By most accounts, USCF has become a $3M per year not for profit by
getting rid of B&E and cutting personnel by 40%. The present cuts in
services however, particularly with regard to Chess Life, have left
USCF with continued problems of membership declines, particularly in
the critical area of adult regular members. If anything these
problems will become even more serious as dues revenues now move to
the forefront as USCF's only major source of most of its revenues.

There appears to be little room for optimism in thinking that adults
will rise in numbers as services deterioriate and dues stay at $49.00.
It is time to completely junk dues as the model in my view.

What could possibly replace the $1.8M in dues that the organization
receives annually? In my view the obvious answer is utilization fees.
The only thing is that this would entail a risk, because USCF would
have to agree to junk the primary source of its remaining revenues
which is dues.

I am going to put forward a plan here and of course, even if USCF
rejects the plan without considering it, at least no one can say that
noone ever suggested an alternative to losing a quarter of a million
dollars per year for a decade until they ran out of money.

My plan calls for USCF to phase out dues entirely. If they can't
do it immediately, my suggestion is to phase them out over a 5 year
period with a significant reduction the first year, followed by
slightly smaller reductions every year after until dues are no longer
a part of USCF's budget at all.

If USCF wishes to keep some nominal dues fee, such as $5.00 or
$10.00/person/year regardless of age, I have no problem with that and
that might even be a worthwhile thing to consider, as I seriously
doubt most people would mind $5.00 or $10.00/year, although Rubin
might complain.

Next my goal would be to concentrate on what overall revenues are
needed to operate to generate the figure of $3M. There are many ways
to generate $3M without expecting a group that is dropping 4% in
numbers per year to supply most of it. The obvious way is to properly
price our main service which is ratings. It is absolutely ludicrous
that USCF has been selling rating services at a loss for years. The
rating service is the ONLY thing that most scholastic members and most
scholastic organizers even care about. They would have left long ago
were it not for the ratings services.

I have two possible plans to allow rating fees to mostly cover
USCF's needed revenues. One is a per game fee, that generates most of
the $3M needed to operate. If there are 400,000 rated games per year,
then some quick division reveals that if this number were to remain
constant and not change that a fee of $1.75 per player/per game would
generate a significant part of the $3M of what USCF needs to operate
within budget. Charging $1.75/player per game would generate
700,000/year. This is assuming that the number of games did not drop
significantly due to a per game fee hike. Of course this would be
offset by a huge drop in dues rates for everyone. If the drop in dues
led to an increase in 100,000 games per year, this would actually
increase revenues $175,000.

Let's assume that USCF can simply not conceive of totally rejecting
dues as a revenue source. Let's say, they finally settle on $10.00.
If membership stayed where it is currently, that would bring in
another $900,000 or so on average. If membership rose to over 100,000
which I believe might be a possibility, that would generate $1M right
there.

Under these two alone, USCF would already have more than 1/2 of the
$3M needed to operate. Now, how about licensing organizers and
tournament directors by the size of their events. Those organizers
who primarily run large scholastic tournaments should pay a larger
licensing fee, say $200.00/year to run these huge events. This would
include access to rating lists, supplements and the right to submit
them for USCF ratings. At many scholastic tournaments this would
amount to a one time surcharge of 50 cents per player, which they
would more than recoup in pizza and pop sales alone. They would also
be trading this fee for a near elimination of dues, or at least a
significant reduction of dues for everyone, which will attract more
participants that are kept away right now anyway due to price
resistance.

I would call anyone who primarily runs events that draw over 100
persons a Class A organizer. A Class B organizer could pay say
$70.00/year and run events that drew on average between 50-99 players.
A Class C organizer could pay $50.00/year for events that typically
draw 25-50 players, and a Class D organizer who ran small events could
obtain a license for $40.00/year.

An organizer could upgrade if they overshot on their expected
attendance figures to the higher applicable licensing fee. There are
approximately 2,300 affiliates I believe, so this would generate more
money than the present system does, I'm almost certain. Would
affiliate sponsors and organizers accept these fees if they knew dues
were dropping significantly and that more players might attend their
events? I believe most would. Would the number of affiliates grow,
actually causing revenues from fees to grow? I believe this is a
possibility, a good one in fact, because as demand increases, those
who want to meet that demand emerge. Conservatively, let's predict
this would generate about $200K in revenues.

I think there are some very definite possibilities in bidding out
national scholastics that will generate huge profits of which USCF and
the principal organizer could share in with each prospering.

