"Angelo DePalma" writes:

I'm confused. Are Bruce and Mike the same person?

Not the last time we checked.
--
Mike Nolan

A savvy business person would prefer the higher revenue.

I wonder which you prefer?

Angelo

"GreenPencil" wrote in message
om...
There were about 24000 adult members at the beginning of last year
(remember to subtract the 1000 prisoners), and by december of last
year about 22000 (with the prisoners taken out by this time). We
still await the January numbers to properly compare the data, but
after 11 months we have lost members, but dues revenue has made little
money for the USCF.

24000 * $40 = $960,000

22000 * $49 = $1,078,000

So I guess a question for the USCF is: Which do you prefer?

"Angelo DePalma" writes:

A savvy business person would prefer the higher revenue.

Not necessarily.

First, a truly savvy business person would probably look at revenue less
expenses, ie, profit.

Second, it isn't necessary to maximize the revenue (or profit) of any
specific department, what is important is the overall bottom line, though
as I wrote the other day, it is also important not to LOSE a lot of
money in any one department.

Having more active adult members is generally a Good Thing, because it
leads to more book and equipment sales (which still will be an important
profit center even if we outsource the whole department), more players
in tournaments thus larger prize funds, etc.

Given a choice of making $30,000 in direct profit (ie, membership revenue less
membership expenses) on 20,000 adult members or making $20,000 on 30,000
adult members, I would almost certainly choose the latter.
--
Mike Nolan

I don't disagree with Mike Nolan's contention that the 30,000 member
scenario below is better than the 20,000 scenario. In fact, I hardly
ever disagree with Mike Nolan.

I would cast the same preference differently, though. I don't really
care what the USCF "profit" is. What is important to me is whether the
federation has enough revenue to achieve its mission. Achieving the
mission costs money (to do ratings, publish a magazine, support teams
like the Olympiad team, etc.,. etc., etc.) Dues, B&E, sponsorships,
advertising, are all ways to get money to achieve the mission.

Given that the federation seeks to promote chess, more members is an
indicator of success in achieving the mission. To my mind, *that's*
why more members is better, even if revenues-expenses is lower than
with fewer members.

It's perhaps a subtle distinction, but I think it is important to
focus on the mission and ways of achieving in rather than on the
"profit."

TR

PS: begin broken record Actually, even calling the difference
between revenue and expenses a "profit" is misleading, right? We're
not going to distribute it to the shareholders or owners, since the
USCF is not a for-profit organization. If revenues are greater than
expenses, we have a "surplus," which we can use to better achieve the
mission. end broken record

(Mike Nolan) wrote in message ...
Having more active adult members is generally a Good Thing, because it
leads to more book and equipment sales (which still will be an important
profit center even if we outsource the whole department), more players
in tournaments thus larger prize funds, etc.

Given a choice of making $30,000 in direct profit (ie, membership revenue less
membership expenses) on 20,000 adult members or making $20,000 on 30,000
adult members, I would almost certainly choose the latter.