Hawkgammon thinks we should boycott the PDGA because we do not get adequate value for our membership dues and tournament fees. Based on a slanted poll he now thinks 40% of the membership agree with him. Here's a less slanted poll to offer Hawkgammon a reality check:

So maybe this will MY reality check?! :D

does simply not renewing count as participating in the boycott?

From my perspective (a new Am member, over 40).

The PDGA doesn't really offer anything worth paying for. I joined only to support the sport, which I feel many, many people do.

I'm not a professional so I'm not touring an entering the big events. Even in my local area, there aren't any A tier or NT events, so I'm not hitting those.

I subscribe to DGWN, so now I'm just paying twice for it.

Don't need another disc.

I can post here, but, really, outside of spouting another opinion, I don't know the huge benefit in that. It's probably more of a penalty to the rest of you.

I get an assigned #. But when it's over 30,000, you're not really "unique". I don't know if you get to keep it for a lifetime (regardless of your membership status) or not. But, by itself, there is no benefit to the number.

What would provide a value, I'm not sure. I think it's a worthwhile contribution just because it is helping the sport grow. It'll take time and I've seen a lot of growth in just the years I've been watching/participating.

One thing I believe the PDGA should be able to push more is training/educational videos (like the ones on the Discraft page). You would think that the governing body of the sport would have some influence over the pros in the sport to have them give back to the sport in the form of educational videos so that people can learn technique, equipment, course management, development, etc.

Access to these videos would require membership and the videos would need to continue. Perhaps interviews, etc?

Have there been lots of recommendations for improving PDGA membership value? I'm still combing the boards. So far, the biggest arguments appear to be divisions & weed, which really have nothing to do with membership values or reasons why you shouldn't join.

Have there been lots of recommendations for improving PDGA membership value? I'm still combing the boards. So far, the biggest arguments appear to be divisions & weed, which really have nothing to do with membership values or reasons why you shouldn't join.


"recommendations" is a pretty tall order on this board. I'd suggest only delving deeper into the "other PDGA topics" and "rules and standards" threads if you have lots and lots and lots of time on your hands (e.g., in solitary confinement with merely access to the PDGA DISCussion to keep you entertained). There have been lots of complaints, a few recommendations, and a lot of finger-pointing. Be glad you weren't around the boards in the days of creating that other disc golf organization of which we do not speak (Unit-ahhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhh)

From the perspective of one who tends to read those discussions while they're managable but never jump into them because I don't think this board is the right way to go about things, I see most of the "problems" brought up as growing pains, especially in a nationwide organization for a sport that has definite hot spots, but the majority of the country (land area wise) has no clue why those idiots are throwing plastic at metal.

For the record, I had knee surgery early February and won't be able to play again until June at the earliest, which means just about no tournaments for me this year, but I still renewed, and will do so next year, and the next, and the next.......

"but the majority of the country (land area wise) has no clue why those idiots are throwing plastic at metal."

dats funny! i was talking to a clasmate the other day. we're both 50-ish... he's monving to the KC area and i mentioned KC is a good DG area. i was afraid he'd assume i was a stoner. instead, ya know what he said? "ah, no qway.. i tried it a few times, and ITS WAY TOO HARD!" i hafta admit, hearing that response was a first for me.

I agree with the "growing pains" comment... nothing happens overnight and DG is really still so new/young in it's development.

"What would provide a value, I'm not sure. I think it's a worthwhile contribution just because it is helping the sport grow."

Exactly

I hope after reading BDH's post nobody tries to claim that the "The PDGA doesn't really offer anything worth paying for." Any 5 of those benefits are worth the membership price, and we get all of them.

It should be noted however that PDGA RadioNews is out of commission. Don't know if that is a temporary or permanent thing.

Lorrie did say the PDGA sponsors PDGA radio, but doesn't actually provide it as a member benefit. Hopefully, someone will pick up the ball on this opportunity.

Now we just need this benefits list as a big ol' link on the Memberships page so we know where to refer people to read it whenever the question comes up about what the PDGA provides for all of those membership dollars. Please!

The kit contains stats, demographics, testimonials, brochures and is useful for anyone interested in installing a course in their area or promoting the sport in general;

- prints a glossy promo brochure "What Is Disc Golf?" available to anyone upon request



Where do I need to go to request a kit?

Where do I need to go to request a kit?



PDGA Office (http://www.pdga.com/contact.php?a=sf&contact=Administrator)

Thanks

I think there is a difference between a "member benefit" and "how is member money spent."

Before I continue, let me say that I am already signed up for the next 5 years. I want to support the growth of the sport and I think that the list of initiatives are worthwhile.

However, in terms of member benefits, that being the perks that you can ONLY get by being a member or that you get for free because you are a member, you get:

-Disc Golf World
-Points/Ratings Tracking
-Initial Membership Package w/ Disc, etc... (but only the first year? Shouldn't renewal be cheaper then?)
-Right to vote within PDGA
-Bag tags after being a member for 10 or 20 years

I think that the problem is that, while the list of initiatives and how the money is effectively spent is extensive, the list of direct member benefits is limited.

Just thought I would put that out there. I have no solution, partly because, as I said above, I am happy to simply support the growth of the sport. I just wanted to try to come up with reasons behind the complaints about lack of member benefits.

and ratings. gotta include that, especially if you include points, which dont seem to matter a whole lot to most people.

and ratings. gotta include that, especially if you include points, which dont seem to matter a whole lot to most people.



Sorry, to me points and ratings go together, it slipped my mind... *goes off to edit post*

I think the web site and stats(including ratings) have been the biggest improvement over the past 5 years. I mean, for almost all of our A tier+ events results are online for the world to view in under a day. this is a major benifit to the disc golf community, especially members.


however while as a newer member I used to love the mag, now I rarely read it. I just don't care that much about the overseas events that recently have become a regular feature for DGWN. I gain very little value for the portion of my membership fee that goes towards DGWN, and I wish subscription was optional rather than required.

it will be in 2008. already approved by the BoD. i do not yet know how much it will save, though.

I think there is a difference between a "member benefit" and "how is member money spent."

Before I continue, let me say that I am already signed up for the next 5 years. I want to support the growth of the sport and I think that the list of initiatives are worthwhile.

However, in terms of member benefits, that being the perks that you can ONLY get by being a member or that you get for free because you are a member, you get:

-Disc Golf World
-Points/Ratings Tracking
-Initial Membership Package w/ Disc, etc... (but only the first year? Shouldn't renewal be cheaper then?)
-Right to vote within PDGA
-Bag tags after being a member for 10 or 20 years

I think that the problem is that, while the list of initiatives and how the money is effectively spent is extensive, the list of direct member benefits is limited.

Just thought I would put that out there. I have no solution, partly because, as I said above, I am happy to simply support the growth of the sport. I just wanted to try to come up with reasons behind the complaints about lack of member benefits.



