Hi,

I am a tournament director and run both open and scholastic
tournaments. I am finding a really big surge in scholastic chess
where everytime there seems to be 10-20 scholastic who are joining the
USCF for the first time. On the other hand, I am finding less and
less adult members renewing their USCF memberships. When I ask the
adult members why they do not want to rejoin, they say it is because
they don't want shell out $49/year for a membership.
The other thing is that based on the membership prices, the scholastic
players are paying around $13 per year with the affiliate discount
prices. Some pay $19 or $25 if they are older kids.

Now a couple questions:

Is the USCF losing money on scholastic memberships since they are at a
low cost? I believe the scholastic members gives the player Chess
Life bimonthly. However at only $13 does that really pay for 6 issues
of Chess Life, their membership card, and give enough revenue to the
USCF to run things?
If the USCF is in a financial crisis and since the majority of members
are kids with a surge in scholastic memberships, isn't the smart thing
to raise scholastic membership prices and reduce adult membership
fees. Adults would also be the only ones who would probably get a
Life membership. If adults are moving away from joining because of a
$49/year fee, then they probably would not be interested in becoming
life members anyway.

(Ivan) writes:

Is the USCF losing money on scholastic memberships since they are at a
low cost? I believe the scholastic members gives the player Chess
Life bimonthly. However at only $13 does that really pay for 6 issues
of Chess Life, their membership card, and give enough revenue to the
USCF to run things?

Is the membership form unclear? Are you aware that for $13 an
'economy scholastic' member get NO magazine at all?

For $19 a scholastic member gets six issues of Chess Life, an increment
over the 'economy scholastic' rate which roughly covers the cost of
printing and sending out those six issues.

If the USCF is in a financial crisis and since the majority of members
are kids with a surge in scholastic memberships, isn't the smart thing
to raise scholastic membership prices and reduce adult membership
fees. Adults would also be the only ones who would probably get a
Life membership. If adults are moving away from joining because of a
$49/year fee, then they probably would not be interested in becoming
life members anyway.

The surge in scholastic memberships seems to be subsiding.

I know the Board has considered a reduced adult rate, but that's an
easier step for them to take than raising scholastic dues, which currently
requires Delegate approval.

The key is figuring out the right rate. For a variety of reasons, I don't
think a significantly lower rate would bring a torrent of adult members
back to the USCF, at least not enough to offset the loss in revenue.
And I don't know that a smaller reduction would have the desired impact,
either. If they won't renew for $49, would they renew for $45, or $39?
--
Mike Nolan

I have to agree with Mike on this, it is not the cost. More likely it is
what our local club is dealing with...and I think a lot of clubs are, that
is, it is very hard to get new members. No idea why, but it could be because
adults don't have the time...less interest in chess overall as compared to
say a decade ago....getting a place where people can gather at a reasonable
cost....etc. One other possible reason also comes to mind....the
availability of internet chess...seems to me a lot of adults today are couch
potatoes...they would rather sit in front of a monitor than get out and play
otb.

"Mike Nolan" wrote in message
...
(Ivan) writes:

Is the USCF losing money on scholastic memberships since they are at a
low cost? I believe the scholastic members gives the player Chess
Life bimonthly. However at only $13 does that really pay for 6 issues
of Chess Life, their membership card, and give enough revenue to the
USCF to run things?

Is the membership form unclear? Are you aware that for $13 an
'economy scholastic' member get NO magazine at all?

For $19 a scholastic member gets six issues of Chess Life, an increment
over the 'economy scholastic' rate which roughly covers the cost of
printing and sending out those six issues.

If the USCF is in a financial crisis and since the majority of members
are kids with a surge in scholastic memberships, isn't the smart thing
to raise scholastic membership prices and reduce adult membership
fees. Adults would also be the only ones who would probably get a
Life membership. If adults are moving away from joining because of a
$49/year fee, then they probably would not be interested in becoming
life members anyway.

The surge in scholastic memberships seems to be subsiding.

I know the Board has considered a reduced adult rate, but that's an
easier step for them to take than raising scholastic dues, which currently
requires Delegate approval.

The key is figuring out the right rate. For a variety of reasons, I don't
think a significantly lower rate would bring a torrent of adult members
back to the USCF, at least not enough to offset the loss in revenue.
And I don't know that a smaller reduction would have the desired impact,
either. If they won't renew for $49, would they renew for $45, or $39?
--
Mike Nolan

(Mike Nolan) wrote in message ...
(Ivan) writes:

Is the USCF losing money on scholastic memberships since they are at a
low cost? I believe the scholastic members gives the player Chess
Life bimonthly. However at only $13 does that really pay for 6 issues
of Chess Life, their membership card, and give enough revenue to the
USCF to run things?

