I was wondering if Mike Nolan could provide some additional information
about the continued decline of adult regular members since January, when
dues for this group went to $49.00/year.

I would be interested in seeing whether the people who are not renewing
were tournament players or not, and whether the rate of non-renewals has
changed between the subgroups of non-playing members and playing
members?

I would also be interested in seeing whether there are particular states
where the decline is markedly greater in adults than in other states?

In addition, is there any data about active affiliates today, compared
to active affiliates a few years ago, when membership seemed to be
growing?

At one point when I was on the Membership Growth Committee, Bill was
pushing to re-establish the Membership Appreciation Program. One thing
about the MAP restarting up would be that it would be easier to see
which affiliates were doing well now, and compare that to the list of
affiliates back in 1995 or 1996.

I think that for years that many have focused only on the total number
of affiliates and not whether those affiliates were as effective in
recruitment as the ones who were around back in 1995 or 1996. In short
we tended to look only at quantity and not at quality.

Best Regards,

Bruce

Bruce Draney wrote in message ...
In addition, is there any data about active affiliates today, compared
to active affiliates a few years ago, when membership seemed to be
growing?

Circulation figures for The Pennswoodpusher have gone from 700 some to
1000 some. That's an increase of 300 members, more or less. (Martinak
has the specifics.) The Mensa Monster will be horrified to know that
some of that increase is due to improvements in The Pennswoodpusher.

"I think that for years that many have focused only on the total number
of affiliates and not whether those affiliates were as effective in recruitment
as the ones who were around back in 1995 or 1996. In short we tended to look
only at quantity and not at quality. (Bruce Draney)
===============
CL used to publish lists of affiliates that had recruited the most members.
With few exceptions, the most productive affiliates in that regard were the
small operators quietly mining their local or metro markets. Few state
associations appeared on the list. We know the state orgs are busy producing
their eyecandy newletters and little else. Chess can be dead in 3/4th of their
state, but if the state org can get out a decent eyecandy newsletter, they
always think they're a "great state org."
As I've often said, they give awards for the best state eyecandy but they
don't give awards for the best state org, period.

RSHaas

Spam Scone wrote:

Bruce Draney wrote in message ...
In addition, is there any data about active affiliates today, compared
to active affiliates a few years ago, when membership seemed to be
growing?

Circulation figures for The Pennswoodpusher have gone from 700 some to
1000 some. That's an increase of 300 members, more or less. (Martinak
has the specifics.) The Mensa Monster will be horrified to know that
some of that increase is due to improvements in The Pennswoodpusher.

Are most of your subscribers USCF members? Also, are those that are
members active tournament players or are they more interested in chess
newsletters and goings on?

I'm not sure what NSCA membership is right now, but most of our members
are active players, and more than 1/2 of them are children (or at least
they were when I last knew). We do have a few exceptions, some of them
merely in it to be a member, some are parents or coaches but don't play
themselves.

My question however is about membership recruitment. For years Nolan
and others have been saying that attrition while a problem certainly, is
not THE problem with declining membership. The problem has been a
severe falloff in recruitment efforts to replace those leaving. This
raises the question about what is happening to our recruiters? Who was
recruiting for us 5 years ago? Who is recruiting for us now? Have key
recruiters, died, retired or quit recruiting? If so why? If not, then
why are they not recruiting as many members as they did before?

It isn't a problem when memberships are cheap and there are large
numbers of little kids waiting to replace the ones leaving. In many
cases the entry fee for the tournament itself is more than a year's dues
for a child under 15.

Around here, going to a Husker game costs a family of four well over
$100.00. It's really not a question of price, it's a question of value
for the money. If this were Kansas or Baylor football, I don't think
people would be so interested in paying $100.00+ for it. The product
being offered has to be perceived as worth the value to the person
paying the price. We do not live in a communist state where the price
for a good or service can be set by wishful thinking or fiat. USCF
seems to believe that they can arbitrarily establish the price that they
insist everyone will pay to be a member. Unfortunately, for 8 years,
the members do not appear to agree that this price is correctly or
fairly set.

