" I suspect they will continue ramming away at the brick wall, until their
heads give out." (Bruce Draney)
=============
I see it as a kind of Flight 19 scenario, flying first this way, then another
with no orientation,.. and finally a plunge into the Devil's Triangle, never to
be recovered.

RSHaas

Problem #1: publications are cheaper per unit when you print a lot of them.
The 20,000 who may take the magazine might have to pay $5 or $6 per issue.
This is a good reason to go perhaps to newsletter format and deliver CL
electronically. Or for everyone to bite the bullet and just "buy" CL.

Problem #2: After seeing the impact of dues on membership I have to revise
my stupid position on same. OK, the dues are killing membership. I'm sorry I
didn't recognize this to the extent that it's happening. However, it's
probably impractical at this point to change the dues structure in such a
way that is not at least revenue-neutral.

Problem #3: I have no problem with kids paying more. However, now that
Mike's analysis shows drops in key parameters with the huge recent increase,
don't you suppose the juniors -- especially the marginal ones -- will also
drop?

I think the most important exercise USCF can go through at this time is to
figure out what it's supposed to do, maybe redefine its mission in light of
its obvious managerial deficiencies. Forget the mission statement. As I've
written before they are in desperate, desperate need of a management
consultant to help them enunciate their mission and draw up a plan to follow
to make good on it.

Once they know what they are supposed to do, they should make believe
they've never done ratings, never sold books, never run the US championship,
and figure out "ground-up" strategies for doing these things, all of which
should be "profitable" (please no nitpicking on nonprofit status).

One more thing. I'm a complete dunce when it comes to USCF politicians, so I
don't know who's a good guy and who's not. But it seems to me anyone in a
managerial or executive position who has been there more than 2 months
should resign as soon as they find professionals to run this thing.

Wouldn't it be interesting, for example, to get a newly-minted chess-playing
MBA from a top school? Yeah, most of them are used to making a ton of money
after they get out but I'll bet 20-30 dream of heading a non-profit. Where
better to get your feet wet?

Angelo DePalma


"Bruce Draney" wrote in message
...
In the spirit of feeling fortunate after a family member had a near
disaster yesterday, I'm starting this thread as a potential outside the
box way of addressing the fundamental problem that has divided the USCF
for years.

I feel that it is time to seriously consider a complete reworking of how
dues are set and what they are in the USCF. The current system by
nearly everyone's admission is a total failure and the numbers clearly
show that if USCF continues on its present course, the organization is
likely to collapse within the next few years.

Once adult numbers fall below 20,000, and continue dropping, the USCF
will be unable to sustain much of any operations, even those essential
to survival.

In my opinion it is time to completely throw out the dues rates and
start over with a different approach to dues, assuming that the
organization still needs dues rates of some kind to fund itself.

My belief is that age based dues rates should be abolished and the
entire dues structure should be changed to reflect the interests and
intentions of the members paying them regardless of their age. There
are a significant group of people who only want to play tournament
chess, get a rating and that's about it. In my view, whatever age they
are, they are joining only for that reason. What should they be asked
to pay to support the services necessary to do this, and why should it
make any difference how old they are?

I think that $20.00 to $25.00 per year would be a fair and reasonable
rate for these people. I suspect that at this rate the numbers of
people paying this amount each year, would increase slightly over the
previous years, meaning that positive revenues and growth would help the
Federation stop losing money, assuming that $20.00-$25.00/year is more
than minimally profitable. I can't imagine that it wouldn't be in that
these members would not be receiving a publication and would only be
paying to play tournament chess. If USCF can't make a profit off of
40,000+ of these members at $22.00/player, then they have other rather
serious issues.

The magazine only members. It appears that there is a significant group
of people whose principal benefit in joining USCF is reading about
chess, via the pages of Chess Life. One could argue over whether ANY
member who doesn't play is joining for Chess Life magazine, but there is
no question that a reasonable number of people like a magazine as a part
of their membership. Again, the costs to produce a magazine are the
same regardless of age, so in my view the age of the person wishing to
receive a magazine should not be a factor. If a person wants to receive
the magazine, they should pay enough to cover the cost of the magazine
and some above that so that the USCF generates some income to help fund
its many other programs that are not self supporting. You could buy it
off the newstand for about $48.00/year, but I would suggest it be
offered for perhaps $25.00 to $30.00/year.

The full ride members. There are a significant number of members who
want the magazine and the right to play in tournaments. I think that
age should be irrelevant. Why should a 16 year old, pay less than a 22
year old? Why should a 14 year old pay less than a 16 year old? The
USCF should be covering its costs to service these members AND recouping
a significant amount of revenue on EVERY member regardless of age to
help fund it's other non-self supporting programs.

In short, the time has come to abolish age based memberships and simply
base costs on services and what is desired by the people paying the
fees.

I am certain that the traditional politicos will tear their hair in
horror at such a suggestion, but it is pretty clear that it is their
incredible stubbornness in refusing to change a failed model that has
put USCF on the brink. These politicos need to step aside. Their model
has been tried and found to be an utter failure. If USCF wants to grow
they need to do something different, something outside of the norm, and
something that has never been tried before, but whose time has come.

Best Regards,

Bruce

"Angelo DePalma" writes:
Problem #1: publications are cheaper per unit when you print a lot of them.
The 20,000 who may take the magazine might have to pay $5 or $6 per issue.