Is the membership form unclear? Are you aware that for $13 an
'economy scholastic' member get NO magazine at all?

For $19 a scholastic member gets six issues of Chess Life, an increment
over the 'economy scholastic' rate which roughly covers the cost of
printing and sending out those six issues.

If the USCF is in a financial crisis and since the majority of members
are kids with a surge in scholastic memberships, isn't the smart thing
to raise scholastic membership prices and reduce adult membership
fees. Adults would also be the only ones who would probably get a
Life membership. If adults are moving away from joining because of a
$49/year fee, then they probably would not be interested in becoming
life members anyway.

The surge in scholastic memberships seems to be subsiding.

I know the Board has considered a reduced adult rate, but that's an
easier step for them to take than raising scholastic dues, which currently
requires Delegate approval.

The key is figuring out the right rate. For a variety of reasons, I don't
think a significantly lower rate would bring a torrent of adult members
back to the USCF, at least not enough to offset the loss in revenue.
And I don't know that a smaller reduction would have the desired impact,
either. If they won't renew for $49, would they renew for $45, or $39?

Yes more will renew the less expensive it is. We can not continue to
deny this basic economic principal. Thats why gum costs 50 cents and
not $5.00. I agree its not like they will go flockign back if we
remove the latest price increase. It takes allot more work to get a
new customer than to keep an existing one. Thats why it was such a
pity USCF chased away so many members with the last ridiculous price
increase.

(joe mccarron) writes:

It takes allot more work to get a
new customer than to keep an existing one. Thats why it was such a
pity USCF chased away so many members with the last ridiculous price
increase.

The decline in adult memberships started a year after the previous
dues increase (in January of 1995) and continued at a fairly steady rate
for eight years, something that was a marked change from past dues
increases. Most of the past dues increases had at most a two year
negative impact on adult memberships.

This suggests that factors other than economics are also involved, the
most likely being the change in leisure time habits that was produced
by the Internet. Virtually all group sports activities like bowling,
tennis and softball also experienced downtrends in the late 1990's.

I think we all know some chess players whose competitive desire is
satisfied by ICC and other online venues, those players just don't come
to tournaments anymore. And without tournament play, there is less
incentive to be or remain a USCF member.
--
Mike Nolan

"Mike Nolan" wrote in message
...
(joe mccarron) writes:

It takes allot more work to get a
new customer than to keep an existing one. Thats why it was such a
pity USCF chased away so many members with the last ridiculous price
increase.

The decline in adult memberships started a year after the previous
dues increase (in January of 1995) and continued at a fairly steady rate
for eight years, something that was a marked change from past dues
increases. Most of the past dues increases had at most a two year
negative impact on adult memberships.

This suggests that factors other than economics are also involved, the
most likely being the change in leisure time habits that was produced
by the Internet. Virtually all group sports activities like bowling,
tennis and softball also experienced downtrends in the late 1990's.

I think we all know some chess players whose competitive desire is
satisfied by ICC and other online venues, those players just don't come
to tournaments anymore. And without tournament play, there is less
incentive to be or remain a USCF member.
--
Mike Nolan

I would qualify as one of those players. I play 100's of hours a year on
ICC but rarely play tournament anymore. However this is not because my
competitive desire is satisfied by online play. It is just money issue. I
can pay $50/year to play 100's of hours or more on ICC or I can pay $49/year
for USCF plus state dues plus tourney entry fee (not including gas, food and
perhaps hotel) for a dozen hours of OTB. Simply put, this is way too much
to pay for chess.

When venturing into one of the local chess clubs (St.Louis) for the first
time in a few years I was amazed to see how many adults there were who where
NOT members of the USCF. In discussions with them it is clear they love to
play chess and would like having ratings or reading about chess but
certainly not for a $49 membership plus entry fees for tourneys plus state
dues. A complete no-brainer for a guy like me making about the average
income for the St.Louis area. One player in his 40's (I am guessing) said
something to the effect of "Who wants to pay other people to tell me how
good I am? I can figure that out for myself." Other player said they would
not mind paying $5 or $10 for a 3 or 4 round, 1-day tourney. *note to chess
organizers - these guys said $5 or $10 would be a good entry fee!*

I am not interested in big prizes. A trophy or a book or some such small
item would be just fine. Even just some donuts in the morning and a
handshake at the end plus bragging rights would work. I don't mind paying
$10-$25 to play tourney as this is something I can afford on occasion but
after meeting people at the St.Louis Chess Club it is clear many of them can
not. Chess has to become affordable for all people for the USCF to gain
adult membership. I am not interested in supporting Chess Trusts, titled
players, international or national chess politics or sending chess teams of
children overseas to compete. I am interested in playing chess and making
sure my stove gets repaired and my car stays running. It is really that
simple. There are lots of available adult members out there but the USCF
and chess organizers have priced themselves way, way out of the market.