This point gets made repeatedly. I don't think it matters whether the benefit is a direct one that members only receive, or one that non-members also benefit from. In either case, the member has access to something developed by or provided by the organization, and if the PDGA didn't have enough income, then it couldn't provide those things to the anyone. Therefore, those items are valid benefits of membership.

-Theo

it will be in 2008. already approved by the BoD. i do not yet know how much it will save, though.

That won't save money so much as it will gain membership from those who think the current dues are too high and the magazine not worth the price. Those people might join at the lower price.

I get to see my kids in the magazine once a year, sometimes twice. To me it is worth it.

i agree we get good value -- but i do strongly dissent on one issue. Am.s and Pros should pay the same membership fee. This is the Professional Disc Golf Association. except for the exceptional few who cash with regularity, PDGA Pros have enough trouble making high entry fees without being hit with a higher membership fee too. Those who can easily afford the extra dollars should be encouraged to donate an extra $25 to our sport and get a special bagtag or something in return. and that extra donation should be looked for from am.s as well as from Pros. Pros may get a few more things in terms of tourneys -- but Pros also provide entertainment value and make the PDGA a viable association.

one other point -- Pros make up such a small percntage of the total PDGA membership that raising amateur fees $5 probably brings in more revenue than charging Pros the extra $25.

Hi Bruce,

I've avoided posting on this all day so as to not campaign, but it appears that 48% of voters are unhappy with the value they are getting for their membership and tourney fees. Thanks for making my point and ruining Hot Tub's and The Apologist's day. Speaking from experience anything that gets Oz to roll in can't be going their way.

Sincerely,

Your Disc Golf Hero (http://www.wikinfo.org/upload/5/54/Cheicon.jpg)

I think there is a difference between a "member benefit" and "how is member money spent."

Before I continue, let me say that I am already signed up for the next 5 years. I want to support the growth of the sport and I think that the list of initiatives are worthwhile.

However, in terms of member benefits, that being the perks that you can ONLY get by being a member or that you get for free because you are a member, you get:

-Disc Golf World
-Points/Ratings Tracking
-Initial Membership Package w/ Disc, etc... (but only the first year? Shouldn't renewal be cheaper then?)
-Right to vote within PDGA
-Bag tags after being a member for 10 or 20 years

I think that the problem is that, while the list of initiatives and how the money is effectively spent is extensive, the list of direct member benefits is limited.

Just thought I would put that out there. I have no solution, partly because, as I said above, I am happy to simply support the growth of the sport. I just wanted to try to come up with reasons behind the complaints about lack of member benefits.



This point gets made repeatedly. I don't think it matters whether the benefit is a direct one that members only receive, or one that non-members also benefit from. In either case, the member has access to something developed by or provided by the organization, and if the PDGA didn't have enough income, then it couldn't provide those things to the anyone. Therefore, those items are valid benefits of membership.

-Theo



I'll beg to differ there. While I'm all for supporting the sport, if you take 2 players, neither play tournaments and both have been playing long enough to accumulate some plastic. If one player is a member and one isn't, what are the benefits the member gets for his $50?

You could support the sport in any number of ways and do more than $50/year worth of good for the sport. While the expenditures of the PDGA all appear worthwhile and I fully believe that all the officers/BoD are acting in the best interest of the sport, it still doesn't leave much incentive for an non-touring, non-tournament playing individual to join the PDGA. It really is a Professional association and those are the folks that should be reaping the benefits.

I think part of this whole issue stems from my belief that the PDGA is an association. It's not a club. What it provides is authorization and identification. I think it would be best reserved only for professional players; however, the sport is so young and the attitude within the sport is so different from something like the PGA. I don't believe there are any "goodies" by being a member of the PGA.

Perhaps it's the name, perhaps just the perception. Maybe if it was something like the World Disc Golf Organization and you were a member and you got a few perks, then there was the PDGA membership that was required for tournaments. You could belong to either or both, but if you wanted to play tournaments, you had to be a member of the PDGA - not just for A tier or NT events, but for all events. That way all your tournament history would be tracked, all tournaments would have to meet a certain standard.

For being an organization member, you get... say:

Full color disc with a yearly design (so they could be collected)
Magazine subscription
Bumper/window sticker
Disc golf org e-mail address
For first year signups, a stroke counter
Access to the boards
A pamphlet on how to increase disc golf visibility in your area
x amount of credits toward an item within the pdga store (perhaps enough so that after 5 years or so, you could pick up something worthwhile - in 2, a disc, 3 a small bag, etc.)
access to how-to videos, interviews, etc. with pros/people in the DG industry
Rulebook

Maybe other things... but that's off the top of my head.

The Org membership would cater to rec/am players not touring, the PDGA would cater to touring/tournament players.

Downside is you'd have fewer pdga members and tournaments would probably be smaller since fewer rec/intermediate players might not participate.

Perhaps it would enable some changes in the divisions as the player base in tournaments might change.

It's late and I'm thinking crazy though...

it will be in 2008. already approved by the BoD. i do not yet know how much it will save, though.



How sad. I expect that (a) very little money will be saved for the organization, given the logistics of tracking and accounting for more fee differentials, and that (b) we might see a reduction in quality of the magazine, or even its eventual demise. I sure hope not. Disc Golf World is one of the quality things representing disc golf.

Well if the Magazine cannot support itself through subscriptions, then there is obviously no need for it. An Organization should not have to subsidize a magazine that may or may not be wanted.

My employer-association has a peer-reviewed, quarterly journal titled Planning for Higher Education It would cease to exist if it had to survive only on dollars from nonmember subscriptions, which total about 300. That would be a major loss for higher education. Fortunately, our leadership recognizes that and chooses to wisely spend members' dues revenues to support it.

While I see your point Terry, and it is a good one, I don't think that applies to our Org. We have many members who don't want the magazine. It makes sense from a profession standpoint to have a peer-reviewed journal of methodology in practice. Being a grad student, I understand the value of peer-reviewed journals and that many of them operate at a loss. However, we are talking about a magazine where employers talk about which tie they wore to the convention or things of that nature. The magazine is entertainment and poor at that. There is a tiny bit of actual useful info, and the rest is ads and blah, blah, blah. You make a good point, but it's apples and oranges to me.

I can see your point. Where we differ is that I think the value of the magazine as representational of the sport is all by itself worth a huge chunk of change, no matter what I or others may think of some or even large parts of its content. We've got nothing comparable to hand to a parks rep, city council person, or potential sponsor. I've used the magazine for that and uniformly get the very positive "wide eyed," "Oh, there's a glossy magazine for disc golf?" response.

I hope my concern turns out to have been groundless.