That's absurd, 20,000 copies is a lot of copies. Inside Chess never
had more than about 5000 subscribers and it didn't have to charge $5
or $6 per issue.

Problem #2: After seeing the impact of dues on membership I have to revise
my stupid position on same. OK, the dues are killing membership. I'm sorry I
didn't recognize this to the extent that it's happening.

Excellent, you are wising up to what Bruce and I have been telling you
for months.

However, it's probably impractical at this point to change the dues
structure in such a way that is not at least revenue-neutral.

That's not necessarily so. USCF just cut over a dozen deadwood staff
positions and is about to offload the money-losing B&E operation. That
should go a long way toward keeping USCF's appetite for revenue in
check. USCF simply doesn't need to spend as much money as it's been
spending, and thus can get by on less revenue.

Problem #3: I have no problem with kids paying more. However, now
that Mike's analysis shows drops in key parameters with the huge
recent increase, don't you suppose the juniors -- especially the
marginal ones -- will also drop?

I think that is a real danger that is underestimated by those clamoring
to jack up the kids' dues. Really, the scholastic program is successful
(growing) at the current dues rate, and jacking up the dues means fixing
something that isn't broken, almost never a good idea. USCF instead needs
to gather the financial discipline to operate on the scholastic dues that
are coming in, without any increase.

I think the most important exercise USCF can go through at this time
is to figure out what it's supposed to do, maybe redefine its
mission in light of its obvious managerial deficiencies. Forget the
mission statement. As I've written before they are in desperate,
desperate need of a management consultant to help them enunciate
their mission and draw up a plan to follow to make good on it.

A good swift kick in the pants would cost a lot less.

Once they know what they are supposed to do, they should make believe
they've never done ratings, never sold books, never run the US championship,
and figure out "ground-up" strategies for doing these things, all of which
should be "profitable" (please no nitpicking on nonprofit status).

Books should be profitable. US Championship, Olympiad teams, FIDE
stuff, etc. can't be profitable without sponsorship. and these things
are legitimate uses of dues money. Ratings can be neutral or slightly
unprofitable if needed, though it would be nice to generate some small
profit from them without being too greedy.

One more thing. I'm a complete dunce when it comes to USCF politicians, so I
don't know who's a good guy and who's not. But it seems to me anyone in a
managerial or executive position who has been there more than 2 months
should resign as soon as they find professionals to run this thing.

Wouldn't it be interesting, for example, to get a newly-minted chess-playing
MBA from a top school? Yeah, most of them are used to making a ton of money
after they get out but I'll bet 20-30 dream of heading a non-profit. Where
better to get your feet wet?

Been there, done that (DeFeis). Total disaster.

Well, now that we know there's no solution other than a "kick in the pants"
maybe we should all get out our razor blades.

adp

"Paul Rubin" wrote in message
...
"Angelo DePalma" writes:
Problem #1: publications are cheaper per unit when you print a lot of
them.
The 20,000 who may take the magazine might have to pay $5 or $6 per
issue.

That's absurd, 20,000 copies is a lot of copies. Inside Chess never
had more than about 5000 subscribers and it didn't have to charge $5
or $6 per issue.

Problem #2: After seeing the impact of dues on membership I have to
revise
my stupid position on same. OK, the dues are killing membership. I'm
sorry I
didn't recognize this to the extent that it's happening.

Excellent, you are wising up to what Bruce and I have been telling you
for months.

However, it's probably impractical at this point to change the dues
structure in such a way that is not at least revenue-neutral.

That's not necessarily so. USCF just cut over a dozen deadwood staff
positions and is about to offload the money-losing B&E operation. That
should go a long way toward keeping USCF's appetite for revenue in
check. USCF simply doesn't need to spend as much money as it's been
spending, and thus can get by on less revenue.

Problem #3: I have no problem with kids paying more. However, now
that Mike's analysis shows drops in key parameters with the huge
recent increase, don't you suppose the juniors -- especially the
marginal ones -- will also drop?

I think that is a real danger that is underestimated by those clamoring
to jack up the kids' dues. Really, the scholastic program is successful
(growing) at the current dues rate, and jacking up the dues means fixing
something that isn't broken, almost never a good idea. USCF instead needs
to gather the financial discipline to operate on the scholastic dues that
are coming in, without any increase.

I think the most important exercise USCF can go through at this time
is to figure out what it's supposed to do, maybe redefine its
mission in light of its obvious managerial deficiencies. Forget the
mission statement. As I've written before they are in desperate,
desperate need of a management consultant to help them enunciate
their mission and draw up a plan to follow to make good on it.

A good swift kick in the pants would cost a lot less.

Once they know what they are supposed to do, they should make believe
they've never done ratings, never sold books, never run the US
championship,
and figure out "ground-up" strategies for doing these things, all of
which
should be "profitable" (please no nitpicking on nonprofit status).

Books should be profitable. US Championship, Olympiad teams, FIDE
stuff, etc. can't be profitable without sponsorship. and these things
are legitimate uses of dues money. Ratings can be neutral or slightly
unprofitable if needed, though it would be nice to generate some small
profit from them without being too greedy.

One more thing. I'm a complete dunce when it comes to USCF politicians,
so I
don't know who's a good guy and who's not. But it seems to me anyone in
a
managerial or executive position who has been there more than 2 months
should resign as soon as they find professionals to run this thing.

Wouldn't it be interesting, for example, to get a newly-minted
chess-playing
MBA from a top school? Yeah, most of them are used to making a ton of
money
after they get out but I'll bet 20-30 dream of heading a non-profit.
Where
better to get your feet wet?