Another huge possibility is corporate sponsorship of the national
scholastics. In Kansas City in 2001, there were over 3,000 children
and their parents and siblings in attendance. Pete Nixon pointed out
to me as we were standing talking that USCF didn't even have a banner
advertising itself up in the hall. What a lack of oversight. USCF
has a virtual monopoly on the awarding of national titles and official
accepted/legitimate chess ratings. It is hard to imagine that at
least local officials would not jump at the opportunity to pay to
market their products to 4,000+ customers at these events.

On line and hard copy publications are another potential area where
USCF could generate some money. I think USCF is obligated to give
LM's something in the way of a printed publication. I actually like
the idea of an enhanced publication for an upgraded fee that more than
covers the costs. Website is the eventual answer to replacing printed
CL, but in my view the demographics of USCF's membership is not suited
to this option immediately. Certainly there should be some enhanced
web service that people might subscribe to for a small fee that could
generate some revenues.

One could haggle or argue about what the fees should be and what is
likely to happen, but one thing is clear and that is that the current
model has now failed badly for eight years in a row. As Springsteen
says in "My Home Town", "Foreman says these jobs are going boys, and
they ain't coming back."
Chess players are going and they ain't coming back to a USCF that
charges $49.00/year for diddly squat.

Here is another suggestion. The creation of a regional TLA
publication that people can subscribe to for say $10.00/year. The
costs of putting out this publication would be recouped by the
$10.00/year subscription fee and the reasonable advertising rates to
send the publication to members and players throughout the region.
This system might eventually replace the need entirely for national
TLA's, although I think many medium and larger organizers would like
to advertise nationally. Those that do, could pay a higher fee to
reach a national audience.

USCF can either adapt to the changes that are happening whether
they wish them to or not, or they can be carried out in a pine box.
Odds are given past behavior and attitudes, that they will opt for the
pine box option.

Best Regards,

Bruce

If USCF wishes to keep some nominal dues fee, such as $5.00 or
$10.00/person/year regardless of age, I have no problem with that and
that might even be a worthwhile thing to consider, as I seriously
doubt most people would mind $5.00 or $10.00/year, although Rubin
might complain.

How about $20 for everybody?

(Bruce Draney) writes:
If USCF wishes to keep some nominal dues fee, such as $5.00 or
$10.00/person/year regardless of age, I have no problem with that and
that might even be a worthwhile thing to consider, as I seriously
doubt most people would mind $5.00 or $10.00/year, although Rubin
might complain.

$5 to $10 annually is what I've suggested for ages, so I won't
complain. I used to complain about anything over $10, but since
scholastic membership has grown steadily at $13, I have to conclude
that $13 is tolerable.

Next my goal would be to concentrate on what overall revenues are
needed to operate to generate the figure of $3M. ...

I have two possible plans to allow rating fees to mostly cover
USCF's needed revenues. One is a per game fee, that generates most of
the $3M needed to operate.

Here's the big problem, why on earth does the USCF need $3M a year?
That has never been answered. It's ridiculous to say taking phone
calls about rating questions is costing a significant fraction of that.
Since you're having such a good time redesigning the USCF's revenue
streams, why not also redesign its operations to get by on $1M/year
instead of $3M/year?

If there are 400,000 rated games per year, then some quick division
reveals that if this number were to remain constant and not change
that a fee of $1.75 per player/per game would generate a significant
part of the $3M of what USCF needs to operate within budget.
Charging $1.75/player per game would generate 700,000/year.

Yowwcch. My guess is organizers would balk at that. However, not being
an organizer, I won't try to speak for them.

Let's assume that USCF can simply not conceive of totally rejecting
dues as a revenue source. Let's say, they finally settle on $10.00.
If membership stayed where it is currently, that would bring in
another $900,000 or so on average. If membership rose to over 100,000
which I believe might be a possibility, that would generate $1M right
there.

I think you can reasonably assume another 20k or so CL subscribers willing
to voluntarily pay $25/year for the mag, so that's another $500k. You do
have to keep putting out the mag, because of the life member obligation.
I seem to remember it costs somewhere between $1 and $1.50 to put out a
copy of CL, so the 10,000 copy LM obligation amounts to $120K-$180K/year.

Under these two alone, USCF would already have more than 1/2 of the
$3M needed to operate. Now, how about licensing organizers and
tournament directors by the size of their events.

Again I am skeptical of organizer buy-in to such a scheme, but if USCF
can sell it to organizers, then by all means go for it.

Here is another suggestion. The creation of a regional TLA
publication that people can subscribe to for say $10.00/year. The
costs of putting out this publication would be recouped by the
$10.00/year subscription fee and the reasonable advertising rates to
send the publication to members and players throughout the region.

