On the original thread, first of all let me say that I am a firm
believer in a flexible no-policy policy on refunds.
However, a couple of comments have pushed that little button marked
<hot>, so regrets to all those of you who have found yourselves
standing in front of this soapbox before.
Coletta Busse wrote: > It is a balancing act, keeping the cost low without losing money. > (and here the lamb most often sacrificed on the alter of expense, > unfortunately, is live music. But that's another thread)
and Jenn Sawin added: > Delaware Valley do not serve a catered meal at our balls. This > keeps the cost relatively low (allowing students to attend and > others who may not be able to afford the price of a fancy meal)
Excluding black-tie balls with catered meals, the most expensive
social dances that Marilyn and I attend _in_the_UK_ are student
functions whether catered, bring a picnic or nothing at all. I
believe the reasons for this are a) the students do not compromise
on the band - they get who they like and want, not the cheapest
they _think_ they can afford and b) they cover contingencies. That
does not mean that there are not frantic rounds of e-mails asking
other groups to advise numbers a few days in advance but the
pricing is such that the risk is minimised if not eliminated. My
concern is that too many dance groups start their financial
planning with a notion of what they they think they can charge
based on next door's dance last month and how much they charged
last year rather than costing out what they would really like to do.
Over the years I have found that when a group, whether SCD or
other, challenges the accepted wisdom by going for something better
than last year and charging appropriately, there is a brief moment
of whingeing followed by an awful lot of "That was a great night"
and "See you next year" comments.
In a nutshell, the famous "modest cost" of the Society's
Constitution should mean good value for money not, cheap (meant
very much in the US sense of that word).