Been there, done that (DeFeis). Total disaster.

I think, along with Bruce's excellent suggestion about a lower dues rate for
tourney players, that the USCF has to acknowledge that they can't put out a
magazine, certainly not at this time. I also recommend that we do not create
a tiered structure based on publication options.

Magazine publication is very expensive, with almost all the profit coming
from advertisers. Trying to keep Chess Life afloat has been a big reason the
USCF has been bleeding cash.

I recommend switching to a newsletter format, using paper stock, a 16-page,
two-color monthly with a handful of photos. The newsletter would be just
that, a report to membership on the activities of the USCF, with important
results crosstables, upcoming events, TLAs and some B&E ads. NO tutorial
articles. NO features. And NO retail distribution. A mailer to our members,
once a month.

The website is the place to harvest new members, not the crowded magazine
racks of Barnes and Noble. If someone gets interested in chess, and decides
they want to find out about the USCF, a google search will take them there.
We MUST abandon this notion that the magazine is either bringing in new
members or providing something wondrous to existing ones. I know it's going
to be hard to let it go, and I know that it stands as the tangible proof
that we are a community, but we are dying, people, and this is one of the
biggest holes in our boat. Let the Internet fill the void.

TMB

"The Masked Bishop" writes:
I recommend switching to a newsletter format, using paper stock, a 16-page,
two-color monthly with a handful of photos. The newsletter would be just
that, a report to membership on the activities of the USCF, with important
results crosstables, upcoming events, TLAs and some B&E ads. NO tutorial
articles. NO features. And NO retail distribution. A mailer to our members,
once a month.

There is a lot to be said for this.

Subject: Conceiving of a different philosophy on dues.
From: "Angelo DePalma"
Date: 10/19/2003 9:02 PM Eastern Daylight Time
Message-id:


Problem #1: publications are cheaper per unit when you print a lot of them.
The 20,000 who may take the magazine might have to pay $5 or $6 per issue.
This is a good reason to go perhaps to newsletter format and deliver CL
electronically. Or for everyone to bite the bullet and just "buy" CL.

Problem #2: After seeing the impact of dues on membership I have to revise
my stupid position on same. OK, the dues are killing membership. I'm sorry I
didn't recognize this to the extent that it's happening.

Your previous position was substantially correct, Angelo. When you compare
adult membership now to 1/1/03, remember that the true decline is far less than
it first appears, because:

1. USCF foolishly started offering "economy" memberships, which add virtually
no extra members and only serve to cut into the full member totals.

2. Prison members used to count as adult but this was recently changed.

3. 1/1/03 is an artificially high starting point due to increased renewals in
late 2002 to beat the dues increase.

The effect of these factors is that what looks like a decline of about 2400
adults this year is probably a true decline of roughly 1400 for 10 months.
Considering that before the dues increase USCF was losing about 100 adults per
month, 1400 for 10 months is only about 400 more than expected.

With about 22,000 adult members and an average increase of $7 (assuming half
coming in through affiliates), the increase is bringing in about $154,000,
minus 400 x $40 or $16,000 leaves $138,000.

Even if we assume the 400 lost members would have bought $40 each in
merchandise on which USCF would have made 50% profit, both generous
assumptions, that is only another $8000 coming in. The total benefit from the
dues increase is still $130,000. This is money USCF cannot afford to lose!

As Grant Perks has pointed out, USCF has NOT lost adult tournament players
since the dues increase. An extra $9 or $5 is irrelevant to most tournament
players as it is trivial compared to all the time, effort and expense they put
in preparing for and playing in tournaments.

However, there has been a substantial loss in members who do not play in
tournaments. I think this is partly due to the dues increase, but the main
cause is the availability of chess news and theory online. Chess Life was once
the only source of national chess news, but that situation has changed
radically with the rise of the internet.

Grant has suggested that it might be a good idea to have a non-playing
membership class with lower dues. This sounds like a good idea. It is quite
possible that a $39 dues rate for non-players would bring in more money than a
$49 rate. There is no way, though, that the same is true for those who play in
rated tournaments.

Bill Goichberg

However, it's
probably impractical at this point to change the dues structure in such a
way that is not at least revenue-neutral.

Problem #3: I have no problem with kids paying more. However, now that
Mike's analysis shows drops in key parameters with the huge recent increase,
don't you suppose the juniors -- especially the marginal ones -- will also
drop?

I think the most important exercise USCF can go through at this time is to
figure out what it's supposed to do, maybe redefine its mission in light of
its obvious managerial deficiencies. Forget the mission statement. As I've
written before they are in desperate, desperate need of a management
consultant to help them enunciate their mission and draw up a plan to follow
to make good on it.

Once they know what they are supposed to do, they should make believe
they've never done ratings, never sold books, never run the US championship,
and figure out "ground-up" strategies for doing these things, all of which
should be "profitable" (please no nitpicking on nonprofit status).

One more thing. I'm a complete dunce when it comes to USCF politicians, so I
don't know who's a good guy and who's not. But it seems to me anyone in a
managerial or executive position who has been there more than 2 months
should resign as soon as they find professionals to run this thing.

Wouldn't it be interesting, for example, to get a newly-minted chess-playing
MBA from a top school? Yeah, most of them are used to making a ton of money
after they get out but I'll bet 20-30 dream of heading a non-profit. Where
better to get your feet wet?