This should probably be included with the basic membership, to satisfy
the faction that says USCF needs to regularly communicate with
members. I imagine a dozen or so different 8 page quarterly
publications put out by desginated regional affiliates. 3 pages or so
would be provided as camera ready copy by USCF and included in all the
regional pubs. It would include national news and some paid national
advertising including national TLA's. The other 5 pages would be
supplied by the regional affiliate and consist of local news and
TLA's. The USCF could make articles or columns available (through the
web site, e.g.) for use in the regional pubs if the regional editors
had space left over to fill.

USCF can either adapt to the changes that are happening whether
they wish them to or not, or they can be carried out in a pine box.
Odds are given past behavior and attitudes, that they will opt for the
pine box option.

Probably true.

This would work, but only if they took a step back and analyzed what they
do, what they should do, and how they should do it.

Angelo


"Bruce Draney" wrote in message
om...
By most accounts, USCF has become a $3M per year not for profit by
getting rid of B&E and cutting personnel by 40%. The present cuts in
services however, particularly with regard to Chess Life, have left
USCF with continued problems of membership declines, particularly in
the critical area of adult regular members. If anything these
problems will become even more serious as dues revenues now move to
the forefront as USCF's only major source of most of its revenues.

There appears to be little room for optimism in thinking that adults
will rise in numbers as services deterioriate and dues stay at $49.00.
It is time to completely junk dues as the model in my view.

What could possibly replace the $1.8M in dues that the organization
receives annually? In my view the obvious answer is utilization fees.
The only thing is that this would entail a risk, because USCF would
have to agree to junk the primary source of its remaining revenues
which is dues.

I am going to put forward a plan here and of course, even if USCF
rejects the plan without considering it, at least no one can say that
noone ever suggested an alternative to losing a quarter of a million
dollars per year for a decade until they ran out of money.

My plan calls for USCF to phase out dues entirely. If they can't
do it immediately, my suggestion is to phase them out over a 5 year
period with a significant reduction the first year, followed by
slightly smaller reductions every year after until dues are no longer
a part of USCF's budget at all.

If USCF wishes to keep some nominal dues fee, such as $5.00 or
$10.00/person/year regardless of age, I have no problem with that and
that might even be a worthwhile thing to consider, as I seriously
doubt most people would mind $5.00 or $10.00/year, although Rubin
might complain.

Next my goal would be to concentrate on what overall revenues are
needed to operate to generate the figure of $3M. There are many ways
to generate $3M without expecting a group that is dropping 4% in
numbers per year to supply most of it. The obvious way is to properly
price our main service which is ratings. It is absolutely ludicrous
that USCF has been selling rating services at a loss for years. The
rating service is the ONLY thing that most scholastic members and most
scholastic organizers even care about. They would have left long ago
were it not for the ratings services.

I have two possible plans to allow rating fees to mostly cover
USCF's needed revenues. One is a per game fee, that generates most of
the $3M needed to operate. If there are 400,000 rated games per year,
then some quick division reveals that if this number were to remain
constant and not change that a fee of $1.75 per player/per game would
generate a significant part of the $3M of what USCF needs to operate
within budget. Charging $1.75/player per game would generate
700,000/year. This is assuming that the number of games did not drop
significantly due to a per game fee hike. Of course this would be
offset by a huge drop in dues rates for everyone. If the drop in dues
led to an increase in 100,000 games per year, this would actually
increase revenues $175,000.

Let's assume that USCF can simply not conceive of totally rejecting
dues as a revenue source. Let's say, they finally settle on $10.00.
If membership stayed where it is currently, that would bring in
another $900,000 or so on average. If membership rose to over 100,000
which I believe might be a possibility, that would generate $1M right
there.

Under these two alone, USCF would already have more than 1/2 of the
$3M needed to operate. Now, how about licensing organizers and
tournament directors by the size of their events. Those organizers
who primarily run large scholastic tournaments should pay a larger
licensing fee, say $200.00/year to run these huge events. This would
include access to rating lists, supplements and the right to submit
them for USCF ratings. At many scholastic tournaments this would
amount to a one time surcharge of 50 cents per player, which they
would more than recoup in pizza and pop sales alone. They would also
be trading this fee for a near elimination of dues, or at least a
significant reduction of dues for everyone, which will attract more
participants that are kept away right now anyway due to price
resistance.

I would call anyone who primarily runs events that draw over 100
persons a Class A organizer. A Class B organizer could pay say
$70.00/year and run events that drew on average between 50-99 players.
A Class C organizer could pay $50.00/year for events that typically
draw 25-50 players, and a Class D organizer who ran small events could
obtain a license for $40.00/year.

An organizer could upgrade if they overshot on their expected
attendance figures to the higher applicable licensing fee. There are
approximately 2,300 affiliates I believe, so this would generate more
money than the present system does, I'm almost certain. Would
affiliate sponsors and organizers accept these fees if they knew dues
were dropping significantly and that more players might attend their
events? I believe most would. Would the number of affiliates grow,
actually causing revenues from fees to grow? I believe this is a
possibility, a good one in fact, because as demand increases, those
who want to meet that demand emerge. Conservatively, let's predict
this would generate about $200K in revenues.

