons why they continued to support the organisation.
The research produced to support this decisions to keep the particular business model was, itself, a CTP, permitting the organisation a new view and understanding of itself. The co-founder described being genuinely surprised – and also pleased – at how many members continued to support the organisation financially for personal and political reasons, despite making no material use of its resources.
This CTP supported the transformational aims of the hackspace, inasmuch as it permitted understanding of how creating an inclusive space for making and hacking could be supported at distance (and not wholly through ‘do-ocracy’ models seen in other hackspaces, which prioritised decision-making through action). It also permitted deep learning about the composition and motivations of its members, at a level not seen before. The long-term effects of this CTP have been to question how their facilities and used, and why, by members. As detailed above, this CTP is not permanent and may yet be changed at a later date, as one member described:
“It’s all an ongoing discussion. I’d really like us to have an induction fee too, because that’s what’s really killing us. I don’t want to raise membership prices. But the cost of new members are much higher than we’d realised before, not in financial costs but in time Every time a new member joins, they’re like – ‘I want to be trained on the 3D printer and the lasercutter and the lathe and…’ Then you need to make sure that all of the accounting works for them”.
These issues have been exacerbated over the longer term by the changing composition of members, and the concurrent rise of awareness of machine shops in the city:
“We’re now seen as a cheap facility for tools, and not a community. I know we’ve had several lecturers at the local university saying to their students, ‘There’s a really cheap lasercutter over there –go and use that!’ and then we get an influx of 50 people who all need to be trained, when they don’t care about the community and they don’t care about the space. If you’re going to participate, you need to contribute time as well as money for membership or we just can’t operate”.
As this quote indicates, this CTP permitted the organisation to learn about how the interplay of engagement, commitment, and financial contribution operate and intersect for their members.
Stay informed. Subscribe for project updates by e-mail.