Angelo DePalma


"Bruce Draney" wrote in message
...
In the spirit of feeling fortunate after a family member had a near
disaster yesterday, I'm starting this thread as a potential outside the
box way of addressing the fundamental problem that has divided the USCF
for years.

I feel that it is time to seriously consider a complete reworking of how
dues are set and what they are in the USCF. The current system by
nearly everyone's admission is a total failure and the numbers clearly
show that if USCF continues on its present course, the organization is
likely to collapse within the next few years.

Once adult numbers fall below 20,000, and continue dropping, the USCF
will be unable to sustain much of any operations, even those essential
to survival.

In my opinion it is time to completely throw out the dues rates and
start over with a different approach to dues, assuming that the
organization still needs dues rates of some kind to fund itself.

My belief is that age based dues rates should be abolished and the
entire dues structure should be changed to reflect the interests and
intentions of the members paying them regardless of their age. There
are a significant group of people who only want to play tournament
chess, get a rating and that's about it. In my view, whatever age they
are, they are joining only for that reason. What should they be asked
to pay to support the services necessary to do this, and why should it
make any difference how old they are?

I think that $20.00 to $25.00 per year would be a fair and reasonable
rate for these people. I suspect that at this rate the numbers of
people paying this amount each year, would increase slightly over the
previous years, meaning that positive revenues and growth would help the
Federation stop losing money, assuming that $20.00-$25.00/year is more
than minimally profitable. I can't imagine that it wouldn't be in that
these members would not be receiving a publication and would only be
paying to play tournament chess. If USCF can't make a profit off of
40,000+ of these members at $22.00/player, then they have other rather
serious issues.

The magazine only members. It appears that there is a significant group
of people whose principal benefit in joining USCF is reading about
chess, via the pages of Chess Life. One could argue over whether ANY
member who doesn't play is joining for Chess Life magazine, but there is
no question that a reasonable number of people like a magazine as a part
of their membership. Again, the costs to produce a magazine are the
same regardless of age, so in my view the age of the person wishing to
receive a magazine should not be a factor. If a person wants to receive
the magazine, they should pay enough to cover the cost of the magazine
and some above that so that the USCF generates some income to help fund
its many other programs that are not self supporting. You could buy it
off the newstand for about $48.00/year, but I would suggest it be
offered for perhaps $25.00 to $30.00/year.

The full ride members. There are a significant number of members who
want the magazine and the right to play in tournaments. I think that
age should be irrelevant. Why should a 16 year old, pay less than a 22
year old? Why should a 14 year old pay less than a 16 year old? The
USCF should be covering its costs to service these members AND recouping
a significant amount of revenue on EVERY member regardless of age to
help fund it's other non-self supporting programs.

In short, the time has come to abolish age based memberships and simply
base costs on services and what is desired by the people paying the
fees.

I am certain that the traditional politicos will tear their hair in
horror at such a suggestion, but it is pretty clear that it is their
incredible stubbornness in refusing to change a failed model that has
put USCF on the brink. These politicos need to step aside. Their model
has been tried and found to be an utter failure. If USCF wants to grow
they need to do something different, something outside of the norm, and
something that has never been tried before, but whose time has come.

Best Regards,

Bruce

Thanks for the clarification, Bill.

Ok, so my original assessment about maximizing income was numerically
incorrect but at least in the right direction.

I wish people would read your post, because it's one of the more hopeful
messages I've seen in a while. We should therefore leave adult dues where
they are and focus on fixing the rest of the dues structure -- relatively
easy to do. The long-term projects of restoring sound finances, chess
development, retaining members, improving editorial, and expanding our
market will not be as easy, but they're possible if we take a long-term
approach.

Angelo

"Recmate" wrote in message
...
Subject: Conceiving of a different philosophy on dues.
From: "Angelo DePalma"
Date: 10/19/2003 9:02 PM Eastern Daylight Time
Message-id:


Problem #1: publications are cheaper per unit when you print a lot of
them.
The 20,000 who may take the magazine might have to pay $5 or $6 per
issue.
This is a good reason to go perhaps to newsletter format and deliver CL
electronically. Or for everyone to bite the bullet and just "buy" CL.

Problem #2: After seeing the impact of dues on membership I have to
revise
my stupid position on same. OK, the dues are killing membership. I'm
sorry I
didn't recognize this to the extent that it's happening.

Your previous position was substantially correct, Angelo. When you
compare
adult membership now to 1/1/03, remember that the true decline is far less
than
it first appears, because:

1. USCF foolishly started offering "economy" memberships, which add
virtually
no extra members and only serve to cut into the full member totals.

2. Prison members used to count as adult but this was recently changed.

3. 1/1/03 is an artificially high starting point due to increased
renewals in
late 2002 to beat the dues increase.

The effect of these factors is that what looks like a decline of about
2400
adults this year is probably a true decline of roughly 1400 for 10 months.
Considering that before the dues increase USCF was losing about 100 adults
per
month, 1400 for 10 months is only about 400 more than expected.

With about 22,000 adult members and an average increase of $7 (assuming
half
coming in through affiliates), the increase is bringing in about $154,000,
minus 400 x $40 or $16,000 leaves $138,000.

Even if we assume the 400 lost members would have bought $40 each in
merchandise on which USCF would have made 50% profit, both generous
assumptions, that is only another $8000 coming in. The total benefit from
the
dues increase is still $130,000. This is money USCF cannot afford to
lose!