I think there are some very definite possibilities in bidding out
national scholastics that will generate huge profits of which USCF and
the principal organizer could share in with each prospering.

Another huge possibility is corporate sponsorship of the national
scholastics. In Kansas City in 2001, there were over 3,000 children
and their parents and siblings in attendance. Pete Nixon pointed out
to me as we were standing talking that USCF didn't even have a banner
advertising itself up in the hall. What a lack of oversight. USCF
has a virtual monopoly on the awarding of national titles and official
accepted/legitimate chess ratings. It is hard to imagine that at
least local officials would not jump at the opportunity to pay to
market their products to 4,000+ customers at these events.

On line and hard copy publications are another potential area where
USCF could generate some money. I think USCF is obligated to give
LM's something in the way of a printed publication. I actually like
the idea of an enhanced publication for an upgraded fee that more than
covers the costs. Website is the eventual answer to replacing printed
CL, but in my view the demographics of USCF's membership is not suited
to this option immediately. Certainly there should be some enhanced
web service that people might subscribe to for a small fee that could
generate some revenues.

One could haggle or argue about what the fees should be and what is
likely to happen, but one thing is clear and that is that the current
model has now failed badly for eight years in a row. As Springsteen
says in "My Home Town", "Foreman says these jobs are going boys, and
they ain't coming back."
Chess players are going and they ain't coming back to a USCF that
charges $49.00/year for diddly squat.

Here is another suggestion. The creation of a regional TLA
publication that people can subscribe to for say $10.00/year. The
costs of putting out this publication would be recouped by the
$10.00/year subscription fee and the reasonable advertising rates to
send the publication to members and players throughout the region.
This system might eventually replace the need entirely for national
TLA's, although I think many medium and larger organizers would like
to advertise nationally. Those that do, could pay a higher fee to
reach a national audience.

USCF can either adapt to the changes that are happening whether
they wish them to or not, or they can be carried out in a pine box.
Odds are given past behavior and attitudes, that they will opt for the
pine box option.

Best Regards,

Bruce

Angelo writes:

This would work, but only if they took a step back and analyzed what
they
do, what they should do, and how they should do it.

Angelo


Not sure if you meant this to be funny or not, but isn't it ironically
hilarious that this would only work if they took a step back and
analyzed what they do, what they should do, and how they should do it?

Makes one wonder what they HAVE been doing for the past eight years?
Have they NOT been analyzing what they do, what they should do and how
they should do it? Isn't it pretty clear that what they HAVE been
doing has been a miserable failure? Even the most optimistic, could
not possibly spin things to suggest that since 1996, USCF has operated
well.

Isn't it about time that USCF threw out their failed approach and did
exactly what you suggested in your short post above? What do they do?
What should they do? How should they do it?

If they can answer those three simple questions, they won't need
either you or I to tell them on RGCP.

Best Regards,

Bruce

Mike Nolan writes in response to me:

(Bruce Draney) writes:

tournament market. Just do the math. If we go back to 1995, there
were 40% x 33,000 active adult tournament players=13,000. Now with
only 22,000 x 40% there are 8,800 a drop in participants of 4,200.

I don't agree with either your premise or your numbers.

Here's what I show for the number of tournament players in each year
since 1993, overall and for the major membership types.

My detailed data doesn't go back before 1998, so I'm using the
member's
most recent membership type. However, since the percentage of
scholastic
and youth players who convert to adult is small, the error rate should
also be fairly small. If anything it would tend to overestimate the
number
of adult players from those years. (That also explains why there were
'economy adult' members in the years before we had that category.)

I've combined scholastic and economy scholastic memberships and
combined life and sustaining memberships because I don't think those
breakdowns are relevant here.

reg | count | reg | econ | lzs | sr | youth | schol
-----+-------+-------+------+------+------+-------+-------
1991 | 16387 | 6590 | 66 | 1559 | 794 | 1841 | 3541 (partial
year)
1992 | 40664 | 15636 | 123 | 3103 | 1569 | 4171 | 11627
1993 | 42639 | 16262 | 136 | 3014 | 1530 | 4714 | 14167
1994 | 47635 | 16803 | 143 | 2955 | 1523 | 5895 | 17251
1995 | 51470 | 16864 | 161 | 2842 | 1479 | 7414 | 18824
1996 | 54070 | 16711 | 157 | 2727 | 1427 | 8943 | 19964
1997 | 55869 | 15830 | 183 | 2545 | 1347 | 10265 | 21151
1998 | 57062 | 14842 | 203 | 2429 | 1268 | 11740 | 22406
1999 | 56859 | 13839 | 187 | 2270 | 1160 | 11807 | 23748
2000 | 58834 | 12844 | 201 | 2123 | 1032 | 11322 | 27987
2001 | 59913 | 12418 | 261 | 2048 | 1001 | 11038 | 30471
2002 | 65797 | 12446 | 330 | 1980 | 954 | 10561 | 35551
2003 | 56329 | 11005 | 544 | 1797 | 827 | 8245 | 30661 (partial
year)