I expect that producing a newsletter internally like our old Disc Golfer may cost as much or more than piggybacking on the DGW bandwagon so it might be a loss to the PDGA to not to provide the mag. You can't run the org only with e-newsletters since many don't have Internet. In addition, anyone with any experience in this area knows that the number one reason people like publications is to see their name in it or picture is even better. Brakel mentioned that earlier about his daughters. That will be a significant lost member benefit and customer satisfaction loss without a publication. Why do you think some complain about coverage of events from other places being in DGW? Because it's not about them - with their names, names of people they know or their pictures.

I can see your point. Where we differ is that I think the value of the magazine as representational of the sport is all by itself worth a huge chunk of change, no matter what I or others may think of some or even large parts of its content. We've got nothing comparable to hand to a parks rep, city council person, or potential sponsor. I've used the magazine for that and uniformly get the very positive "wide eyed," "Oh, there's a glossy magazine for disc golf?" response.

I hope my concern turns out to have been groundless.



I think most people appreciate the fine quality of Disc Golf World News and having a glossy magazine to show the sport to outsiders. I think the point a lot of people are bringing up is that the PDGA contributes a HUGE chunk of money each year towards it, and there is little understanding why such a great deal of money is needed to subsidize it. And a lot of people would be willing to give up the magazine if it would reduce membership fees by $20 or even $10.

I also agree with the point that Disc Golf World News should be able to exist on its own without the PDGA subsidy. I think there would be almost as many subscribers if it were not attached to a PDGA membership. Personally, I know I would subscribe and support the magazine.

I also look to the continued growth and success of Disc Golf Magazine as evidence that an independant magazine can exist. Even if funding of that effort may partly come from Dave's Revolution Bag business, although the same could probably be said for DGWN possibly being partly funded by Disc Golf World sales.

The problem with DGWN is when multiple PDGA members live in the same household.

I remember going to a place where four PDGA members lived and that magazine was everywhere!

Family membership takes care of that issue.
However, I understand that when there are roommates, not family members, living together that creates multiple issues. However, when one of those roommates move out, he or she may want to keep his or her own issue to take with him or her.

[QUOTE]
[Perhaps it's the name, perhaps just the perception. Maybe if it was something like the World Disc Golf Organization ...

Several years ago the current members were polled at election time. Which do you prefer: Players DG Assoc (PDGA) or Professional DG Assoc (PDGA) ?

Lots of orgs maintain their identity/brand/acronym while evolving what that acronym stands for.

In the case of PDGA, 95% of those who voted indicated they preferred Professional DGA ...

PDGAHQ



I don't doubt the name choice. My contention was that I don't believe the majority of the members are "professional disc golfers". Thus, the name and fees are somewhat misleading. If you ask a Rec/Int. player if they belong to the PDGA, they're going to answer why should I? I'm not a professional player.

As a professional player, or even one that just tours significantly in their state, I believe you'd want the "Professional" in PDGA rather than Player. However, they both have different connotations. The problem is that the professional base is smaller than the rec/int/am base, and the rec/int/am are who we need to draw into the organization (IMHO).

I'm not bashing, just saying it's 100% the reason why I haven't joined over the past 10 years. My justification this year was I'm treating the PDGA as my chosen donation organization this year. We'll see how it goes, but outside of supporting one of my favorite sports, there isn't a driving reason to join (admittedly, this is a big reason). I already subscribe to the magazine and aside from being able to post here, I'll be getting the other benefits if I'm a member or not.

That reminds me of why I joined many years ago. I enjoyed the sport for several years before joining and finally decided that it was time to start supporting the sport I enjoyed so much. There was no real value assessment on ROI, just a commitment to support the sports governing body. It has continued like that ever since with Ace Club memberships when they became available. It has never been about what I get out of my membership, but about what I can do to help the PDGA grow the sport. Membership is the first step in my mind. All of the other local things I or you may do are great, but most aren't doing much to help the sport grow overall. That's the PDGA's job and they need money and volunteers to accomplish it.

i tend to disagree and look at it differently. i think that what you do locally grows the sport more than anything the pdga does. i think of the pdga as an organization to support the current membership, not some future potential membership. growth of the sport is not a terribly important issue to me. i do find it interesting that you see the pdga as the biggest growth factor.

The problem with DGWN is when multiple PDGA members live in the same household.

I remember going to a place where four PDGA members lived and that magazine was everywhere!



My wife, son, and I each get one. We store one away in the plastic for history, keep one in the "library," and I carry the other around in my computer backpack until I lose it or give it away.

I also agree with the point that Disc Golf World News should be able to exist on its own without the PDGA subsidy. I think there would be almost as many subscribers if it were not attached to a PDGA membership. Personally, I know I would subscribe and support the magazine.



I've been in the publishing/advertising industry for 17 years and have seen countless mags go under for lack of support. The work and $ it takes to generate subscriptions usually goes far beyond any income - even with aggressive advertising. Retaining those subscriptions year after year is even more daunting. People don't make up the majority of subscribers of mags and periodicals. Agencies and clearing houses account for much of it.

With just over 10,000 active PDGA recipients, DGWN would be devastated if that number decreased by a potential 40% (from members chooosing another publication instead). Outside interest just isn't there yet to support a glossy.

Also, DGWN is one heck of an expensive business card, but also a very, very effective one. I tested this a few years ago and ordered a subscruption for my local Park District Supervisor. He loved it and put more money and time into the local course. When the subscription ran out, he did not renew. Like many one-year members, his interest just ran out. DGWN needs a horse to which it can attach its cart. And the PDGA needs this, even if just for nondigital communication!

I hope the magazine subscription change is is just a proposal for 2008, not something that is set in stone. I've also used our magazine as a 'calling card' and would hate to lose the tool. In my mind, this would be a huge step backward.

If this change is real, how did it get through without involving the membership? I wasn't asked on this, was anyone else? Where are all of our BOD members who have been advocating a more open Board? Is the vote documented in the minutes somewhere along with who voted which way on it?

i tend to disagree and look at it differently. i think that what you do locally grows the sport more than anything the pdga does. i think of the pdga as an organization to support the current membership, not some future potential membership. growth of the sport is not a terribly important issue to me. i do find it interesting that you see the pdga as the biggest growth factor.



I see the PDGA as the rallying point of those interested in furthering organized disc golf competition. I see the PDGA supporting programs designed to expand the player base to the point that Disc Golf scholarships are offered at major colleges. I don't see anything that you or I could do locally as having the potential to impact players all over the world and bring them together as a force for change.

i tend to disagree and look at it differently. i think that what you do locally grows the sport more than anything the pdga does. i think of the pdga as an organization to support the current membership, not some future potential membership. growth of the sport is not a terribly important issue to me. i do find it interesting that you see the pdga as the biggest growth factor.



I see the PDGA as the rallying point of those interested in furthering organized disc golf competition. I see the PDGA supporting programs designed to expand the player base to the point that Disc Golf scholarships are offered at major colleges. I don't see anything that you or I could do locally as having the potential to impact players all over the world and bring them together as a force for change.



