Re: AERC National Championship ride qualfications

[Deanna German <finishis2win@columbus.rr.com>]

Roger wrote:
>I will NOT vote to change.
>However IF the vote is to set the qualifications back - which I believe
>they will - I will then vote to drop ALL qualifications.

>If we cannot set significant requirements then we should 1- not  have
>the ride  or 2- let them all come  and as some have said 'let the
>finish line sort them out'

>NOT my position. But then I am only one vote.

>Again - I vote to keep the higher qualifications.


If there are absolutely no qualifications, then it's just a club ride.
That's what it is no matter what it's called.

Do we want that? I don't. I want an AERC Championship ride to be in
existence. I want the higher qualifications in place. I agree with Roger on
that point. I hope to heck he doesn't feel compelled to vote for no
qualifications.

BOD - don't let a very vocal handful on RC lead you in a direction not
supported by the membership. Kathy Myers expressed my opinion very well.

A product has a higher perceived value to everyone if the price to purchaser
is higher. This is true for the retail market regardless of the cost of
production. We all know this even as we snicker about teenagers buying
overpriced sneakers -- we're not that target market. I'd be willing to bet
that there are some products targeted at endurance riders that ERs are
willing to pay top dollar for because of the perceived value. It's just the
way the human psyche works.

Perceived value becomes real value when the costs are apparent either in
workmanship or materials. The cost for the higher Championship ride
qualifications is mostly time and effort. The end result is that there will
be a higher perceived (and real) value for participation with higher
qualifications. If there is a higher value associated with participation,
more riders will be attracted to the ride. At some point there are
diminishing returns, but I don't think we're there yet.

Deanna M30478