It has become clear to me the USCF has drifted far from its roots - the
"regular guy" chess hobbyist - and caters more and more to the affluent. My
membership will expire this year and I am pretty sure I will not renew.
This saddens me as I have been a member for about 15 years but I can no
longer see any benefit to membership.

I think the right rate might be closer to $19 or $29, but that's not
feasible with the USCF's current financial structure. The magazine would
have to go online and a lot more automation would have to be put in place to
do that.

The problem is that for people at the bottom of the economic ladder, real
wages have not had a significant increase in a long time. My father runs a
small business and he is paying about the same for temporarily
administrative employees as he was 20 years ago.

In Mississippi we used to have $5 dues, then it got raised to $10 and maybe
eventually $20. Now it's back to $5 because it doesn't cost $250 to send
out each newsletter to all of the members with the whole Internet thing. Of
course the change took place only after the state association was falling
apart and membership had tumbled. :-(

It would be nice if the USCF could be like the airlines, and figure out a
method to extract more money from people that can afford it and charge less
to people who have less money, but how you do that I have no clue. Charge
$100 for 50 rating points? ;-)

---
Douglas Stewart

President, Mississippi Chess Association

"Mike Nolan" wrote in message
...
(Ivan) writes:

Is the USCF losing money on scholastic memberships since they are at a
low cost? I believe the scholastic members gives the player Chess
Life bimonthly. However at only $13 does that really pay for 6 issues
of Chess Life, their membership card, and give enough revenue to the
USCF to run things?

Is the membership form unclear? Are you aware that for $13 an
'economy scholastic' member get NO magazine at all?

For $19 a scholastic member gets six issues of Chess Life, an increment
over the 'economy scholastic' rate which roughly covers the cost of
printing and sending out those six issues.

If the USCF is in a financial crisis and since the majority of members
are kids with a surge in scholastic memberships, isn't the smart thing
to raise scholastic membership prices and reduce adult membership
fees. Adults would also be the only ones who would probably get a
Life membership. If adults are moving away from joining because of a
$49/year fee, then they probably would not be interested in becoming
life members anyway.

The surge in scholastic memberships seems to be subsiding.

I know the Board has considered a reduced adult rate, but that's an
easier step for them to take than raising scholastic dues, which currently
requires Delegate approval.

The key is figuring out the right rate. For a variety of reasons, I don't
think a significantly lower rate would bring a torrent of adult members
back to the USCF, at least not enough to offset the loss in revenue.
And I don't know that a smaller reduction would have the desired impact,
either. If they won't renew for $49, would they renew for $45, or $39?
--
Mike Nolan

"Ankhar" wrote ...

I am not interested in big prizes. A trophy or a book or some such small
item would be just fine. Even just some donuts in the morning and a
handshake at the end plus bragging rights would work. I don't mind paying
$10-$25 to play tourney as this is something I can afford on occasion but
after meeting people at the St.Louis Chess Club it is clear many of them
can
not. Chess has to become affordable for all people for the USCF to gain
adult membership. I am not interested in supporting Chess Trusts, titled
players, international or national chess politics or sending chess teams
of
children overseas to compete. I am interested in playing chess and making
sure my stove gets repaired and my car stays running. It is really that
simple. There are lots of available adult members out there but the USCF
and chess organizers have priced themselves way, way out of the market.

It has become clear to me the USCF has drifted far from its roots - the
"regular guy" chess hobbyist - and caters more and more to the affluent.
My
membership will expire this year and I am pretty sure I will not renew.

Hear him. This is a wise man. People like him are voting with their feet. As
a local chess club organizer I have great sympathy for his views.

And as a player myself, I have even more sympathy, because I can't afford to
play in most chess tournaments either. I'm just a regular guy with a regular
job and a wife, two kids, a mortgage, and two cars. People like me can't
afford to go to the World Open, or even to the Eastern Class Championship
which is being held in my own state in a couple of weeks. For some reason
Goichberg is holding the event in the western part of the state, where few
chessplayers live, so I will have to stay in a hotel at $82 a night if I
want to play. Let's add up the costs:

--Entry fee, $106 (best rate)
--Hotel, $180 (two nights including tax)
--Meals, $50 (conservative)
--Car expense, $50 (34 cents per mile)

TOTAL: $386 for five games of chess, or $77.20 per game. To me this makes no
sense. Why would anybody do this? Who can afford to do this on a regular
basis?