As Grant Perks has pointed out, USCF has NOT lost adult tournament players
since the dues increase. An extra $9 or $5 is irrelevant to most
tournament
players as it is trivial compared to all the time, effort and expense they
put
in preparing for and playing in tournaments.

However, there has been a substantial loss in members who do not play in
tournaments. I think this is partly due to the dues increase, but the
main
cause is the availability of chess news and theory online. Chess Life was
once
the only source of national chess news, but that situation has changed
radically with the rise of the internet.

Grant has suggested that it might be a good idea to have a non-playing
membership class with lower dues. This sounds like a good idea. It is
quite
possible that a $39 dues rate for non-players would bring in more money
than a
$49 rate. There is no way, though, that the same is true for those who
play in
rated tournaments.

Bill Goichberg

However, it's
probably impractical at this point to change the dues structure in such a
way that is not at least revenue-neutral.

Problem #3: I have no problem with kids paying more. However, now that
Mike's analysis shows drops in key parameters with the huge recent
increase,
don't you suppose the juniors -- especially the marginal ones -- will
also
drop?

I think the most important exercise USCF can go through at this time is
to
figure out what it's supposed to do, maybe redefine its mission in light
of
its obvious managerial deficiencies. Forget the mission statement. As
I've
written before they are in desperate, desperate need of a management
consultant to help them enunciate their mission and draw up a plan to
follow
to make good on it.

Once they know what they are supposed to do, they should make believe
they've never done ratings, never sold books, never run the US
championship,
and figure out "ground-up" strategies for doing these things, all of
which
should be "profitable" (please no nitpicking on nonprofit status).

One more thing. I'm a complete dunce when it comes to USCF politicians,
so I
don't know who's a good guy and who's not. But it seems to me anyone in a
managerial or executive position who has been there more than 2 months
should resign as soon as they find professionals to run this thing.

Wouldn't it be interesting, for example, to get a newly-minted
chess-playing
MBA from a top school? Yeah, most of them are used to making a ton of
money
after they get out but I'll bet 20-30 dream of heading a non-profit.
Where
better to get your feet wet?

Angelo DePalma


"Bruce Draney" wrote in message
...
In the spirit of feeling fortunate after a family member had a near
disaster yesterday, I'm starting this thread as a potential outside the
box way of addressing the fundamental problem that has divided the USCF
for years.

I feel that it is time to seriously consider a complete reworking of
how
dues are set and what they are in the USCF. The current system by
nearly everyone's admission is a total failure and the numbers clearly
show that if USCF continues on its present course, the organization is
likely to collapse within the next few years.

Once adult numbers fall below 20,000, and continue dropping, the USCF
will be unable to sustain much of any operations, even those essential
to survival.

In my opinion it is time to completely throw out the dues rates and
start over with a different approach to dues, assuming that the
organization still needs dues rates of some kind to fund itself.

My belief is that age based dues rates should be abolished and the
entire dues structure should be changed to reflect the interests and
intentions of the members paying them regardless of their age. There
are a significant group of people who only want to play tournament
chess, get a rating and that's about it. In my view, whatever age they
are, they are joining only for that reason. What should they be asked
to pay to support the services necessary to do this, and why should it
make any difference how old they are?

I think that $20.00 to $25.00 per year would be a fair and reasonable
rate for these people. I suspect that at this rate the numbers of
people paying this amount each year, would increase slightly over the
previous years, meaning that positive revenues and growth would help
the
Federation stop losing money, assuming that $20.00-$25.00/year is more
than minimally profitable. I can't imagine that it wouldn't be in that
these members would not be receiving a publication and would only be
paying to play tournament chess. If USCF can't make a profit off of
40,000+ of these members at $22.00/player, then they have other rather
serious issues.

The magazine only members. It appears that there is a significant
group
of people whose principal benefit in joining USCF is reading about
chess, via the pages of Chess Life. One could argue over whether ANY
member who doesn't play is joining for Chess Life magazine, but there
is
no question that a reasonable number of people like a magazine as a
part
of their membership. Again, the costs to produce a magazine are the
same regardless of age, so in my view the age of the person wishing to
receive a magazine should not be a factor. If a person wants to
receive
the magazine, they should pay enough to cover the cost of the magazine
and some above that so that the USCF generates some income to help fund
its many other programs that are not self supporting. You could buy it
off the newstand for about $48.00/year, but I would suggest it be
offered for perhaps $25.00 to $30.00/year.

The full ride members. There are a significant number of members who
want the magazine and the right to play in tournaments. I think that
age should be irrelevant. Why should a 16 year old, pay less than a 22
year old? Why should a 14 year old pay less than a 16 year old? The
USCF should be covering its costs to service these members AND
recouping
a significant amount of revenue on EVERY member regardless of age to
help fund it's other non-self supporting programs.

In short, the time has come to abolish age based memberships and simply
base costs on services and what is desired by the people paying the
fees.

I am certain that the traditional politicos will tear their hair in
horror at such a suggestion, but it is pretty clear that it is their
incredible stubbornness in refusing to change a failed model that has
put USCF on the brink. These politicos need to step aside. Their
model
has been tried and found to be an utter failure. If USCF wants to grow
they need to do something different, something outside of the norm, and
something that has never been tried before, but whose time has come.

Best Regards,

Bruce

Angelo DePalma wrote:

Thanks for the clarification, Bill.

Ok, so my original assessment about maximizing income was numerically
incorrect but at least in the right direction.

