>Hi Doug.
>
>>> In that presentation I did not, however, see any discussion of the potential lost savings that Microsoft receives by virtue of having the top tier of volunteer MVPs and others no longer motivated to be so free and willing to help their colleagues. <<
>
>I can't speak for anyone else, but I answered questions a long time before I ever became an MVP and will continue to do so. I answer questions in an attempt to give something back to the community. I certainly have received a lot of help and advice over the years < s >.
>
>Marcia

Marcia,

Absolutely! I'm just not convinced that Microsoft has done their homework here, or perhaps they have actually done it and are making decisions that benefit only themselves.

How in the world can they ever pay to replace that lost good will, demonstrated in the helpfullness of the community, and yet also be able to create a profit center?

Doesn't make sense (cents? *G*) to me.

If they're 'pitching' this internally as a profit center that means someone has to now pay who hasn't so done in the past. The only reasoning I can see to make that work, well, doesn't reason out. The only other reason would perhaps be a kind of arrogance that causes someone to actually think that because of who they are they can do this and get away with it. Mind you, I DO think MS should have a consulting arm. They can do thinkgs we cannot as a direct result of size.

But why in the world slap your free (relatively speaking) help who cover all the rest?

2000 MVPs @ $2,000.00 each per year = $4,000,000. Let's say that was $5,000.00 per MVP. That would be $10,000,000 only per year. And someone at Microsoft thinks that they can pay enough employees to replace the work that these 2,000 MVPs are currently providing with all the response time & other stuff I mentioned?? That's just absurd. Do the numbers.

If an employee costs per year $50,000, which means lower-level, low-development-experience type folks that comes to only 200 employees. That's 1/10th the current number. Then add to that a building, phones, computers, software, managers who will eat into that $10,000,000 (~2.5 x current) and so forth. Then divide that number by 1/3 since you'll have to have THREE shifts to keep current coverage and that's ONLY 67 employees per shift per day. Now, remember that it's against the law to make people work 7 days a week without rest and that 67 employees is reduced by another 2/7ths or some such amount.

That leaves only about 45 employees per day, per shift, to cover each and every day of every day per year to replace current coverage and that's with a 2.5 current approximate expense. IOW, that's using the $10,000,000 number rather than the $4,000,000 number. The difference will be, of course, getting those big corporations to ante up. That will certainly happen but does Microsoft think that all the rest will so do? Nope, a lot of them simply cannot afford this or cost justify this additional expense.

The result? Former MVPs will continue to provide free support and Microsoft will allow us to so do and essentially take advantage of the community's good will.

Do YOU like being used? I sure don't.

Best,