I agree, gnduke. I think local efforts are good for the game and growing a huge fanbase and the PDGA is good and necessary for the sport. There needs to be a unifying organization over the sport to give it legitimacy by giving it uniformity and standards (rules, equipment, procedures, etc.)

If one is not concerned about growth or interested in it, that makes life much easier....but quite boring too, IMO.

I hope the magazine subscription change is is just a proposal for 2008, not something that is set in stone. I've also used our magazine as a 'calling card' and would hate to lose the tool. In my mind, this would be a huge step backward.

If this change is real, how did it get through without involving the membership? I wasn't asked on this, was anyone else? Where are all of our BOD members who have been advocating a more open Board? Is the vote documented in the minutes somewhere along with who voted which way on it?

its all in the most recent minutes.

i voted for the change because of concerns expressed by Members that the magazine had little or no value to them. given that it consumes a rather high percentage of the dues, their concerns made sense.

Which members? I'm a member and I would have told you differently. Did you ask me? What was your survey audience, and please don't tell me it was based on what you read on this message board.

Well, I see in the minutes that the vote was unanimous. I hope the current Board didn't just kill one of the tools of legitimacy.

Time will tell how many people see the bigger picture or just follow their wallet.

From my perspective (a new Am member, over 40).

The PDGA doesn't really offer anything worth paying for. I joined only to support the sport, which I feel many, many people do. <font color="red"> So true. </font>

I'm not a professional so I'm not touring an entering the big events. Even in my local area, there aren't any A tier or NT events, so I'm not hitting those. <font color="red"> In my eyes, there are only a few people in our sport that are TTrue professionals, with DG being their only profession. </font>

I subscribe to DGWN, so now I'm just paying twice for it. <font color="red"> DGWN was the reason i joined the PDGA initially </font>

Don't need another disc. <font color="red"> Who does? </font>

I can post here, but, really, outside of spouting another opinion, I don't know the huge benefit in that. It's probably more of a penalty to the rest of you. <font color="red">Being able to post should revert back to allowing everyone to post. If you're good at reading between the lines, there's actually some great information on the BORED :D </font>

I get an assigned #. But when it's over 30,000, you're not really "unique". I don't know if you get to keep it for a lifetime (regardless of your membership status) or not. But, by itself, there is no benefit to the number. <font color="red"> It's just a number, much like the ratings. </font>

What would provide a value, I'm not sure. I think it's a worthwhile contribution just because it is helping the sport grow. It'll take time and I've seen a lot of growth in just the years I've been watching/participating. <font color="red"> This is where the PDGA needs to listen to it's members </font>

One thing I believe the PDGA should be able to push more is training/educational videos (like the ones on the Discraft page). You would think that the governing body of the sport would have some influence over the pros in the sport to have them give back to the sport in the form of educational videos so that people can learn technique, equipment, course management, development, etc. <font color="red"> Discraft is awesome! :D</font>

Access to these videos would require membership and the videos would need to continue. Perhaps interviews, etc? <font color="red"> I hope they are listening </font>

Have there been lots of recommendations for improving PDGA membership value? I'm still combing the boards. So far, the biggest arguments appear to be divisions & weed, which really have nothing to do with membership values or reasons why you shouldn't join. <font color="red"> Nope, just suspensions and threats of boycotts </font>

Well, I see in the minutes that the vote was unanimous. I hope the current Board didn't just kill one of the tools of legitimacy.

Time will tell how many people see the bigger picture or just follow their wallet.


I would like to know what the price difference is, personally. If half of my membership goes to the magazine, I don't want it. If its only $2-5, I'll probably get the magazine. Anything over that and I'd have to think about it.

Which members? I'm a member and I would have told you differently. Did you ask me? What was your survey audience, and please don't tell me it was based on what you read on this message board.



Correct me if I'm wrong, but I thought the idea was to make DGWN optional in the future when you renew/join, based on the ballot sent out to members last year. So, for example, regular membership would still be $50/75, but for the 25%(?) who voted that they would rather not have the magazine it would only be like $40/65, or something like that. It's not like their taking it away from all members and making them subscribe on their own or anything.

Maybe I'm wrong. It just seems like we're getting really worked up over something that's not that big of a deal. Give a minority of members the option to save money and not get the magazine. Everyone else does it like they always have.

Where are the minutes found again? I never seem to remember. Thanks.

Information at the top of the page.
PDGA organizational documents on the next page.
BOD minutes on the next page

Maybe I am a big idiot, but I for one will not be cancelling my subscription. I do like the magazine, although I don't really read it that much. I do wish that it had more instructional advice from pros like all of the golf magazines I always end up reading in doctors offices.
About something I read earlier it has always amazed me the amount of things that so many disc golfers do for little or no pay and how that it seems that this entire sport is held together almost exclusively by volunteers.

Bruce,

As of tonight 51% of surveyed members are dissatisfied with the value of their Association membership. Are you available to help me with my future polls? Yours seem to make my point better than mine do.

yeah but saying you are dissatisfied doesn't mean you don't like the organazation you are a part of. I am disatisfied in one way or another about almost everything in my life. But I don't want to get rid of most of them. I enjoy my job a lot, but if you ask me are you completely satisfied with my job my answer would be no. I like my car but am I completely satisfied with it of course not. But like the middle choice in the poll most people don't want to get rid of their vehicle they just want to call it names when it breaks and then try to fix it. And I wonder how many out of the two top choices are like the guys at work that have said they are fed up with their job and they swear they are quiting this week and ten years later they are saying the exact same thing.

One of the truisms to developing the best schedule for Am or Pro Worlds is, if players in each division are equally dissatisfied, that's when you know you've balanced the tradeoffs fairly and likely have the best schedule under the circumstances.

Come on Chuck you're slacking. It took you 38 minutes to try to counter my post.

I do have other PDGA duties to address such as completing the invitation packets for Worlds which impacts a thousand members. But that only benefits less than 40% of pros so I suppose the other 60% might be dissatisfied...

I don't think they should have to settle for not getting an invite I think they should start a boycott and refuse to join next year.

I do have other PDGA duties to address such as completing the invitation packets for Worlds which impacts a thousand members. But that only benefits less than 40% of pros so I suppose the other 60% might be dissatisfied...

Maybe the Pros who don't want to go to Worlds this year should be able to opt out of whatever portion of their dues goes to support Worlds?

If it really is 40/60, that would make sense. Lower membership fees by $8 (or $12 or $16) and raise Worlds entry fees by $12 (or $18 or $24).

Depending on how much the PDGA is kicking in on a per-player basis, it would be a wash and only those receiving the benefit (or is it a feature? :eek:) are paying for it.

how much does the Association contribute to Worlds on average?

Ask Brian.

how much does the Association contribute to Worlds on average?



4-5 Marshals
2-3 staff people for the entire week. (Dave G. the whole week, and Brian, Lorrie, and Matt partial weeks)
I think about $6,000 for Pro Worlds (might be off on that, probably somewhere between $4,000 and $6,000) Of course, PDGA receives a protion of the profit from the event, so they may recoup some of that.
Postage and envelopes for invites
They handle the enitre registration process, so that goes on from mid-March through July.
They handle the wait list.

