I came up with the following:

Regular adult memberships are $49.95 a year, with Chess Life, as already is the
case.

To catch the people who play online, don't play much rated chess each year, and
who don't want Chess Life, create an "internet only" membership that includes
unlimited play on the USCF server, and access to a spruced-up USCF website
(that also has a lot of free content to attract nonmembers and juice up ad
revenues). The price for this membership would be $19.95 a year, plus $1.00
per rated OTB game.

The $19.95 internet-only membership would be cheaper than the economy
membership for those who don't play much, but the $1.00 per game OTB fee would
compensate.

I also think that we should consider an idea that I'm surprised hasn't been
talked about much here. Apparently, Mensa has these things called "Metro
Districts." Well, for USCF, I propose the creation of "rural districts" to
encourage participation out in the boonies. From each member, we could deduct
$0.25 from every membership so that those in favor of the district structure
and who are mad that we don't create another level of bureacracy could then
call someone who cares.

"I also think that we should consider an idea that I'm surprised hasn't been
talked about much here. Apparently, Mensa has these things called "Metro
Districts." Well, for USCF, I propose the creation of "rural districts" to
encourage participation out in the boonies. From each member, we could deduct
$0.25 from every membership so that those in favor of the district structure
and who are mad that we don't create another level of bureacracy could then
call someone who cares." (l'modern)
==============
Mensa does not have "Metro Districts." It has local chapters chartered by
Mensa HQ. Many of these are metro or super metro in size.
My version of the Mensa treatment for chess would include "Metro Districts,"
which like Mensa's chapters would be funded with a share of the national dues.
Once capitalized in that fashion, the Metro Districts would be intended to
function in their associative form as the "promoter - organizer of first and/or
last resort as the need be in its operating territory."
I think that kind of scheme is by far the best way to structure a national
chess federation... one with premium membership pricing, that is.
The main alternative is a basic, dirt cheap membership with the expensive
features as options only. Basic would be maybe $15.
The USCF, of course, is in no position to seriously entertain a Mensa
treatment. I'd also guess that even if the USCF had the money to finance a
Mensa type scheme, it would cling to its deeply imbedded traditional culture.
What that means in part is Chess HQ will never release "resources" to a
sub-national level. HQ will try as always to harvest what it can from the
broad chess landscape, but it will give back essentially nothing of
significance.

RSHaas

I just love these moronic ideas where the person tosses out something based
on their feelings, but does nothing to tie it to reality.

"LeModernCaveman" wrote in message
...
I came up with the following:

Regular adult memberships are $49.95 a year, with Chess Life, as already
is the
case.

To catch the people who play online, don't play much rated chess each
year, and
who don't want Chess Life, create an "internet only" membership that
includes
unlimited play on the USCF server, and access to a spruced-up USCF website
(that also has a lot of free content to attract nonmembers and juice up ad
revenues). The price for this membership would be $19.95 a year, plus
$1.00
per rated OTB game.

Hmmm...appx 25,000 adults, at $30 per member less = $750,000 lost revenue.

Assuming 200,000 games played, and ignoring that the $1 is incremental to
the current rating fee, that would bring back $200K.

So your idea just cost USCF half a million per year on adults.

Brilliant idea.

-- Der Wiesel

I just love these moronic ideas where the person tosses out something based
on their feelings, but does nothing to tie it to reality.

You can stop doing that anytime you want.

What's wrong with a $19.95 internet membership plus $1.00 per OTB game as a
rating fee?

(LeModernCaveman) writes:

To catch the people who play online, don't play much rated chess each year, and
who don't want Chess Life, create an "internet only" membership that includes
unlimited play on the USCF server, and access to a spruced-up USCF website
(that also has a lot of free content to attract nonmembers and juice up ad
revenues). The price for this membership would be $19.95 a year, plus $1.00
per rated OTB game.

What sorts of things do you think non-OTB players would be willing to pay
$19.95 for, and how much do you think it would cost to provide that on
an ongoing basis?
--
Mike Nolan

"LeModernCaveman" wrote in message
...
I just love these moronic ideas where the person tosses out something
based
on their feelings, but does nothing to tie it to reality.

