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?

"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?

Organizational Answer: The money. The organization has to survive. If it
cleans up its act (governance and management), and regains our trust, the
dues fee will not matter.

Now, what do I prefer???

Lower dues, one payment for all members.

Tom Klem
OMOVOP ("One member, one vote, one price")

"Tom Klem" wrote in message news:W1fKb.52024$BQ5.40870@fed1read03...
"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?

Organizational Answer: The money. The organization has to survive. If it
cleans up its act (governance and management), and regains our trust, the
dues fee will not matter.

Now, what do I prefer???

Lower dues, one payment for all members.

Tom Klem
OMOVOP ("One member, one vote, one price")

____________________________________
Refresh my memory. Does your OMOVOP movement include giving that one
vote to scholastic members?

KidDon

(GreenPencil) wrote in message . com...
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?

I think the money made is actually less than this, because many of
those showing up as part of that 22,000 paid the old rate for several
years last year right before the increase. In fact they paid even
less because by purchasing a multi-year membership they got it for
less than $40.00.

It was often said by Johnson and Schlich that approximately 1/2 of all
new memberships came via the affiliate/organizer, and if that is the
case then $4.00 in commission is kept by either the
affiliate/organizer/director or player in most of those cases. In
other words even on a full membership Uscf is generating about 47.00
in revenues not 49.00.

Nolan could tell everyone exactly how many players actually joined
AFTER the dues increase.

Best Regards,

Bruce

(GreenPencil) wrote

24000 * $40 = $960,000

22000 * $49 = $1,078,000

It is probably a little more complicated than that. Historically
about half the memberships have been sent in minus the affiliate
discount, so it is probably more like:

22000 * $47 = $1,034,000

In addition, many players presumably renewed early (possibly for 3
years), so the USCF won't start seeing their higher fees for a while
(while the membership losses occur immediately). To figure out the
probable net effect for this year, you would need to know the numbers
for the actual memberships sold compared with an extrapolation from
the last few years membership losses. The big question is whether
this higher membership loss rate is one-time with the dues increase
(i.e. the current members who think it's too much have now quit) or is
going to continue indefinitely (i.e. did our recruitment of new
members fall to a new lower rate consistent with this higher price).
It's probably a combination of the two effects, but I think it's
predominately the second and we should expect the new higher rate of
attrition to continue indefinitely.

- Tom Martinak

(Bruce Draney) writes:

Nolan could tell everyone exactly how many players actually joined
AFTER the dues increase.

Do you mean new players or total memberships, including renewals?

It should come as no surprise that new regular adult memberships are
down and economy adult memberships are up for the year, though the total
number of economy adult memberships is still under 1000.

I expect them to be done processing December memberships today, so the
expiration audit should be run tomorrow morning, and I can run full year
totals then as well.
--
Mike Nolan

Mike Nolan wrote:

(Bruce Draney) writes:

Nolan could tell everyone exactly how many players actually joined
AFTER the dues increase.

Do you mean new players or total memberships, including renewals?

I mean total adult regular memberships including newbies and renewals.
How much money did the dues increase actually bring in in revenues?
After the accelerated numbers of dropouts is factored in, did the dues
increase generate significant revenues in its first year? Isn't the
first year of a dues increase generally thought to be THE most lucrative
year?


It should come as no surprise that new regular adult memberships are
down and economy adult memberships are up for the year, though the total
number of economy adult memberships is still under 1000.

I expect them to be done processing December memberships today, so the
expiration audit should be run tomorrow morning, and I can run full year
totals then as well.

My prediction is 21,500 as the final total.

--
Mike Nolan

Best Regards,

Bruce

Bruce Draney writes:

I mean total adult regular memberships including newbies and renewals.
How much money did the dues increase actually bring in in revenues?
After the accelerated numbers of dropouts is factored in, did the dues
increase generate significant revenues in its first year? Isn't the
first year of a dues increase generally thought to be THE most lucrative
year?

No, the 2nd year is probably the most lucrative, because the first year
is impacted by early renewals just before the dues go up. The conventional
wisdom has been that there is a leveling off or rebounding from any dues
resistance in the 2nd year, though I don't have enough detailed data from
the dues increases prior to 1994/5 to analyze that.

Multi-year renewals make comparisons even harder. I'm just getting
started on that analysis, but it looks like the trend of the past few
years, wherein 9-10% of all regular adult memberships were for more than
one year, may have continued in 2003.

Both of those factors will probably impact the 12/31/03 numbers.
Want to revise your guess?
--
Mike Nolan

"KidDon" wrote in message
om...
"Tom Klem" wrote in message
news:W1fKb.52024$BQ5.40870@fed1read03...
"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?

Organizational Answer: The money. The organization has to survive. If it
cleans up its act (governance and management), and regains our trust,
the
dues fee will not matter.

Now, what do I prefer???

Lower dues, one payment for all members.

Tom Klem
OMOVOP ("One member, one vote, one price")

____________________________________
Refresh my memory. Does your OMOVOP movement include giving that one
vote to scholastic members?

KidDon

That would be negotiable, depending upon what you believe the age of reason
to be.

In most cultures, it is between 13 and 21. The idea is that the compromise
over the concerns of adults worrying themselves sick at night that the kids
are going to take over the USCF, is absurd. Children are already the largest
demographic. Let's redistribute the load, reorganize along governance and
standards lines, get the hey out of the book and equipment business
(albatross du jour), and get back to the core mission. Promoting chess---for
everyone!!

The main problem right now, is perceived constituencies. Why should we allow
a divide and conquer strategy to reign in US Chess (by the politicians),
when what we really want is a strong and unified organization. If you have
more than one political group, some bozo will stand up and say, "I represent
so and so" and instead of unity, you have competing interests. Those
competing interests gobble up resource ... not by their existence, but by
virtue of the fact that the politicians have to argue interminably about
them and for them. Governance of an unwieldy structure of competing
interests is a very expensive propostion, and not necessarily in the best
interests of the governed.

Treat everyone the same! The customer is King!

OMOVOP gives us a customer focus, because there is only one customer to
focus on. Adopt one fee for membership, and you won't CARE who is voting and
who is not. Everyone will be voting for what's best for Chess INSTEAD of
their own acre of turf. If you still want to argue, just compromise on the
age of investiture, and all will be well.

Tom Klem

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

"Bruce Draney" wrote in message
...
Mike Nolan wrote:

(Bruce Draney) writes:

Nolan could tell everyone exactly how many players actually joined
AFTER the dues increase.

Do you mean new players or total memberships, including renewals?

I mean total adult regular memberships including newbies and renewals.
How much money did the dues increase actually bring in in revenues?
After the accelerated numbers of dropouts is factored in, did the dues
increase generate significant revenues in its first year? Isn't the
first year of a dues increase generally thought to be THE most lucrative
year?


It should come as no surprise that new regular adult memberships are
down and economy adult memberships are up for the year, though the total
number of economy adult memberships is still under 1000.

I expect them to be done processing December memberships today, so the
expiration audit should be run tomorrow morning, and I can run full year
totals then as well.

My prediction is 21,500 as the final total.

--
Mike Nolan

Best Regards,

Bruce