If you want to put $$$ on some of those things, it amounts to a lot.

Chap

You know, there are probably lots of PDGA members who don't use the website, too. Certainly those who visit DISCussion, and even more so those who participate in DISCussion, are a small minority.

Maybe we could estimate the cost of Web services for members and then put everything but a few public pages - minutes, promotion of membership, etc. - behind a password protection.

We could then reduce the dues of members who choose not to use any but the most basic PDGA Web services and allow those who want access to everything to take on the cost of providing the premium Web services: Like DISCussion, the course directory, access to other members' statistics, etc.

Valid point Terry. The only conjecture I make is that the course directory should remain public as many nonmembers use it. I don't think many of these people would get a membership just to find out if there was a course in the area they were vacationing/business tripping to. But I think Discussion, Member stats, tour stats, etc. should be members only on the website with statistical information available upon request in the form of brochures for potential sponsors and the like.

Maybe we could sell instant access, paid for by credit card, to the course directory as a stand alone product for nonmembers? They could whip out a credit card and pay, say, $15 for a year's access to the directory on line?

Are we trying to make money? Or we trying to grow the sport?
I think I can see what your point is Terry (relating back to the magazine issue). I don't envy the task of assessing the value of a membership package vs. what it really includes. Members must see a returned value for their membership, either direct or indirect, and must put some "faith" in the selflessness of our sport and organization. When you start to itemize the value vs. price of individual services, some see waste and some see a bargain. I'm not sure where I sit on this because its hard for me to "see" the value in some of the benefits as I have never directly "seen" them. I have never been to an NT, never seen the IDGC, never been to worlds, never been to USDGC, etc. But nonetheless, I am a member whose needs should be met. Like I've said before, there is a regional bias towards PDGA benefits. I don't know what or if this should be addressed, but it does affect members and potential members. The good thing is, the list that was pointed out has made me realize alot of the benefits of membership that I had previously never heard of or seen. Even though they do not directly benefit me, I do value them and know that they are benefiting someone. I realize also that the idea of having the magazine as an option and lowering membership fees for declining it may be a selfish thing, but since the only membership benefits that I directly take use of are ratings and tournament logistics (and the DB), I feel the PDGA is getting a bargain for what I utilize vs. what I pay. And, obviously, I am OK with that as I renewed.
Just my $0.02.

Maybe we could sell instant access, paid for by credit card, to the course directory as a stand alone product for nonmembers? They could whip out a credit card and pay, say, $15 for a year's access to the directory on line?



Yeah, I'm not a big fan of this idea. I like that I can go online at anytime, anywhere and look up courses, but I can also buy the hardcopy of the course directory to keep in the car or travel bag. And since the Course Directory is mostly volunteer kept (local clubs submitting course contacts, directions, etc.) it seems like charging might be a bit much. Just my thoughts...

Maybe we need a hyperbole lesson thread over in the techniques area.

Or how about a hyperbole fee for those who consistantly fail to get it. I think consistantly failing to get it costs us a lot!

Maybe we need a hyperbole lesson thread over in the techniques area.



Is that for a right-hand, backhand poster? :D


Or how about a hyperbole fee for those who consistantly fail to get it. I think consistantly failing to get it costs us a lot!



Which would be AnHyperbole, right? :D

Just to start out, I'm not replying to anyone in particular here, just tagging on the last post.


I have never played in a Worlds or an NT, so I don't want to have to pay for that. My name rarely appears in Disc Golf News because I don't place high enough, so I should get a reduced subscription. My ratings are based on much less rounds than many, so I should have to pay less for them. I'll never catch Rhett in posts, so I shouldn't have to pay as much. I've never played in a tournament that has Marshals, so I don't want to pay for them. Add your own personal beef here as you see fit.


How much further do I have to go on before everyone realizes the folly of such self-centered logic? I join the PDGA for many reasons. Mine are not all the same as the next person's. But to allow me to pick and choose what benefits I want to or not want to pay for and then come up with my 'total' is ridiculous. Those we have put in charge of running the organization and advancing the sport have to make decisions on what the funds that are available go to. These decisions are based on the overall good of the sport. Some of these efforts will directly affect me, some of them will not. But I am comfortable that they are going to a common overall good, and that my contribution for such is for the better 'whole' of the sport. To separate things out and make them 'optional' like the DG Journal is just poor shortsighted thinking.

Come on, BOD, make decisions as to what is providing value to the overall objectives and proceed accordingly. If you feel that the mag isn't adding benefit, then end the relationship. If you feel it does (and I do), then take steps to support it. This 'let the membership pick and choose' approach is a cop out and shows an overall lack of leadership. You've basically killed the benefit by reducing its current level of funding without having the stones to come out and make it a BOD decision. "Let the players choose!" Yeah, right. This approach would kill just about every major initiative that the PDGA has going. Pro Wolds, Marshalls, NTs, IDGC? All gone just because 12,000 of the current members don't directly benefit and many would choose not to contribute if given a 'menu choice' renewal option. The short sighted "I can save $20 on my renewal which equals 2 cases of beer" self centered approach would win for too high of a percentage of members.

I am under the impression we are electing 'leaders', not followers of a few (in relation to the overall current membership total) loud dissenting message board voices.

is hyperbole a feature or a benefit? :D

Either, but only if you choose it when you renew next year.

which magazine should we support?
which online video company should get financial assistance from the PDGA?
which producer of television content should we incubate?
which disc golf course complex should we fund?

and what should we tell the others that don't get a share of the fundage pie?

The BOD should choose the ones that they feel will provide the best value (quality, service, price and all the rest that goes into these types of evaluations) for the membership and the overall growth of the sport. As for the others, they are told, "Sorry that your bid wasn't accepted, but we look forward to hearing from you the next time this service is evaluated."

Basic business, not that hard. You have limited funds, and you are tasked with making the most of them for the betterment of the membership and sport.

which magazine should we support?
which online video company should get financial assistance from the PDGA?
which producer of television content should we incubate?
which disc golf course complex should we fund?

and what should we tell the others that don't get a share of the fundage pie?



I can answer all of these for you.

The one the PDGA BOD picks as the best one for there goals. It might not be the cheapest. It might not be the one everyone expects.

I think this thread is pretty silly.

Why are all these people nickel and dimeing the PDGA over a GREAT magazine and nitpicking all these other issues?

I work as an assistant editor for television. Do you know how much money goes into a budget for ONE 30 minute episode of a show on Spike tv??

Do you know how much money I had to make the Skylands Classic dvd?
Lets just say that one episode is given about 600 times the amount that I had to make the 3 hour Skylands Classic.