I wish people would read your post, because it's one of the more hopeful
messages I've seen in a while. We should therefore leave adult dues where
they are and focus on fixing the rest of the dues structure -- relatively
easy to do. The long-term projects of restoring sound finances, chess
development, retaining members, improving editorial, and expanding our
market will not be as easy, but they're possible if we take a long-term
approach.

Angelo

"Recmate" wrote in message
...
Subject: Conceiving of a different philosophy on dues.
From: "Angelo DePalma"
Date: 10/19/2003 9:02 PM Eastern Daylight Time
Message-id:


Problem #1: publications are cheaper per unit when you print a lot of
them.
The 20,000 who may take the magazine might have to pay $5 or $6 per
issue.
This is a good reason to go perhaps to newsletter format and deliver CL
electronically. Or for everyone to bite the bullet and just "buy" CL.

Problem #2: After seeing the impact of dues on membership I have to
revise
my stupid position on same. OK, the dues are killing membership. I'm
sorry I
didn't recognize this to the extent that it's happening.

Your previous position was substantially correct, Angelo. When you
compare
adult membership now to 1/1/03, remember that the true decline is far less
than
it first appears, because:

1. USCF foolishly started offering "economy" memberships, which add
virtually
no extra members and only serve to cut into the full member totals.

2. Prison members used to count as adult but this was recently changed.

3. 1/1/03 is an artificially high starting point due to increased
renewals in
late 2002 to beat the dues increase.

The effect of these factors is that what looks like a decline of about
2400
adults this year is probably a true decline of roughly 1400 for 10 months.
Considering that before the dues increase USCF was losing about 100 adults
per
month, 1400 for 10 months is only about 400 more than expected.

With about 22,000 adult members and an average increase of $7 (assuming
half
coming in through affiliates), the increase is bringing in about $154,000,
minus 400 x $40 or $16,000 leaves $138,000.

Even if we assume the 400 lost members would have bought $40 each in
merchandise on which USCF would have made 50% profit, both generous
assumptions, that is only another $8000 coming in. The total benefit from
the
dues increase is still $130,000. This is money USCF cannot afford to
lose!

As Grant Perks has pointed out, USCF has NOT lost adult tournament players
since the dues increase. An extra $9 or $5 is irrelevant to most
tournament
players as it is trivial compared to all the time, effort and expense they
put
in preparing for and playing in tournaments.

However, there has been a substantial loss in members who do not play in
tournaments. I think this is partly due to the dues increase, but the
main
cause is the availability of chess news and theory online. Chess Life was
once
the only source of national chess news, but that situation has changed
radically with the rise of the internet.

One might ask how Bill knows all of these things he states as if they
were facts above? Do not ask HOW Bill knows. Just assume that he
does. Bill has access to a crystal ball, and he has all of the
answers.



Grant has suggested that it might be a good idea to have a non-playing
membership class with lower dues. This sounds like a good idea.

Amazing. A non-playing membership class with lower dues. This will
definitely strike a fairness chord with members who must pay out the
ying yang while Johnny Poorknight plays for $13.00/year.


It is
quite
possible that a $39 dues rate for non-players would bring in more money
than a
$49 rate. There is no way, though, that the same is true for those who
play in
rated tournaments.

Why don't you fill us in on your figures that lead you to the above
conclusion? Have you been paying attention for the past year, while
Nolan repeatedly told everyone that 60% of the adults don't play a
single game of OTB rated chess in a typical year?

You know what the differences in cost of servicing a non-OTB playing
member and an OTB playing member is Bill? I'll give you a hint. The
difference is zero. You say you want to give a dues break to 60% of the
membership, but you still presumably want to send them a publication,
yet you point out that it would be crazy to give the same exact break to
the 40% that do play over the board.


Bill Goichberg


Good old Bill. Has there ever been a dues increase on anyone that Bill
Goichberg has been against? Remember one thing and that is that Bill
only cares about the attendance at the World and Chicago Opens for the
most part, since they pretty much are his bread and butter. As long as
those two events continue to draw well and Bill makes a profit, Bill
thinks things are going pretty well.

Remember that declining tournaments and organizers dropping out are not
a problem, but rather an opportunity for Bill, since he can hopefully
fill the void in these dying areas with another CCA event, a la Des
Moines.

This is a person who was spouting the party line all the way up until
August that this year, USCF had turned the corner, and that this year,
the USCF was going to be profitable, because afterall, there had been
this huge revenue stream from that raise in the dues to $49.00.
Meanwhile to Bill, the fact that we've now dropped 10,000 adult members
since his last dues increase from $30.00 to $40.00 passed, is not truly
indicative of how essential it is for USCF to keep on raising adult
dues.

This is a person who was a 100% true "Red" supporter of Wagner and the
McCrary Board. This is a person who was a gigantic Frank Niro
cheerleader until Niro canned Deb Sherry.

This is a man who endorsed Joe Wagner, who claimed that we were doing
great this year, and we should re-elect him because he was a part of the
amazing turnaround.

This is a man who recently argued that Cavallo was really a pretty
decent ED, because he had only lost 5 figures one year, whereas DeFeis
and Niro had lost 6 figures when they were in charge.

Here is a man who when told that USCF had lost more money in a year we
were supposedly turning it around than ever in USCF's entire history,
remarked that USCF needed to project a budget surplus next year instead
of a budget deficit. What a brilliant idea.