In one respect I do agree with you, we've lost around 4000 playing
adult
members. But we've lost more like 11,000 dues-paying adult members.

This may be even more interesting. This is a rolling two year average
of the above data. (In other words, it shows in the 1995 column the
total number of active tournament players in either 1994 or 1995.)

I think we have a significant pool of 'occasional' players that is
undercounted
by looking at just one calendar year's worth of crosstables, this
might give
us one way of measuring the true size of the adult player pool.

year | count | reg | econ | lzs | sr | youth | schol
------+-------+-------+------+------+------+-------+-------
1993 | 64023 | 22603 | 157 | 3755 | 1975 | 6638 | 21125
1994 | 65748 | 22616 | 171 | 3557 | 1891 | 7529 | 24872
1995 | 72742 | 23101 | 186 | 3490 | 1838 | 9441 | 28588
1996 | 77567 | 22968 | 199 | 3343 | 1784 | 11613 | 30665
1997 | 80687 | 22253 | 222 | 3189 | 1702 | 13456 | 32280
1998 | 83428 | 21010 | 244 | 2985 | 1605 | 15458 | 34483
1999 | 84111 | 19706 | 242 | 2848 | 1503 | 16721 | 36069
2000 | 85914 | 18413 | 245 | 2672 | 1363 | 16596 | 40278
2001 | 87926 | 17462 | 298 | 2563 | 1274 | 16037 | 44918
2002 | 93748 | 17348 | 410 | 2477 | 1227 | 15518 | 50689
2003 | 88862 | 16135 | 630 | 2312 | 1119 | 13320 | 48852 (2003 is
YTD)

I think this also shows that the decline in adult play didn't really
start
until a good two years after then 1995 dues increase and has pretty
much
leveled off in the last couple of years, which seems to me to support
the theory that the dues increase wasn't the only significant force
behind membership and OTB declines.

It would appear to support the theory that the TLA policy changes
really
impacted OTB play.
--
Mike Nolan

I can think of an excellent explanation of why the dip in tournament
play didn't occur until 2 years after the dues increase. Dues
increases are always well announced in September giving current
members the ones most likely to withdraw, an opportunity to renew for
mulitple years at the old rate. A tournament player who is unsure
about whether to continue to playing, but thinks he might is likely to
renew for at least one and possibly two years or more. Plus, if the
member expires say in July of the year of the dues increase, he will
add a year and a half to his membership before he'll need to renew
again. So if one figures about 7/12ths of the adults will have joined
before the dues increase was announced and approved, a significant
number of those who are unsure about how much they like tournament
chess would renew for at least 12 months, plus the term of the
unexpired membership. This would mean that significant drops in
players might not happen for as much as a full year and a half after
the dues increase, when their prematurely renewed membership finally
comes up again, this time at the higher dues.

The critical missing component in these discussions in my view has
always been TD's and organizers. Bad TLA policies combined with
higher dues might have driven many of them out of organizing, also
accelerating the drop in players, games and recruitment of new
members.

I would ask again, what the affiliate activity was like in 1995
compared to three years later in 1998? How many of the top adult
organizers had quit or dropped out in the three years after the USCF
raised dues to $40.00? How many of the most active and critically
important organizers cut back or quit after the DeFeis TLA debacle?
One thing the old MAP contest did was supply us some data about the
most active affiliates in the country, even it wasn't broken down by
scholastic or adult activity.

Best Regards,

Bruce

"Bruce Draney" wrote in message
om...
Angelo writes:

This would work, but only if they took a step back and analyzed what
they
do, what they should do, and how they should do it.

Angelo


Not sure if you meant this to be funny or not, but isn't it ironically
hilarious that this would only work if they took a step back and
analyzed what they do, what they should do, and how they should do it?

Bruce! So when I offered to do a market survey of members and non-members
for free - with the help of a more sophisticated US chess web publisher than
USCF have, also for free - the publisher agreed with me that we should not
go ahead with this substantial project because there was not even a minimal
commitment to act on the result.

In other words, USCF is currently speculating on the market without survey
or measure. It seems uninterested in determining if the $3M per year it
obtains is what its members want.