What I mean by this is that the PDGA will be the ones that make disc golf big enough so that you can watch it on ESPN 2. Who else is going to do this?
SO...
If you ever want to see the sport on tv, STOP complaining over 50 dollars. Why would other (mulit million dollar) industries be interested in a sport that its own members don't think is worth 50 bucks a year????

I am not exaggerating on the 600 times, I just asked the producer what this week's budget is.

is the key word "bid"? if so, i couldnt agree more. encouraging competition for these services will grow the sport for the long term in a fair manner. we will benefit more from market forces and darwinism than from propping up an oligopoly or cartel of insiders.

Jen, yes, i have a general sense of how much it takes to create a 30 minute television episode. i do not doubt your 600 multiplier one bit.

just out of curiousity, how many DVDs did y'all produce and sell?

is the key word "bid"? if so, i couldnt agree more. encouraging competition for these services will grow the sport for the long term in a fair manner. we will benefit more from market forces and darwinism than from propping up an oligopoly or cartel of insiders.



But you didn't 'bid', you just took out a windmill without having an alternative in mind, Quixote. If you were to do it right, and if you determined that looking at the magazine was a pressing issue that needed immediate attention, you would have started an RFP process to solicit bids for the magazine with specs as the Board determined to be important. Instead, blind bias against the previous BOD leaders and the decisions that preceded you has resulted in a knee-jerk reaction that may have just killed the resource, not replaced it. Your description of the arrangement as an "oligopoly or cartel of insiders" just reinforces how strong this bias is.

I think one of the most important factors in choosing a magazine source is longevity and consistency. I wouldn't want to depend on something that was unproven and likely to fold after 2 years no matter how much money I could save during those 2 years.

is hyperbole a feature or a benefit? :D



definitely a feature... or a benefit...

But you didn't 'bid', you just took out a windmill without having an alternative in mind, Quixote. If you were to do it right, and if you determined that looking at the magazine was a pressing issue that needed immediate attention, you would have started an RFP process to solicit bids for the magazine with specs as the Board determined to be important. Instead, blind bias against the previous BOD leaders and the decisions that preceded you has resulted in a knee-jerk reaction that may have just killed the resource, not replaced it. Your description of the arrangement as an "oligopoly or cartel of insiders" just reinforces how strong this bias is.



WORD!

is the key word "bid"? if so, i couldnt agree more. encouraging competition for these services will grow the sport for the long term in a fair manner. we will benefit more from market forces and darwinism than from propping up an oligopoly or cartel of insiders.



But you didn't 'bid', you just took out a windmill without having an alternative in mind, Quixote. If you were to do it right, and if you determined that looking at the magazine was a pressing issue that needed immediate attention, you would have started an RFP process to solicit bids for the magazine with specs as the Board determined to be important. Instead, blind bias against the previous BOD leaders and the decisions that preceded you has resulted in a knee-jerk reaction that may have just killed the resource, not replaced it. Your description of the arrangement as an "oligopoly or cartel of insiders" just reinforces how strong this bias is.




The PDGA is putting out a bid to replace Chuck as it's main apologist. It's cheap, you don't get paid, but you get your derriere handed to you daily on the MB. Statistic skills a must. Please submit your bid by March 15th to the PDGA at [email protected]

The PDGA will select the winning bid by April 1, 2007. The winner will get full posting privledges, as long as they maintain their membership and a civil tongue [or at least keep their tongue in their cheek].

I replicated 1,000 dvds. I have not sold them all, yet. I made the dvd because I thought it was cool that a lot of top pros were going to be in my hometown, but I think that disc golf coverage should be on tv (someday!)

Anyway, I agree that in the upcoming years, the visual medias involving disc golf will get better and better because of the fact that more people want to be involved. The company with the best bid will get the work, making a better image for the sport... etc...

One of the truisms to developing the best schedule for Am or Pro Worlds is, if players in each division are equally dissatisfied, that's when you know you've balanced the tradeoffs fairly and likely have the best schedule under the circumstances.



So your belief is that 50% of the membership voting that they are unsatisfied with what they are getting for their dues and fees is acceptable? Perhaps this would explain why 78%* of PDGA numbers belong to non current members.

*Stat from the membership page link up top.

I do have other PDGA duties to address such as completing the invitation packets for Worlds which impacts a thousand members. But that only benefits less than 40% of pros so I suppose the other 60% might be dissatisfied...



Chuck,

So you're acknowledging PDGA Apologist is part of your gig, or stalking me is?

Actually, the contract with DGW ends at the end of this year. An RFP is being let for competitive bidding for a print vehicle for PDGA communication. DGW is free to submit a proposal, as are any other interested publishers. Subscription to this will be optional for joining and renewing members, starting in 2008. I wouldn't imagine that there will be much if any revenue loss or gain for the organization. All other membership features/benefits will continue and will need to be paid for. I, for one, will choose to subscribe to whatever magazine emerges from the RFP process.

Though I don't appreciate Pat's sideways inference that I'm part of an insider cartel, I know it's not true. It's the responsibility of the Board of Directors to get the best value for the members, and to respond to members needs. Several surveys over the past few years have indicated that a large number of members wish to opt out of the magazine, for whatever reason. Currently, we pay for an issue for nearly every member. With an option, we will only pay for those that want it.

I don't see where we "took out the windmill without something to replace it." We are going to need a new windmill. Maybe the same builder will build the new one, maybe someone else. Stay tuned for further developments.

Good Lord, I can't believe I just defended the sandaled one. :o

I replicated 1,000 dvds. I have not sold them all, yet.


Well one less to sell now :D

well, the RFP is being prepared at this very moment. The in-place contract and a desire to provide fair notice led to the decision being made when it was.

as far as bias goes, please check the facts. The motion was made by one of the longest serving BoD members ever. my agreement kinda nukes your completely unfair charge of "bias against the previous BOD leaders and the decisions that preceded you". the unanimity of the subsequent vote and the fact that this conversation precedes my tenure on the BoD by a couple years further debunks your characterization of my actions as "knee-jerk".

my reference to an oligopoly was intended to speak more towards overall policy rather than this specific case, although i can see how the context allows for other interpretations. to clear it up, i wish i could tell you how often a group, company, club, entity of some sort, comes to the Board asking for a cash handout. except under the most extremely compelling circumstances, i believe as a matter of policy that the sport is far better served by letting market forces determine which vendors survive.

the short of it is this - and this is stated very narrowly - it is not the responsibility of the PDGA to assure the financial survival of related service businesses. otherwise anyone could start some disc-related venture and run to the Association for funding. such funding would act as a barrier to entry to other similar ventures, and the end result is oligopoly. how do we tell new fund-seekers that we'll fund their competitors but not them?

btw, i do think a mag of some sort is needed. hopefully the RFP will attract the interest of a broad array of vendors, creative ideas and proposals. such an outcome will serve the Members and the sport well.

