Re: Getting to the people with the power

["Nancy Mitts" <mitts_n@hotmail.com>]

>From: jlong@mti.net (Joe Long)
>To: Ridecamp@endurance.net
>Subject: Re: Getting to the people with the power
>Date: Tue, 01 Dec 1998 22:13:04 GMT
>Reply-To: "Joe Long" <jlong@mti.net>

>I was a Director myself for 14 years.

That's great Joe, but not all the people complaining contribute anything 
positive.

>>1. AERC uses money to meet memberships perceived needs & wants
>>2. How can these costs be spread fairly among the largest # of people?
>The key words there are "MEMBERSHIP needs and wants," and "fairly."
>How is it fair to force non-members to pay for members' benefits?  How 
>is it fair to force ride managers into a financial loss (or a 
larger>financial loss)?

The non-members benefit by having a ride to participate in.  The benefit 
of a vet staff that is organized and working toward standardization. The 
shared knowledge of an organization, organizational memory can prevent 
every ride from re-inventing the wheel. Membership provides a grievance 
procedure if things don't go the way you thought they should. Membership 
provides an organization with numbers to take to gov't agencies to 
advocate trail availability. 
The idea is to also give financial incentive to join.

>>I think the expansion of the awards for LD was a big mistake, it 
should have been kept low cost & low key. But now that it's practically 
a "sport" in it's own right all the players have to pay, newbie or not.
>The "players" pay the ride entry fees, part of which already goes to
>AERC for all riders, members or not.  That is uniform for everyone,
>which is fair.  Only non-members have to pay the EXTRA fee, which is
>several times as large as the sanction fee!!!!!

The rider fee is not doing it. Without the non-member fee all ride fees 
need to be increased. Would members feel better about the rider fee 
being $10/rider (instead of $3)? Non-members paying the same as 
members??? Not Me.


>I'm not villifying anyone.  However, I strongly believe that the Board
>made a serious mistake by not considering the impact of these fees on
>the small rides and on the people just trying out the sport -- the
>ones who are not yet committed, and whom we need to continue to
>attract if the sport is to remain viable.

You didn't, but some of the other rhetoric has boardered on personal 
attack.

>>The people who are taking 
>>their toys out of the game are only exacerbating the situation.
>
>No one is obligated to put on a ride, or to lose money doing so.  It
>is classic Economics 101 that as you raise the price of a
>non-essential "product" you get fewer "buyers."  It's how many a
>bankrupt business got that way, by raising prices past the point of
>diminishing returns.

It is also good marketing to promote the value of your product. Not all 
consumers buy on the cheap. When it's the ride managers telling new 
riders they're paying extra, it's cutting their own throat. One of my 
statements above gives a few benefits of membership unrelated to awards, 
etc. A lot of it is in the presentation. We can debate amongst ourselves 
& try to find a better solution. It's in everyone's best interest to 
present a positive light in the presence of customers (newcomers at our 
rides.) 
Nancy Mitts

______________________________________________________
Get Your Private, Free Email at http://www.hotmail.com