AERC Revenue/Expense (was: Happy New Year)

["guest@endurance.net" <guest@endurance.net>]

K S SWIGART   katswig@earthlink.net



Well Steph, since you asked.....

I will preface everything that I say with this statement:
If the AERC raises it single membership dues, I will not join.

So, now everybody knows where I am coming from, and know what my 
priorities are in how to improve the AERC's Revenue/Expense imbalance.

The Endurance News (EN)

I have already said a bit of my piece about the EN, and its, what I 
consider to be its absurd, shift from a B&W newsletter to an attempt to 
become a "premier color magazine." I know a thing or two about the 
difference in cost and effort between producing an informative black & 
white newsletter and a quality color magazine, and if the rest of the 
membership of the AERC wants to raise the dues that I have to pay to 
ride my horse in endurance so that they can get a slick color magazine, 
I can only say, "shame on them."

I have yet to see how the information provided in the EN has become 
more informative since the addition of color. And the resources it 
takes to monthly publish a high quality color magazine are 
substantially greater (and have nothing to do with other AERC 
membership services) than those it takes to produce a quality, 
informative, B&W newsletter.  And expending those resources in what 
Steph has now described as, in essence, a financially strapped 
organization is an inappropriate allocation of resources.

So...reduce the cost of the production of the EN...and I am willing to 
bet you that it will have little to no effect on the quality (and 
timeliness) of the information provided.  In fact, I would even be 
willing to bet that the quality (and timeliness) of the information 
might actually improve if limited resources aren't being expended on 
"gloss."  A "pretty" magazine might be nice, but an informative 
newsletter would, IMO, be much nicer.

In case anybody hasn't noticed, the color "magazine" has pissed me off 
since it first came out.  As far as I was concerned, there was no 
legitimate business justification for making the change, and unless the 
AERC has a color production house donating their services for the 
production, it is a waste of money.

This from an organization that had fairly recently raised my dues by 
about 45% ($45 to $65) because it was financially insolvent, and even 
after the dues increase, was still threatened with bankruptcy.

There IS a way to substantially reduce the production cost of the 
Endurance News while at the same time improving the quality of the 
information provided. I think that the Endurance News has the makings 
of a very high quality publication which can provide valuable 
information to people who ride endurance and can draw upon the 
experience and expertise of some of the best endurance aficionados in 
the world. And, taking a page from the book of John Parke, if the AERC 
would like some assistance in how to improve the EN, they can ask me. 

The Awards

I gotta agree with Barb McCrary, I don't ride endurance for the awards, 
not even the year end regional point standings awards. But I also don't 
ride endurance to have other people recognize me at an awards 
presentation, I don't care if I have my picture taken with anybody, and 
I give away practically all of my awards anyway. So I couldn't care 
less what the AERC gives out for awards...and might even be happier 
with a ribbon.  Ribbons are nice, they don't take up very much room so 
are easy to keep, they don't wear out, and they don't make good 
Christmas gifts, so if the earning of the award was meaningful to me, I 
am more likely to still have a ribbon 10 or 20 years down the road than 
I am to have a jacket, a t-shirt, a belt buckle (although that one 
might last, but not if I have a friend who wears belts), or a sofa 
throw. And though the earning of the award was meaningful to me, then the 
award itself is not (if anybody wants to discuss my philosophy on
how to reward behaviour...the MBA in me has beat to death the topic
"One more time, how do we motivate people?" they can discuss it with me
privately, even though I consider it to be very relevant to what
is going on currently in the AERC).

I am perfectly content with the certificate and the medallion that I 
get as part of the thousand mile horse program.  And I am perfectly 
content with the rider mileage patches that I get as I reach major 
milestones (even though, or maybe because, all these things end up on 
my dining room table--which, if any of you have ever seen it, is just 
another expression for reverse chronological filing system).  And I 
consider the lifetime mileage achievements to be of far greater import 
than the year end accomplishments.

I would like to think that everybody else is equally as content with 
the satisfaction of a job well done and doesn't need any more outward 
demonstration of gratification.  I just don't ride endurance for the 
token prizes that are offered, and I don't ride endurance for accolades 
from other participants (or non-participants).  Awards that I (or my 
horse) can wear or that can be displayed, serve as nothing more than 
conversation starters (which, don't get me wrong, can be very 
valuable).  If I start using them as a way to show off, then I figure I 
am doing endurance for the wrong reason and I need a reality check.

So if the AERC wants to save money by reducing the cost of the year-end 
awards, that is fine by me.  The ribbon I got from the AHSA for 
finishing fourth in the Zone 10 hunter breeding division serves the 
same purpose as the engraved wooden plaque I got from the AERC for 
finishing 8th for the Jim Jones Stallion award.  And they are both 
displayed in the same place (my bathroom).

I gave my vest away to my dad because it him better than it does me 
(although, if I had really wanted to, I could have bought him a vest 
and given it to him), and this year I will probably give the sofa throw 
away to my mother because it will mean more to her than it does to me; 
although if I can use it for a horse blanket or can use it as a generic 
"blanket," I might do that instead...at least the sofa throw doesn't 
need to fit.

I LIKE the things that I get that I can use on my horse, and I won't 
turn them down. But if the AERC has to raise dues in order to pay for 
things that go to, really, a very small percentage of the membership 
(and those have a tendency to get them year after year), then it ain't 
worth it.  I would rather than the AERC's limited resources were 
expended on things that benefit the entire membership.

Dues/Fees/Revenues

If the AERC does feel the need to raise revenues (rather than reducing 
expenses), here are few things that I might suggest (just as starting
points for conversation).

1.	Reformat the dues structure to include competing and non-
competing memberships (rather than the "family" membership).  Go ahead 
and give a discount to juniors (whether adults from their household 
compete or not), but get rid of the ridiculously low $10 "additional 
member" fee that people who happen to live in and be related to 
somebody in the same household as an AERC member.  The $10 for a second 
member in the same household MAY have made some sense back when the 
regular membership was, say, $25, but it doesn't now.  And the $10 
membership for somebody who doesn't compete but just crews for their 
spouse who does may also make a little sense.  There could even be a 
"non-voting membership" that allows neither competition nor voting 
(i.e. a subscription to the Endurance News…except you don't call it 
that).  And yeah, I think AERC International should remain an "extra" 
that those riders who are not interested are allowed to opt out of.

2.	If you are going to raise fees, it makes more sense to raise the 
per rider sanctioning fees than it does to raise annual dues.  That 
way, it is the people who ride the most (and therefore consume the 
resources of the AERC the most) who will pay the most (Ride managers, 
you CAN pass this on to riders).  And it is the people who ride the 
most who are most likely to win a year-end award, so occasional riders 
who have no interest in and no likelihood of ever winning an award 
don't have to pay as much as those who do.

3.	The Year-End awards program COULD be self-funding.  E.g. you have 
to sign up for it (like I do in the AHSA) and pay for it (either on a 
yearly basis, or for a lifetime for the horse) in order to be eligible 
for it.  And the money contributed to the year-end awards program (by 
people, who sign up and pay for it) can be kept separately and then 
used to buy the year-end awards.  If not very many people sign up, then 
there isn't much money and the awards must be cheap.  If tons of people 
sign up (for whatever reason), then there is plenty of money for nice 
awards.  For those people who have no interest, and never expect to 
ride enough in a single year to win an award, they can save themselves 
the expense and are therefore not constantly being put in the position 
of having to pay for somebody else's award through their general 
membership.

General AERC dues can then be used for things that benefit the entire 
membership more equally.


kat
Orange County, Calif.