Why is anyone not surprised that Bill would oppose reducing adult
dues? Bill only looks at revenues, he never looks at organizational
long term health or trying to increase revenues through growth rather
than excessive dues.

Just remember. As long as Bill's CCA events draw well with dues at
$49.00/year for adults, Bill will never believe dues are the problem.

Best Regards,

Bruce

Subject: Conceiving of a different philosophy on dues.
From: Bruce Draney
Date: 10/22/2003 1:03 AM Eastern Daylight Time
Message-id:

Angelo DePalma wrote:

Thanks for the clarification, Bill.

Ok, so my original assessment about maximizing income was numerically
incorrect but at least in the right direction.

I wish people would read your post, because it's one of the more hopeful
messages I've seen in a while. We should therefore leave adult dues where
they are and focus on fixing the rest of the dues structure -- relatively
easy to do. The long-term projects of restoring sound finances, chess
development, retaining members, improving editorial, and expanding our
market will not be as easy, but they're possible if we take a long-term
approach.

Angelo

"Recmate" wrote in message
...
Subject: Conceiving of a different philosophy on dues.
From: "Angelo DePalma"
Date: 10/19/2003 9:02 PM Eastern Daylight Time
Message-id:


Problem #1: publications are cheaper per unit when you print a lot of
them.
The 20,000 who may take the magazine might have to pay $5 or $6 per
issue.
This is a good reason to go perhaps to newsletter format and deliver CL
electronically. Or for everyone to bite the bullet and just "buy" CL.

Problem #2: After seeing the impact of dues on membership I have to
revise
my stupid position on same. OK, the dues are killing membership. I'm
sorry I
didn't recognize this to the extent that it's happening.

Your previous position was substantially correct, Angelo. When you
compare
adult membership now to 1/1/03, remember that the true decline is far
less
than
it first appears, because:

1. USCF foolishly started offering "economy" memberships, which add
virtually
no extra members and only serve to cut into the full member totals.

2. Prison members used to count as adult but this was recently changed.

3. 1/1/03 is an artificially high starting point due to increased
renewals in
late 2002 to beat the dues increase.

The effect of these factors is that what looks like a decline of about
2400
adults this year is probably a true decline of roughly 1400 for 10
months.
Considering that before the dues increase USCF was losing about 100
adults
per
month, 1400 for 10 months is only about 400 more than expected.

With about 22,000 adult members and an average increase of $7 (assuming
half
coming in through affiliates), the increase is bringing in about
$154,000,
minus 400 x $40 or $16,000 leaves $138,000.

Even if we assume the 400 lost members would have bought $40 each in
merchandise on which USCF would have made 50% profit, both generous
assumptions, that is only another $8000 coming in. The total benefit
from
the
dues increase is still $130,000. This is money USCF cannot afford to
lose!

As Grant Perks has pointed out, USCF has NOT lost adult tournament
players
since the dues increase. An extra $9 or $5 is irrelevant to most
tournament
players as it is trivial compared to all the time, effort and expense
they
put
in preparing for and playing in tournaments.

However, there has been a substantial loss in members who do not play in
tournaments. I think this is partly due to the dues increase, but the
main
cause is the availability of chess news and theory online. Chess Life
was
once
the only source of national chess news, but that situation has changed
radically with the rise of the internet.

One might ask how Bill knows all of these things he states as if they
were facts above? Do not ask HOW Bill knows. Just assume that he
does. Bill has access to a crystal ball, and he has all of the
answers.


How do I know that Economy Adult Members have increased this year while full
adults have decreased? From the publicly available USCF figures (posted by
Pete Nixon at www.detroitchess.com).

How do I know that Prison Members have been reclassified from "Adult" this
year? I can't find these on Nixon's site, but I have heard this from various
USCF officials and it his been discussed on the newsgroup, especially I believe
by Mike Nolan.

How do I know that players renewed early in late 2002 to beat the dues
increase? Look at the numbers on Nixon's site.

How do I know that Grant Perks pointed out that USCF has not lost adult
tournament players since the dues increase? Grant posted that info on the
newsgroup.



Grant has suggested that it might be a good idea to have a non-playing
membership class with lower dues. This sounds like a good idea.

Amazing. A non-playing membership class with lower dues. This will
definitely strike a fairness chord with members who must pay out the
ying yang while Johnny Poorknight plays for $13.00/year.


I am not in favor of the $13 scholastic economy membership. And I think dues
should be raised for scholastic and youth members.

Those who don't play rated chess get less out of their membership and it is
fair that they be charged less. And most important to USCF, there appears to
be cost sensitivity to non-player dues, but not to player dues.


It is
quite
possible that a $39 dues rate for non-players would bring in more money
than a
$49 rate. There is no way, though, that the same is true for those who
play in
rated tournaments.

Why don't you fill us in on your figures that lead you to the above
conclusion?

Grant Perks just did. Or did you miss his post?


Have you been paying attention for the past year, while
Nolan repeatedly told everyone that 60% of the adults don't play a
single game of OTB rated chess in a typical year?

Perhaps Mike Nolan can clarify this. My impression is that the number who
don't play used to be about 50%, but that USCF
is now losing these non-players rapidly while retaining the players.


You know what the differences in cost of servicing a non-OTB playing
member and an OTB playing member is Bill? I'll give you a hint. The
difference is zero.
You say you want to give a dues break to 60% of the
membership, but you still presumably want to send them a publication,
yet you point out that it would be crazy to give the same exact break to
the 40% that do play over the board.