Makes one wonder what they HAVE been doing for the past eight years?
Have they NOT been analyzing what they do, what they should do and how
they should do it? Isn't it pretty clear that what they HAVE been
doing has been a miserable failure? Even the most optimistic, could
not possibly spin things to suggest that since 1996, USCF has operated
well.

Isn't it about time that USCF threw out their failed approach and did
exactly what you suggested in your short post above? What do they do?
What should they do? How should they do it?

Yes, yes, yes and yes.

If they can answer those three simple questions, they won't need
either you or I to tell them on RGCP.

Yes they will. Even if they constitute a crop of unprecedented geniuses in
complete agreement, they will need a sounding board. If they also give a
damn about the chess community, they can read here how people respond to
what is on offer.

Successful businesses don't make obdurately fixed plans, they continually
adjust them to their client's needs, and those needs are not homogenous,
since they comprise metro-areas, mountain regions as here (snowing), and
vast plains where you and several other people apparently choose to live.

"Chess clients" also range from complete beginners, to Grandmasters,
organisers, parents, trainers, sponsors, and and and and

Cordially, Phil

Best Regards,

Bruce

Phil Innes wrote:


Bruce! So when I offered to do a market survey of members and non-members
for free - with the help of a more sophisticated US chess web publisher than
USCF have, also for free - the publisher agreed with me that we should not
go ahead with this substantial project because there was not even a minimal
commitment to act on the result.

This was my experience with USCF as well. I offered to help with a
valid market research survey, Randy Bauer I believe had some ideas for a
reasonably priced market research company in Iowa that was reliable.
You offered to do something for free. The old adage that you can lead a
horse('s ass), to water but you can't make it drink, comes to mind.
Hard to do market research when the leaders don't believe it has any
value and are actually (rightfully) terrified that it might reveal just
how bad a job they are doing of leading or managing.


In other words, USCF is currently speculating on the market without survey
or measure. It seems uninterested in determining if the $3M per year it
obtains is what its members want.

They've never been better.



Yes, yes, yes and yes.

If they can answer those three simple questions, they won't need
either you or I to


If they also give a
damn about the chess community, they can read here how people respond to
what is on offer.

They just plug their ears, stamp their feet and close their eyes,
refusing to look. They have just about run out of other people's money
to waste however and the chickens are finally coming home to roost. The
irony is that they need valuable knowledge of their clientele now more
than ever and this is no longer an option, because now they REALLY have
no money to pay for it. The leaders of USCF are perhaps the most
stubborn and boneheaded people I have ever had the pleasure of knowing.
I have often compared them to a stupid hulking, mortally wounded grizzly
bear, that is so dense, it hasn't yet realized it is already dead.


Successful businesses don't make obdurately fixed plans, they continually
adjust them to their client's needs, and those needs are not homogenous,
since they comprise metro-areas, mountain regions as here (snowing), and
vast plains where you and several other people apparently choose to live.

Yes, but what does this have to do with USCF? You did say successful
businesses didn't you?


"Chess clients" also range from complete beginners, to Grandmasters,
organisers, parents, trainers, sponsors, and and and and

.....former USCF members?



Cordially, Phil

Best Regards,

Bruce

"Bruce Draney" wrote in message
...
Phil Innes wrote:


Bruce! So when I offered to do a market survey of members and
non-members
for free - with the help of a more sophisticated US chess web publisher
than
USCF have, also for free - the publisher agreed with me that we should
not
go ahead with this substantial project because there was not even a
minimal
commitment to act on the result.

This was my experience with USCF as well. I offered to help with a
valid market research survey, Randy Bauer I believe had some ideas for a
reasonably priced market research company in Iowa that was reliable.
You offered to do something for free. The old adage that you can lead a
horse('s ass), to water but you can't make it drink, comes to mind.
Hard to do market research when the leaders don't believe it has any
value and are actually (rightfully) terrified that it might reveal just
how bad a job they are doing of leading or managing.

Market research among better companys is continuous. This group don't seem
to be doing as poorly as previous ones, yet can hardly be accused of
building anything for the future. In fact, IMO, the principal current asset
of USCF is the market knowledge possessed by the members.

In other words, USCF is currently speculating on the market without
survey
or measure. It seems uninterested in determining if the $3M per year it
obtains is what its members want.

They've never been better.

These were the very modest 'conditions' placed on conducting a survey.

D) Of course, this is a pointless activity unless effective action is
intended based on the result. Strategically the survey result would inform
the organization's board of its member's needs for web-based information.
The implication should be to analyze current offerings on USCF's webpages,
and adjust the result, at least proportionally. Additionally finding the
right strategy or proportion for both web and print 'vehicles' and their
associated costs and revenue possibilities will be the logical conclusion.
[I have written some ideas independently to Tim Hanke on the subject of a
print 'vehicle'].

