"Bill Smythe" wrote ...

Even though, in the short run, the revenue gained from the dues increase
may
offset the revenue lost from those who don't join, the policy in the long
run just doesn't seem to make sense.

Bill,

Also, the people who don't renew, reduce the pool of players for USCF
events, and we can assume they buy less books & equipment from USCF because
they probably aren't getting our catalogs.

There is a huge negative ripple effect when we lose adult members. Other
things being reasonably equal, it's just better for all sorts of reasons to
have more members. So I'd say, to justify a dues increase, we'd have to take
in really a lot more revenue after the increase than before to justify the
loss in members, and I don't know if that's true.

Tim Hanke

For me, the uscf means tournaments. I was once one
of the most active players in the uscf, now I play two
tournaments a year. $49 should be more than enough
for their announcing and rating two tournaments a year
for one person. Why are they losing money?



"Kevin L. Bachler" wrote:

In article , Paul Rubin says...

Kevin L. Bachler writes:
It's not a matter of me liking the posts. It's a matter of why are
you here commenting on USCF and telling us how it should be run when
you aren't even a member?

The vast majority of US chessplayers are not USCF members.

And the vast majority of US Bowlers don't belong to ABC.

If the USCF
wants to stop losing members, maybe it should start figuring out how to
bring bring the non-members in.

We know some things already. We need to DO them.

That means listening to what the
non-members and ex-members have to say.

Not when it comes to nothing more than dire speculation.

Kevin L. Bachler

"Tim Hanke" wrote:
.... Also, the people who don't renew, reduce the pool of players for
USCF
events, and we can assume they buy less books & equipment from USCF ....

They also reduce the pool of possible opponents at tournaments, which makes
the tournaments less attractive to play in -- not to mention, less
attractive to organize.

Bill Smythe

In article zxe2b.250106$YN5.170651@sccrnsc01, Tim Hanke says...

"Bill Smythe" wrote ...

Even though, in the short run, the revenue gained from the dues increase
may
offset the revenue lost from those who don't join, the policy in the long
run just doesn't seem to make sense.

Bill,

Also, the people who don't renew, reduce the pool of players for USCF
events, and we can assume they buy less books & equipment from USCF because
they probably aren't getting our catalogs.

There is a huge negative ripple effect when we lose adult members. Other
things being reasonably equal, it's just better for all sorts of reasons to
have more members. So I'd say, to justify a dues increase, we'd have to take
in really a lot more revenue after the increase than before to justify the
loss in members, and I don't know if that's true.

Tim Hanke


I agree Tim. In which case we should be looking for ways to cut costs and
decrease adult dues. No?

Kevin L. Bachler

Kevin L. Bachler wrote

And for years PRIOR to that, BOTH were increasing. In the mid 1990's several
factors changed that seemed to impact adult membership -- none of them had
anything to do with adults and kids paying the same amount.

It appears that the increase of the adult membership rate from $26 to
$35 took the cost above the "value" of the membership, while the
increase of the youth from 413 to $15 and scholastic from $7 to $10
didn't take them above the "value" of those membership types. So
while it might not have been necessary for all the dues to be exactly
the same, the USCF could have closed the gap between the different
dues rates by increasing the youth and scholastic and leaving the
adult alone and then could have kept all membership classes growing.

- Tom Martinak

In article , Tom Martinak
says...

Kevin L. Bachler wrote

And for years PRIOR to that, BOTH were increasing. In the mid 1990's several
factors changed that seemed to impact adult membership -- none of them had
anything to do with adults and kids paying the same amount.

It appears that the increase of the adult membership rate from $26 to
$35 took the cost above the "value" of the membership, while the
increase of the youth from 413 to $15 and scholastic from $7 to $10
didn't take them above the "value" of those membership types. So
while it might not have been necessary for all the dues to be exactly
the same, the USCF could have closed the gap between the different
dues rates by increasing the youth and scholastic and leaving the
adult alone and then could have kept all membership classes growing.

- Tom Martinak

I understand your point, but I don't think you can conclude it so easily. The
lower groups are advertising. The adult group is not.

Kevin L. Bachler

In article , Jerry says...

For me, the uscf means tournaments. I was once one
of the most active players in the uscf, now I play two
tournaments a year. $49 should be more than enough
for their announcing and rating two tournaments a year
for one person. Why are they losing money?

For one, because USCF is not a service organization that does nothing but
announce and rate tournaments. What services you take from USCF is not the same
thing as the services it charges you for.

This is a membership organization. People seem to have forgotten that, or don't
quite understand what that means. There are things that you pay for that you
may never use.

In addition, they have done some things very, very badly. There is
inefficiency. And there is lost economic value at the LM level.

Kevin L. Bachler

Kevin L. Bachler writes:
If the USCF
wants to stop losing members, maybe it should start figuring out how to
bring bring the non-members in.

We know some things already. We need to DO them.

Excellent. I look forward to the dues cut.

It sound sort of like the government, but with the
government you don't have a choice.

"Kevin L. Bachler" wrote:

In article , Jerry says...

For me, the uscf means tournaments. I was once one
of the most active players in the uscf, now I play two
tournaments a year. $49 should be more than enough
for their announcing and rating two tournaments a year
for one person. Why are they losing money?

For one, because USCF is not a service organization that does nothing but
announce and rate tournaments. What services you take from USCF is not the same
thing as the services it charges you for.

This is a membership organization. People seem to have forgotten that, or don't
quite understand what that means. There are things that you pay for that you
may never use.

In addition, they have done some things very, very badly. There is
inefficiency. And there is lost economic value at the LM level.

Kevin L. Bachler

I agree that member should count for something.
I was furious at the Marshall last year when the president
wanted to bring in a new man as treasurer who was
otherwise respectable, but had only joined the club
recently.

There's no harm in listening to an non-members opinion.
But in its the uscf's ED elected by the members who will
decide.

BTW my membership expired last month, so you can flame
me a bit too.


"Kevin L. Bachler" wrote:

In article , WPraeder says...

Wayne,

My point is this:

Which member would you rather have. The dues paying member who is willing to
chip in and to help turn things around, or the non-dues-paying "member" who
is
very willing to stand on the sidelines and criticize?

Kevin

Kevin L. Bachler


Kevin,

Actually your original point was that you had a real problem with Bruce's level
of criticism given that he was not a USCF member.

I still agree with this.

Whether Bruce is a member or
not is irrelevant regarding his criticisms.

I disagree with this.


Your new point is a bifurcation, however, I'm willing to have full dues paying
members who do or don't chip in, subsidized members who do or don't chip in, as
well as potential members who criticize or not.

Regards,
Wayne Praeder

We believe in two different things then. I believe in members.

Kevin L. Bachler