I think most members consider themselves to be tournament players, and we are
rapidly losing those who do not. I question your 60% figure, and in addition,
some of those who play only every two or three years consider themselves to be
players and will not abandon the right to play rated chess in order to save
$10.



Bill Goichberg


Good old Bill. Has there ever been a dues increase on anyone that Bill
Goichberg has been against? Remember one thing and that is that Bill
only cares about the attendance at the World and Chicago Opens for the
most part, since they pretty much are his bread and butter. As long as
those two events continue to draw well and Bill makes a profit, Bill
thinks things are going pretty well.

Remember that declining tournaments and organizers dropping out are not
a problem, but rather an opportunity for Bill, since he can hopefully
fill the void in these dying areas with another CCA event, a la Des
Moines.


Bruce, why do you never comment on Grant's report that the number of tournament
players has not declined since the dues increase? The decline has been in
nonplayers, which makes sense because these were members mainly to get Chess
Life, and with the rise of the internet the magazine is much less important as
a news source.


This is a person who was spouting the party line all the way up until
August that this year, USCF had turned the corner, and that this year,
the USCF was going to be profitable, because afterall, there had been
this huge revenue stream from that raise in the dues to $49.00.

I reported what Niro said, but warned that such reports had often been
inaccurate in the past.

I've given you rough figures showing how USCF is about $130,000 better than it
otherwise would be due to the dues raise. Due to other factors there still was
a big loss, but it would have been still bigger with $40 dues. If you disagree,
how about presenting your own numbers?

Meanwhile to Bill, the fact that we've now dropped 10,000 adult members
since his last dues increase from $30.00 to $40.00 passed, is not truly
indicative of how essential it is for USCF to keep on raising adult
dues.


We did not lose 10,000 adults because of the dues. Past dues increases impacted
membership for one year only.

The main reasons for the decline were that we lost nonplayers who replaced
Chess Life with the internet, and we lost some players to online play (perhaps
not as many as I thought; I would like to see the breakdown of players and
nonplayers going back to 1995).



This is a person who was a 100% true "Red" supporter of Wagner and the
McCrary Board. This is a person who was a gigantic Frank Niro
cheerleader until Niro canned Deb Sherry.

You're right that my evaluation of Niro changed due to the Debi Sherry incident
and the resulting discussions I had with employees at that time. Would you
rather I had stubbornly maintained my previous opinion?


This is a man who endorsed Joe Wagner, who claimed that we were doing
great this year, and we should re-elect him because he was a part of the
amazing turnaround.


When I complained to the Board at the March meeting about issues related to
what Debi said, only Frank Brady was supportive. Later, Joe Wagner also was
pushing for change, though not saying so publicly. With more Board members
like Brady and Wagner, USCF would not be in such a mess.


This is a man who recently argued that Cavallo was really a pretty
decent ED, because he had only lost 5 figures one year, whereas DeFeis
and Niro had lost 6 figures when they were in charge.


Cavallo's average loss per year was much less than other recent EDs. Not only
was there only a $20,000 loss in fiscal 1998, but in fiscal 1997 there was a
profit during the months he was ED.

Here is a man who when told that USCF had lost more money in a year we
were supposedly turning it around than ever in USCF's entire history,
remarked that USCF needed to project a budget surplus next year instead
of a budget deficit. What a brilliant idea.

USCF always projects a surplus. What I said was that we should plan for a
large surplus rather than the much smaller one originally in the budget, so
that if we miss our target there might still be a surplus. The delegates
agreed with this position.

Unfortunately, like the 1996-9 Board, the Marinello Board took over to find
several hundred thousand in losses had already occurred in the first few months
of the fiscal year before the new Board came in. So as in the past, it will be
very difficult to show a profit for the fiscal year, even though I believe
there will be one during the period of the new Board.


Why is anyone not surprised that Bill would oppose reducing adult
dues? Bill only looks at revenues, he never looks at organizational
long term health or trying to increase revenues through growth rather
than excessive dues.

I don't see the smallest dues increase in USCF history on a percentage basis,
coming after the longest interval ever without an increase (8 years), as
hurting tournament chess. I did fight the high TLA fees which I felt were
hurting affiliates, and support offering some free small TLAs to affiliates
today to promote activity.

Since USCF has not lost tournament players since the dues increase, why
consider a decrease? Most tournament players, possibly unlike non-players, do
not seem to consider the dues excessive.

While lowering all adult dues would be a mistake, I would support making an
option available to lower the cost of membership for the occasional player who
won't pay $49. USCF has a 6-month trial membership for new players for $32,
convertible to a full year membership with the payment of $20 more. I suggest
that this be replaced by a 6-month membership for $29, non-convertible, that
anyone can buy. This will cut $20 off the minimum cost of joining.

USCF should also abolish these membership classes: Life, Sustaining, Economy
Adult, Economy Scholastic, and Prison. Life and Sustaining of course would
continue for those who have already paid these dues. Prison would continue if
the US Chess Trust decides to collect $12 from each prisoner and send the
balance to USCF to enroll them as adult members.


Just remember. As long as Bill's CCA events draw well with dues at
$49.00/year for adults, Bill will never believe dues are the problem.


It's not just CCA events- the number of adult members who play rated chess has
not declined since the dues increase. Therefore, dues are not "the problem"
for tournament players, but may be a significant part of "the problem" for
non-players.

Bill Goichberg


Best Regards,

Bruce