The concern is that if too many members opt out of the magazine, the funds will not be sufficient to maintain this resource and the resource will die. There won't be enough subscriptions to spread the production costs across. Thus, individual preference will possibly kill the tool regardless of who wins the bid.

Can I also opt out of paying for the IDGC? Pro Worlds? Marshals? Sure, they all may be a fine tool for promoting the sport, but when am I personally benefit from any of them? What value is it to me vs. having an extra $5 - $10 in my wallet at renewal time? So what if the efforts die because 50% don't see the overall value beyond that immediate $5? (Oh, just to clarify, I'm being facetious. I support the IDGC, Pro Worlds, Marshals and so on and what it they do for the sport, even if I may not get an immediate tangible personal benefit from them).

Jon, i am completely sincere when i state that to me you are one of the brightest beacons of light, reason and thoughtfulness we have in our sport. many people, and i put myself at the top of the list, would benefit from listening carefully when you speak or write.

now... hey!, whats wrong with agreeing with me? will 12545, 15177, 21163, or 14540 get on here right quick and tear you down for this incredible bias against me?... story at 11 :D

well, the RFP is being prepared at this very moment. The in-place contract and a desire to provide fair notice led to the decision being made when it was.

as far as bias goes, please check the facts. The motion was made by one of the longest serving BoD members ever. my agreement kinda nukes your completely unfair charge of "bias against the previous BOD leaders and the decisions that preceded you". the unanimity of the subsequent vote and the fact that this conversation precedes my tenure on the BoD by a couple years further debunks your characterization of my actions as "knee-jerk".

my reference to an oligopoly was intended to speak more towards overall policy rather than this specific case, although i can see how the context allows for other interpretations. to clear it up, i wish i could tell you how often a group, company, club, entity of some sort, comes to the Board asking for a cash handout. except under the most extremely compelling circumstances, i believe as a matter of policy that the sport is far better served by letting market forces determine which vendors survive.

the short of it is this - and this is stated very narrowly - it is not the responsibility of the PDGA to assure the financial survival of related service businesses. otherwise anyone could start some disc-related venture and run to the Association for funding. such funding would act as a barrier to entry to other similar ventures, and the end result is oligopoly. how do we tell new fund-seekers that we'll fund their competitors but not them?

btw, i do think a mag of some sort is needed. hopefully the RFP will attract the interest of a broad array of vendors, creative ideas and proposals. such an outcome will serve the Members and the sport well.



I believe in some cases that it is it is the responsibility of the PDGA to assure the financial survival of related services, if not the specific businesses. If we feel we need a mag to promote the sport, then we may have to figure out a way to support it. If we feel we need a Pro Worlds, then we have a responsibility. IDGC, the same.

Out of curiosity, what are the subscription numbers in this RFP? What is the expected percentage drop by making the magazine optional to the membership? 10%? 30%? At what level of subscription does responding to the RFP get less attractive to prospective bidders? At what level does the individual subscription price become so expensive that the membership that chooses to opt out climbs to 50%? Then 75%?

The issue here is that the DGWN magazine subsidy totals somewhere around $150,000, according to PDGA Financial info (http://www.pdga.com/documents/2007/0607FinancialDGWN81.pdf) and is the second largest expenditure (after employee salaries) for the PDGA each year. I think a lot of people don't understand why that number is so large, and feel that money could be spent more wisely.

pondering

tim, those are excellant quesions. i do not have the answers, nor does anyone else. i have not seen the draft RFP, so i do not know what subscription base is planned. i freely acknowledge that allowing Members to choose this benefit a la carte adds a substantial level of complexity to the whole equation.

Perhaps, but then just kill the membership funding and see if the market will fill the void. If it is determined that we don't get value for the funds invested, move on. This 'optional' situation just dodges the issue.

The issue here is that the DGWN magazine subsidy totals somewhere around $150,000, according to PDGA Financial info (http://www.pdga.com/documents/2007/0607FinancialDGWN81.pdf) and is the second largest expenditure (after employee salaries) for the PDGA each year. I think a lot of people don't understand why that number is so large, and feel that money could be spent more wisely.



Well, as someone deeply involved and experienced in publishing, if that figure represents the costs to the PDGA of a colorful, glossy magazine, including content creation and editing, produced in quantities of more than 10,000 at a time, four times a year, and mailed to members - that's an incredible deal.

We're talking more than 50,000 individual copies, delivered, for $160,000. That's something like $3.20 each?

My employer's 4x a year publication to 5,500 people, ff a 72-page, black and white, non-glossy, with the only color being on the covers, costs us over $200,000 per year. Which works out to about $9 per copy.

Hmm. Sounds like more, if it ain't broke, don't "fix" it, to me. Maybe the solution would be to clearly explain the costs, and what a deal it is? I mean, I'm paying close to $10 each now for some of the paperbook books I read.

I wonder, current board members Pat and Steve, how much research went into looking at the costs to associations of similar publications as this decision was being made?

So you're acknowledging PDGA Apologist is part of your gig, or stalking me is?




Only as a willing volunteer among others. I wasn't scheduled to watch you until I posted.

be careful with the comparisons, Terry. you dumped heavily on me for making comparisons that were much more relevant than the ones you constantly make.

your comments to Hawk are offensive to me because they seem to attack Hawk for being Hawk rather than addressing his arguments.

Well, coming from someone who thinks that our membership dues ought to purchase a free membership for Hawker, it's obvious that you have a higher consideration of his pseudo-arguments and negatively misleading statements than maybe, oh, one or two other people. Which would make it easy to say something about Hawker's postings that might offend you, I guess.

Meanwhile, PDGA board member Pat Brenner, how much research was done into the costs to other associations of the production of their magazines and journals per unit before the recent decisions were made based on some members not understanding why the budget line is $160,000? And how much effort was made to explain to those people what that cost represents and to put it into the context of the costs to other associations?

Terry, I thought you were opposed to ad hominem rebuttals?

I am. That wasn't.

So you're acknowledging PDGA Apologist is part of your gig, or stalking me is?




Only as a willing volunteer among others. I wasn't scheduled to watch you until I posted.



I knew there was someone watching me!

i suggest you ask Theo, as he led the charge on this one. apparently this has been discussed for years. i am looking forward to reviewing previous minutes to capture your insights from when you were on the BoD and working thru the same issue.

So you're acknowledging PDGA Apologist is part of your gig, or stalking me is?




Only as a willing volunteer among others. I wasn't scheduled to watch you until I posted.



Chuck could you PM me the schedule? I want to make sure I don't miss any Hot Tub time, or the rare Oz appearance.

pondering



I know that 78% former member figure is pretty damning especially considering that some of the current members are not currently alive.

Chuck could you PM me the schedule? I want to make sure I don't miss any Hot Tub time, or the rare Oz appearance.



It's like a security video cam rotation. Unless you can see the lit red light, you'll never know...

security cams with red lights are the foshizzle. the lights show you exactly where to focus the microwave

pondering



I know that 78% former member figure is pretty damning especially considering that some of the current members are not currently alive.