(E) By agreement with another publisher it may be possible to compare
results of non-USCF chessplayers for significant differences. The survey
attempts to determine what American chess players need of information
services, and a conclusion may be that USCF cannot support such a
comprehensive web entity by itself; could partner with others; indeed, the
scope of the survey may support an international site.

(F) Consideration should be given to subscription to various parts, or
levels of, the web entity as a direct source of revenue.

~~~~~~~~`

If they also give a
damn about the chess community, they can read here how people respond to
what is on offer.

They just plug their ears, stamp their feet and close their eyes,
refusing to look. They have just about run out of other people's money
to waste however and the chickens are finally coming home to roost.

I had a small opportunity to recommend USCF to a partnering scheme. The
principal of venture capitalism is to try and boost tried and tested
prototypes, and take them from quantity X to quantity 5X. The idea is not to
support untested ventures. I really couldn't find any "Xs" to invest in.

The money was not from venture cap. however, if was from inside chess.

The
irony is that they need valuable knowledge of their clientele now more
than ever and this is no longer an option, because now they REALLY have
no money to pay for it. The leaders of USCF are perhaps the most
stubborn and boneheaded people I have ever had the pleasure of knowing.
I have often compared them to a stupid hulking, mortally wounded grizzly
bear, that is so dense, it hasn't yet realized it is already dead.

Charmingly put. I wrote to some people this morning that it was time for a
ground-up assessment in US chess matters which is forward looking, and which
can find solid bases for future growth. Anyone talking about the good-old
days should be immediately taken out back and shot, alternatively (for
Californians) given 2 medals and retired.


Successful businesses don't make obdurately fixed plans, they
continually
adjust them to their client's needs, and those needs are not homogenous,
since they comprise metro-areas, mountain regions as here (snowing), and
vast plains where you and several other people apparently choose to
live.

Yes, but what does this have to do with USCF? You did say successful
businesses didn't you?

The organisation is still engagable if the basis is right. Also this
morning, after making a bunch of connections these past few months, there
looks like some strong east-west activity may emerge, especially on the
learning front, scholastics, etc - and led by strong US GM.

I think this collaborative sort of activity is necessary, attempting to
utilise everyone's best feature. There will be no new Fischer-boom, so we
hobbits are going to have to do this together!


"Chess clients" also range from complete beginners, to Grandmasters,
organisers, parents, trainers, sponsors, and and and and

....former USCF members?

More former members than current members?

Cordially, Phil



Cordially, Phil

Best Regards,

Bruce

(Bruce Draney) wrote in message . com...
By most accounts, USCF has become a $3M per year not for profit by
getting rid of B&E and cutting personnel by 40%. The present cuts in
services however, particularly with regard to Chess Life, have left
USCF with continued problems of membership declines, particularly in
the critical area of adult regular members. If anything these
problems will become even more serious as dues revenues now move to
the forefront as USCF's only major source of most of its revenues.

There appears to be little room for optimism in thinking that adults
will rise in numbers as services deterioriate and dues stay at $49.00.
It is time to completely junk dues as the model in my view.

What could possibly replace the $1.8M in dues that the organization
receives annually? In my view the obvious answer is utilization fees.
The only thing is that this would entail a risk, because USCF would
have to agree to junk the primary source of its remaining revenues
which is dues.

I am going to put forward a plan here and of course, even if USCF
rejects the plan without considering it, at least no one can say that
noone ever suggested an alternative to losing a quarter of a million
dollars per year for a decade until they ran out of money.

My plan calls for USCF to phase out dues entirely. If they can't
do it immediately, my suggestion is to phase them out over a 5 year
period with a significant reduction the first year, followed by
slightly smaller reductions every year after until dues are no longer
a part of USCF's budget at all.

If USCF wishes to keep some nominal dues fee, such as $5.00 or
$10.00/person/year regardless of age, I have no problem with that and
that might even be a worthwhile thing to consider, as I seriously
doubt most people would mind $5.00 or $10.00/year, although Rubin
might complain.

Next my goal would be to concentrate on what overall revenues are
needed to operate to generate the figure of $3M. There are many ways
to generate $3M without expecting a group that is dropping 4% in
numbers per year to supply most of it. The obvious way is to properly
price our main service which is ratings. It is absolutely ludicrous
that USCF has been selling rating services at a loss for years. The
rating service is the ONLY thing that most scholastic members and most
scholastic organizers even care about. They would have left long ago
were it not for the ratings services.

I have two possible plans to allow rating fees to mostly cover
USCF's needed revenues. One is a per game fee, that generates most of
the $3M needed to operate. If there are 400,000 rated games per year,
then some quick division reveals that if this number were to remain