Also, most of the time, proponents of the $49.00 is cheap attitude,
fail to realize that parting with $49.00, is only for the membership
does not include the entry fees. Just to play in maybe one crummy
tournament in a year, is ridiculous. The service also just keeps
getting lousier and lousier as well. Long delays in seeing tournaments
rated, false or mistaken TLA listings that don't get corrected,
obnoxious or boorish behavior by other players at the events, all make
one wonder how anyone would think that $49.00 was a worthwhile price to
pay for this.

It was a difficult but not impossible sell at $40.00, but raising it to
$49.00, was probably the second stupidest thing that USCF has ever done,
the first of course being the infamous $7.00 for first time scholastic
membership passed in Orlando in 1997.

Best Regards,

Bruce

"The problem has been a severe falloff in recruitment efforts to replace those
leaving. This raises the question about what is happening to our recruiters?"
(Bruce Draney)
================
There are many ways to look at this phenomenon. I look at it this way:
My most active period was during the Fischer boom, an era when many of us
bought into the idea that there was a "cause of chess." To some degree the
cause mentality fueled unpaid volunteerism, largely to the benefit of Chess HQ.
We thought we were doing something important. Many of us later discovered
that the only real cause of chess was to prop up Chess HQ. We began to see
Chess HQ as an organization that merely parasitzes the efforts of volunteers.
If anything remains of the "cause of chess," it is seated in the kiddie
movement. We first thought the kiddies would become the lifeline into "big"
chess. Later that was shown to be bull****. So, now the "cause" is to simply
introduce chess to masses of kids and "hope" some will stick long term. The
kiddie chess "cause" will likely sustain itself only because kiddie stuff can
be profitable. Adult chess, for the most part and in most places, is not very
profitable.
While Chess HQ cheers him on from a safe distance, the good chess soldier
boy can charge the coiled barbed wire only so many times before a blood
transfusion is needed. In order for adult chess to move forward again, Chess
HQ will have to find some way to efficiently deliver whole blood in sufficient
amounts to the battlefield.

RSHaas

(RSHaas) wrote in message ...
"I think that for years that many have focused only on the total number
of affiliates and not whether those affiliates were as effective in recruitment
as the ones who were around back in 1995 or 1996. In short we tended to look
only at quantity and not at quality. (Bruce Draney)
===============
CL used to publish lists of affiliates that had recruited the most members.
With few exceptions, the most productive affiliates in that regard were the
small operators quietly mining their local or metro markets. Few state
associations appeared on the list. We know the state orgs are busy producing
their eyecandy newletters and little else. Chess can be dead in 3/4th of their
state, but if the state org can get out a decent eyecandy newsletter, they
always think they're a "great state org."
As I've often said, they give awards for the best state eyecandy but they
don't give awards for the best state org, period.

RSHaas
_______________________________
The FCA would generally not appear on the lists, because most new USCF
members were signed up at large tournaments that were awarded by bid
to local affiliates such as the Central Florida Chess Club, St.
Petersburg Chess Club etc.... You will see those local affiliates on
the lists.

KidDon

Have key recruiters, died (NO) , retired (NO) or quit recruiting (YES)? If so
why? ($49)

....probably the second stupidest thing that USCF has ever done,
the first of course being the infamous $7.00 for first time scholastic
membership passed in Orlando in 1997.

Gawd but I loved that one! I made mucho money while USCF started to sink.
Pleaseeee bring it back for my profit margins!

Kevin L. Bachler writes:

I have posted this question twice to Nolan and Doan, within the past few weeks.
No reply was made.

I saw it yesterday, if it was posted before then it was probably lost due
to some system problems I had here.

The question you ask would require 3-4 hours of analysis to answer. Is
it worth that much time?
--
Mike Nolan

(Mike Nolan) writes:
I saw it yesterday, if it was posted before then it was probably lost due
to some system problems I had here.

The question you ask would require 3-4 hours of analysis to answer. Is
it worth that much time?

You know, I think we had a similar discussion a few months ago, and
you posted some interesting numbers then, maybe not the exact ones
Bruce was asking for. Maybe it's time for a web page of stuff like
that, if there isn't one already.