You can stop doing that anytime you want.

What's wrong with a $19.95 internet membership plus $1.00 per OTB game as
a
rating fee?

If you had bothered to read the entire post, you'd see that a quick estimate
using regular adult members only AND giving your rating fee the benefit of
the doubt (not counting only the incremental gain) that your idea loses
over half a million dollars a year.

Using approximations:

25,000 regular adults x $30 lost revenue per adult is a loss of $750,000.

$1 per game at appx 200,000 games played (and ignoring that there was
already a rating fee charged) returns $200K.

So you are already out over half a million. Allowing for the incremental,
you're probably out over $600K per year. At that rate, you probably only
need 35,000 new regular adult members to break even, assuming no incremental
cost per member. Piece of cake.

As noted previously, BRILLIANT idea.

-- Der Wiesel

Altes Wiesel wrote:

I just love these moronic ideas where the person tosses out something based
on their feelings, but does nothing to tie it to reality.

I thought this (moronic) was the general approach of traditional USCF
leadership?


"LeModernCaveman" wrote in message
...
I came up with the following:

Regular adult memberships are $49.95 a year, with Chess Life, as already
is the
case.

To catch the people who play online, don't play much rated chess each
year, and
who don't want Chess Life, create an "internet only" membership that
includes
unlimited play on the USCF server, and access to a spruced-up USCF website
(that also has a lot of free content to attract nonmembers and juice up ad
revenues). The price for this membership would be $19.95 a year, plus
$1.00
per rated OTB game.

Hmmm...appx 25,000 adults, at $30 per member less = $750,000 lost revenue.

Assuming 200,000 games played, and ignoring that the $1 is incremental to
the current rating fee, that would bring back $200K.

So your idea just cost USCF half a million per year on adults.

Brilliant idea.

Gosh, USCF lost only $364,000 with dues at $49.00 and over $200,000 in
the first three months of this year, so it sounds like his revenue
stream is almost as good as the current USCF mode.

Of course, do you really believe that there are going to be 25,000
adults hanging around to pay $49.00/year? You highballed the number
which is about 22,000 right now (and dropping fast) and not 25,000. You
also didn't give any chance that membership might grow significantly
rather than shrink at the rate of 2,500 a year as it is now doing, and
has been since 1995.

Do I think his plan would work? Maybe not in the simple form it was
stated, but nearly every intelligent plan I've seen put forth thus far
hopes to reduce the membership cost as a barrier to growth, in the hopes
that higher utilization fees and healthy growth in chess playing numbers
will compensate for the lower revenues. Anyone who proposes making
significant revenue cuts had either have a plan to reduce costs or
increase volume.

One thing we all know. The current system is a total and complete
failure. It is filled with politics, influence peddling and conflict of
interest. The same people who repeatedly decry the lost revenues from
lowering adult dues, see $12.00 children's memberships with healthy
growth as "profitable". This group of "morons" as recently as 6 years
ago voted to let hordes of children join for only $7.00/year as an
"incentive" to growth. They then left this moronic "incentive" to
growth in place for three years before finally eliminating it. I heard
no bitching and moaning about this "moronic" idea from the Delegates who
thought it would boost overall membership numbers. Hell these people
only looked at overall numbers, they cared nothing about the revenues
lost or the increased administrative costs associated with processing
the ratings of 20,000 additional cheap members. They didn't even charge
more than 10 cents a game to rate the games of over 50,000 members many
of whom were far more active than the adult players who paid more were.

I thought I recently saw somewhere where the estimated cost of rating a
game submitted to USCF was about 40 cents. If so and the number of
rated games by scholastics over the past 7 years alone has amounted to
200,000 x 2.80=$560,000 in potential revenues, assuming like you good
that this number remained constant in that period compared to what USCF
actually charged over the same period which was only 200,000 x .70 =
$140,000. Looks like under the present idiotic model, USCF left at
least $420,000 on the table in lost potential revenues. And you call
HIS idea moronic.