constant and not change that a fee of $1.75 per player/per game would
generate a significant part of the $3M of what USCF needs to operate
within budget. Charging $1.75/player per game would generate
700,000/year. This is assuming that the number of games did not drop
significantly due to a per game fee hike. Of course this would be
offset by a huge drop in dues rates for everyone. If the drop in dues
led to an increase in 100,000 games per year, this would actually
increase revenues $175,000.

Let's assume that USCF can simply not conceive of totally rejecting
dues as a revenue source. Let's say, they finally settle on $10.00.
If membership stayed where it is currently, that would bring in
another $900,000 or so on average. If membership rose to over 100,000
which I believe might be a possibility, that would generate $1M right
there.

Under these two alone, USCF would already have more than 1/2 of the
$3M needed to operate. Now, how about licensing organizers and
tournament directors by the size of their events. Those organizers
who primarily run large scholastic tournaments should pay a larger
licensing fee, say $200.00/year to run these huge events. This would
include access to rating lists, supplements and the right to submit
them for USCF ratings. At many scholastic tournaments this would
amount to a one time surcharge of 50 cents per player, which they
would more than recoup in pizza and pop sales alone. They would also
be trading this fee for a near elimination of dues, or at least a
significant reduction of dues for everyone, which will attract more
participants that are kept away right now anyway due to price
resistance.

I would call anyone who primarily runs events that draw over 100
persons a Class A organizer. A Class B organizer could pay say
$70.00/year and run events that drew on average between 50-99 players.
A Class C organizer could pay $50.00/year for events that typically
draw 25-50 players, and a Class D organizer who ran small events could
obtain a license for $40.00/year.

An organizer could upgrade if they overshot on their expected
attendance figures to the higher applicable licensing fee. There are
approximately 2,300 affiliates I believe, so this would generate more
money than the present system does, I'm almost certain. Would
affiliate sponsors and organizers accept these fees if they knew dues
were dropping significantly and that more players might attend their
events? I believe most would. Would the number of affiliates grow,
actually causing revenues from fees to grow? I believe this is a
possibility, a good one in fact, because as demand increases, those
who want to meet that demand emerge. Conservatively, let's predict
this would generate about $200K in revenues.

I think there are some very definite possibilities in bidding out
national scholastics that will generate huge profits of which USCF and
the principal organizer could share in with each prospering.

Another huge possibility is corporate sponsorship of the national
scholastics. In Kansas City in 2001, there were over 3,000 children
and their parents and siblings in attendance. Pete Nixon pointed out
to me as we were standing talking that USCF didn't even have a banner
advertising itself up in the hall. What a lack of oversight. USCF
has a virtual monopoly on the awarding of national titles and official
accepted/legitimate chess ratings. It is hard to imagine that at
least local officials would not jump at the opportunity to pay to
market their products to 4,000+ customers at these events.

On line and hard copy publications are another potential area where
USCF could generate some money. I think USCF is obligated to give
LM's something in the way of a printed publication. I actually like
the idea of an enhanced publication for an upgraded fee that more than
covers the costs. Website is the eventual answer to replacing printed
CL, but in my view the demographics of USCF's membership is not suited
to this option immediately. Certainly there should be some enhanced
web service that people might subscribe to for a small fee that could
generate some revenues.

One could haggle or argue about what the fees should be and what is
likely to happen, but one thing is clear and that is that the current
model has now failed badly for eight years in a row. As Springsteen
says in "My Home Town", "Foreman says these jobs are going boys, and
they ain't coming back."
Chess players are going and they ain't coming back to a USCF that
charges $49.00/year for diddly squat.

Here is another suggestion. The creation of a regional TLA
publication that people can subscribe to for say $10.00/year. The
costs of putting out this publication would be recouped by the
$10.00/year subscription fee and the reasonable advertising rates to
send the publication to members and players throughout the region.
This system might eventually replace the need entirely for national
TLA's, although I think many medium and larger organizers would like
to advertise nationally. Those that do, could pay a higher fee to
reach a national audience.

USCF can either adapt to the changes that are happening whether
they wish them to or not, or they can be carried out in a pine box.
Odds are given past behavior and attitudes, that they will opt for the
pine box option.

Best Regards,

Bruce

It is an interesting plan Bruce but it would certainly hurt our club.

We have regular Sunday night events at a variety of time controls with
entry fees between $10-$15 and annual dues of $15. A player who shows
up every week would probably play about one hundred rated games per
year. Under your plan, he would pay three times in rating fees what
he saves on dues.

I cannot imagine that we would continue running rated events at those
prices. Then the USCF would lose both dues and rating fees.

Vince Hart