Show your support by donating any amount. (Note: We are still technically a for-profit company, so your
contribution is not tax-deductible.)
PayPal Acct: 
Feedback: 
Donate to VoyForums (PayPal):
| [ Login ] [ Main index ] [ Post a new message ] [ Search | Check update time | Archives: 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7, [8], 9, 10 ] |
| Subject: Quite possibly... | |
Author: Paddy (Scotland) | [ Next Thread |
Previous Thread |
Next Message |
Previous Message
] Date Posted: 12:30:34 11/11/04 Thu In reply to: Nick (UK) 's message, "Had anyone noticed we have a professional write-up on Wikipedia?" on 10:42:38 11/11/04 Thu Also "crown commonwealth" gives at top of the list : "'Federal Crown Commonwealth Union supporter' - Dream MP" with a reference to the main site. However just looking up "commonwealth" gives the wikipedia commonwealth article (with a link to fcs homepage right at the bottom) on the 14th google page! I gave up looking for direct references to the fcs under "commonwealth" on page 27 of google once I read the link-title: "CUNT has helped me to achieve mental stimulation and personal ..." :0) "British commonwealth" gives the wikipedia "commonwealth" article second (with the direct link to the FCS at the bottom), after the official Commonwealth site. As Jim's history website is not very old it will not have been scanned by google yet. In future, though, it may well yield good results, especially if "Image" searches are done. All of this is very exciting and I would say well done to all of those who have shown initiative in attempting to boost awareness of the F.C. idea and the closeness between our nations. If we are maybe on the edge of a breakout, perhaps this might be the time to really iron out the small issues with the website (please review the reports!) and set up "not-for-profit" status for the organisation. If an FC bank account could be set up with a (discrete) online donation system, I think that that would help matters, if you really think that we are at that stage. We currently do attract attention on the internet. That is a good and cost-effective thing. If, though, promoting this group away from the internet it will need funds beyond the means of a few individuals. For example it might be a good idea to send, to every parliamentarian that the F.C. would effect, a written letter exhorting them to ponder upon the merits of our proposal. Most small societies hold an annual meeting at which progress, funding etc... is discussed. I know that it is not worth flying to Australia to hear four people say that they raised £50 that year and had 1000 hits on the website. However, I think that accounts would not take long to publish and all of this could be done online at this stage. I must emphasise that if people look at the current website for the first time, they will think "wow - very nice idea!" but have no real way of interacting with it. For example, a simple link with a microsoft word template of a "letter to your M.P./councillor/favourite peer/Royal of your choice" explaining the benefits of an F.C. to the recipient is one way of offering people the chance to interact with the website. I know that there is a request to spread the word in any way you can. The difference is in the approach. When an answering machine says, "Please leave a message." alone then people are put on the other foot somewhat and more often that not they hang up and think about what they might say to the answering machine before perhaps calling back. If the answering machine says, "Hello, please leave your name and number and a brief summary of what you want to discuss.", slowly and clearly, people are guided in the direction they want to follow anyway. I have suggested numerous improvements to the website and would still be interested to hear the opinions of the international & national presidents. Jim has told me what he thinks of my proposals, what do the rest of you think? What do all non-presidents think? I feel that if we may experience an increace in visitors these changes should be implimented NOW if we really have reached the breakout stage. P.S. the BBC took Andrew Gilligan seriously! [ Next Thread | Previous Thread | Next Message | Previous Message ] |
| [> [> Subject: Good Ideas... | |
|
Author: Dave (UK) [ Edit | View ] |
Date Posted: 13:30:56 11/11/04 Thu Paddy, I like the letter template idea for the website. This would allow potential supporters to make a contribution very easily, spreading our views amongst a larger audience. With the small numbers we have at present, we will have to rely on these methods of spreading the word, for the time being. An online petition could also be set up, allowing any visitors to the website to lend their support. These names could be appended to any documents that we send to public bodies or politicians perhaps? As far as donations as concerned, I think we will be waiting for a while before we can take out a centre-page spread in The Times. PS Andrew Gilligan was most likely correct... [ Post a Reply to This Message ] |
| [> [> [> Subject: The Times | |
|
Author: Paddy (Scotland) [ Edit | View ] |
Date Posted: 16:03:43 11/11/04 Thu You get less centre-page spread for your money nowadays anyway. [ Post a Reply to This Message ] |
| [> [> [> [> Subject: Indeed. | |
|
Author: Ed Harris (London) [ Edit | View ] |
Date Posted: 17:05:25 11/11/04 Thu I understand that a single column in the Spectator costs £1600 and a half column £960. On the other hand, a small column in the Telegraph costs less than £150, whereas a full page is at £45,000! Frankly, I think that we needn't bother with the Guardian. [ Post a Reply to This Message ] |