USCF deserves what it gets. It continues to ignore the market, cling
to its failed ways, and hope that people who play chess and are over 21
will suddenly take a stupid pill and think that membership in USCF is a
good buy at $49.00/year. Only Angelo DePalma and Bill Goichberg believe
that $49.00 is attractive to players.


-- Der Wiesel

===Der Draney

Altes Wiesel wrote:

"LeModernCaveman" wrote in message
...
I just love these moronic ideas where the person tosses out something
based
on their feelings, but does nothing to tie it to reality.

You can stop doing that anytime you want.

What's wrong with a $19.95 internet membership plus $1.00 per OTB game as
a
rating fee?

If you had bothered to read the entire post, you'd see that a quick estimate
using regular adult members only AND giving your rating fee the benefit of
the doubt (not counting only the incremental gain) that your idea loses
over half a million dollars a year.

Using approximations:

25,000 regular adults x $30 lost revenue per adult is a loss of $750,000.

$1 per game at appx 200,000 games played (and ignoring that there was
already a rating fee charged) returns $200K.

So you are already out over half a million. Allowing for the incremental,
you're probably out over $600K per year. At that rate, you probably only
need 35,000 new regular adult members to break even, assuming no incremental
cost per member. Piece of cake.

As noted previously, BRILLIANT idea.

-- Der Wiesel

So perhaps rather than tear down his idea, which you obviously dislike,
you could propose your own idea(s) to stop membership decline in adult
regular and boost revenues overall, while at the same time increasing
participation and interest in chess?

"If you've got any bright ideas, now's the time." Dr. McCoy, Star Trek
VI

"They're dying Jim", Mr. Spock, Star Trek VI
"Let them die." Captain Kirk, Star Trek VI

"We are experiencing technical difficulties, all back up systems are
temporarily inoperative." Lt. Volaris, Star Trek VI.

To catch the people who play online, don't play much rated chess each year,
and
who don't want Chess Life, create an "internet only" membership that
includes
unlimited play on the USCF server, and access to a spruced-up USCF website
(that also has a lot of free content to attract nonmembers and juice up ad
revenues). The price for this membership would be $19.95 a year, plus $1.00
per rated OTB game.

What sorts of things do you think non-OTB players would be willing to pay
$19.95 for, and how much do you think it would cost to provide that on
an ongoing basis?

The $19.95 would be for a website that has all the latest information about
chess (tournament and nontournament), and would allow players to play rated
chess on the USCF internet server. There could be a limit on usage for
super-high-volume users, but that may not be necessary, as advertising revenue
could justify that anyway.

The other thing the $19.95 does is allow people to play OTB chess for $1.00 a
game. Finally, if webmasters were paid decently as affiliates, they'd have an
incentive to promote chess and membership would increase (they would pay a cut
on the initial signup but not on renewals, so it's not as bad as it sounds).

If USCF does not do this, it'll happen from the other direction, with the
internet clubs gaining strength and then just taking over the OTB side of
things down the road.

I just love these moronic ideas where the person tosses out something
based
on their feelings, but does nothing to tie it to reality.

You can stop doing that anytime you want.

What's wrong with a $19.95 internet membership plus $1.00 per OTB game as
a
rating fee?

If you had bothered to read the entire post, you'd see that a quick estimate
using regular adult members only

And no increases in membership through internet marketing with affiliates who
have an incentive to promote a reasonably-priced, well-performing USCF?


AND giving your rating fee the benefit of
the doubt (not counting only the incremental gain) that your idea loses
over half a million dollars a year.

How?


Using approximations:

25,000 regular adults x $30 lost revenue per adult is a loss of $750,000.

That presumes membership declines, plus you have to subtract the cost of
printing Chess Life (the $19.95 membership would be "internet only). Now add
in the number of players you'd get from other internet chess clubs who could
get USCF membership AND get to play on an internet server for less money.


$1 per game at appx 200,000 games played (and ignoring that there was
already a rating fee charged) returns $200K.

They charge rating fees to players now?

Now what would be saved by not having to print Chess LIfe?

What would be gained by giving people a year on a chess server for $19.95?

What would be gained by all the advertising you could get with affiliates?