Tim Hanke
USCF Vice President of Finance

First, you have to think that 60%+ usually goes back as prizes as
tournaments. Obviously each person does not take back 60%, but some people
do win money. That lowers the costs a little, and a lot of people are
optimistic about their chances. I see it all the time. There is a lot of
overlap between chess players and gamblers. (In that many chess players
gamble, unfortunately most gamblers don't play chess or the USCF would be in
better financial condition.)

Second, many hobbies are also expensive. Golf is not cheap. Many people
sink a lot of money into hunting, or NASCAR events, or other specator
sporting events. People manage to afford to play golf. If chess is your
priority you sink your money into it. This doesn't make chess affordable to
everyone - but I am trying to point out it is not completely different from
other activities. I'm sure that huge Bridge tournament in Sarasota wasn't
cheap to attend.

Third, you're talking about what is somewhat of a premiere event. There are
cheaper tournaments out there that you can go to that are closer to home.
Maybe there aren't any in Sarasota or certain geographies hurt from time to
time, but in a lot of places there are cheaper tournaments. I actually find
that more expensive tournaments draw better though.

Fourth, when I go to a big tournament I consider it a substitute for a
vacation. For that $3k my friends spent a cruise, I could go to the World
Open, play the slow schedule, and spend several days exploring Philadelphia
historical landmarks. (Did this in 1993.) I'd probably have money left
over from $3k even after entry fees, hotel, airline, meals, etc. If I go to
the US Open this year, you better believe I will be hitting the beach and
convincing my wife that the trip is really a vacation.

I really don't see how the ecomics of tournaments has changed in the past
10+ years. There are big tournaments and small tournaments. I flew to DC
last year and played in the Atlantic Open a couple of blocks from the White
House, but I also played in tournament in Tuscaloosa, Alabama that only cost
a couple of bucks to play.

What's different is the Internet. In some ways it helps, and in some ways
it hurts. More people play chess with strangers than ever before, but you
have percentage of people who are content to only play on the Internet.
There is no magic solution. Keeping OTB chess alive at the adult level will
always be a struggle. From a state affiliate perspective all I'd like to
see is the USCF maintain a sane financial structure and not go bankrupt.
(Or who knows, bankruptcy might help. The life members and the bank would
hate it understandably, but it would probably do wonders for the USCF in the
long run)

Some suggestions: drive in the morning of the tournament to save a night's
hotel cost, try to find a cheaper nearby hotel or get someone to split a
room with you, eat at Taco Bell, and don't lease cars so you don't have to
worry about how many miles you put on them, just the price of gas :-)

---
Douglas Stewart

President, Mississippi Chess Association

"Tim Hanke" wrote in message
news:nxy_b.391338$na.739129@attbi_s04...

Hear him. This is a wise man. People like him are voting with their feet.
As
a local chess club organizer I have great sympathy for his views.

And as a player myself, I have even more sympathy, because I can't afford
to
play in most chess tournaments either. I'm just a regular guy with a
regular
job and a wife, two kids, a mortgage, and two cars. People like me can't
afford to go to the World Open, or even to the Eastern Class Championship
which is being held in my own state in a couple of weeks. For some reason
Goichberg is holding the event in the western part of the state, where few
chessplayers live, so I will have to stay in a hotel at $82 a night if I
want to play. Let's add up the costs:

--Entry fee, $106 (best rate)
--Hotel, $180 (two nights including tax)
--Meals, $50 (conservative)
--Car expense, $50 (34 cents per mile)

TOTAL: $386 for five games of chess, or $77.20 per game. To me this makes
no
sense. Why would anybody do this? Who can afford to do this on a regular
basis?

Tim Hanke
USCF Vice President of Finance

"Tim Hanke" wrote in message
news:nxy_b.391338$na.739129@attbi_s04...

TOTAL: $386 for five games of chess, or $77.20 per game. To me this makes
no
sense. Why would anybody do this? Who can afford to do this on a regular
basis?

Me. I just signed up for Chicago and World Open. Will shortly do the Same
for the National in Vegas. Then onto the Atlantic Open, Congress, North
American and Liberty Belle. I manage to do this by not asking for the chess
rate at the hotels. I. e. if you're going to Chicago take the standard room
rate. It is about $15 cheaper then the chess rate.

StanB