Isn't that a stat better served at the end of the year in the November/December time frame than served at the beginning of the year when many areas are still snowed in and there has been no big tourney locally for many to get the lolly-gaggers to renew?

Anyway, numbers go back to what, 1984? If you watch the typical player progression it seems to resemble an OCD curve as people discover the game, start to get into it, get a little better and discover the joys of fondling plastic, discover tournaments and start to obsess over those and join the PDGA, reach their potential and realize they'll never see a 1000 rating nor be competitive in pro, and then fade away and quit renewing because they've moved on to something else, like working too many hours or raising kids or both.

I for one don't expect a 100% retention rate throughout history and throughout time, and even 50% back to 1984 seems like it would really be pushing it. But I do think we should give the numbers a fair shake and look at end-of-year renewal percentage.

In fact, the only renewal rate that I can think of that makes any real sense to look at would be the number/percentage of active/paid members in 2005 who renewed in 2006. And then 2004 who renewed in 2005, etc etc. Those numbers might mean something if we could figure out why people don't renew. If they hate the way the PDGA does business, then we can do something. If they got married and had kids and don't play frisbee anymore, then there's not much we can do.

we should have sterilized them while we had the chance

So much for renewing as a way to show support for the sport regardless of your participation level. On one of these threads earlier The Apologist stated that as something one got for their fees. Apparently a lot of people lost interest in supporting The Greater Good.

So much for renewing as a way to show support for the sport regardless of your participation level. On one of these threads earlier The Apologist stated that as something one got for their fees. Apparently a lot of people lost interest in supporting The Greater Good.


Per what methodology? Comparing the number of people who have ever been a PDGA member since 1984 to the number of people who are current as of March 8th of this year? That's pretty fair.

How many NFL players are "current" compared to the number who have ever been in the league? That sport must really suck to have such a tiny "retention rate"! :eek:

You're comparing an actual sport like football with a game described as something you can do for a lifetime?

the joys of fondling plastic[/b] discover tournaments and start to obsess over those and join the PDGA, reach their potential and realize they'll never see a 1000 rating nor be competitive in pro, and then fade away and quit renewing because they've moved on to something else, like working too many hours or raising kids or both.

I for one don't expect a 100% retention rate throughout history and throughout time, and even 50% back to 1984 seems like it would really be pushing it. But I do think we should give the numbers a fair shake and look at end-of-year renewal percentage.

In fact, the only renewal rate that I can think of that makes any real sense to look at would be the number/percentage of active/paid members in 2005 who renewed in 2006. And then 2004 who renewed in 2005, etc etc. Those numbers might mean something if we could figure out why people don't renew. If they hate the way the PDGA does business, then we can do something. If they got married and had kids and don't play frisbee anymore, then there's not much we can do.



I am so glad to hear that I am not the only one. For the last few months I have felt kind of ashamed but now knowing there are others suffering through the same thing. I feel so much better now excuse me, me and my KC Whippets need some us time. :o:o:o

You're comparing an actual sport like football with a game described as something you can do for a lifetime?


You are comparing the number of people who have ever been a member of the PDGA throughout the history of the universe with the number of people who are current before the season even starts in many parts of the country? And trying to force a conclusion from that comparison?

An RFP is a solid idea which shows me that we are on the road to becoming more credible and professional as an organization.

At my company, we establish (and publish) expected standards and requirements for whomever wishes to submit a proposal for business.
If Company ABC has the credentials, they are welcome to submit a proposal.
All acceptable proposals are reviewed, and small tests are done to make sure each Submitter can actually follow through on promises. Only after that is a decision made.

I have seen other disc golf publications over the years. One or two were/are really high quality. But I do not believe any of them would be ready to step up and deliver the consistently high quality product offered by Disc Golf World. An RFP would be the right way to find out either way.

In reviewing RFPs, I would hope the BOD would take into consideration:
-independent financial stability
-quality of content for players
-quality as a marketing tool for sponsors
-mass delivery capability
-trusted communication vehicle for PDGA
-potential longevity
-able to commit for no less then 3 years

Just my two cents.
---------------
Also . . .

To those who paid for Hawk's membership:
THANK YOU! THANK YOU! THANK YOU!
You've succeeded in nurturing a demon seed planted in the womb of mother PDGA. Soon we'll have babies with rabies.

In fact, the only renewal rate that I can think of that makes any real sense to look at would be the number/percentage of active/paid members in 2005 who renewed in 2006.



Rhett,

Since you asked....

Here are the percentage of lost members per year. Comparing previous years current, minus the newbies who signed up the next year.

2000: 20% non renewal of 1999 members
2001: 19% non renewal of 2000 members
2002: 22% non renewal of 2001 members
2003: 20% non renewal of 2002 members
2004: 23% non renewal of 2003 members
2005: 18% non renewal of 2004 members
2006: 16% non renewal of 2005 members

Average retention loss over the past seven years: 20%

For a sport that calls itself a game for life that people can play into their 70's and beyond (unlike Pro Football to use your comparison) that's not very good.

For an organization that acknowledges that many people are members to show support for the sport by being members regardless of their actual competitive Association play (which we know is about six or so events a year) why would members stop tossing money in for the Greater Good?

Do they not feel that they are getting value for their support...as 48% of the current voters in your "objective" poll are indicating? Why do they not sense they are getting value? Is it the drug issue? The competitive structure?

So... the retention percentage stays roughly the same, but doesn't the number of members each year go up? That means a greater number of people are being retained even if the percentage doesn't change. I could be wrong here, that's why I started with a question.

Also, for 1 in 5 people to not renew doesn't seem that bad to me. This is, as many point out, an association after all and not a group of pure professionals. There's lots of reasons a person might not renew, dissatisfaction is not the only possible reason.

Hey, we're trending to the better, with our retention rate dropping substantially over the last two years! Nice job, let's keep it going!

It's amazing how the story can be painted based on the attitude of the person interpreting the statistics. Especially if the interpretation is 'simple' (no comparison to similar organizations, no evaluation to determine what would be a 'good' number vs. a bad, and so on).

In fact, the only renewal rate that I can think of that makes any real sense to look at would be the number/percentage of active/paid members in 2005 who renewed in 2006.



Rhett,

Since you asked....

Here are the percentage of lost members per year. Comparing previous years current, minus the newbies who signed up the next year.

2000: 20% non renewal of 1999 members
2001: 19% non renewal of 2000 members
2002: 22% non renewal of 2001 members
2003: 20% non renewal of 2002 members
2004: 23% non renewal of 2003 members
2005: 18% non renewal of 2004 members
2006: 16% non renewal of 2005 members

Average retention loss over the past seven years: 20%

For a sport that calls itself a game for life that people can play into their 70's and beyond (unlike Pro Football to use your comparison) that's not very good.

For an organization that acknowledges that many people are members to show support for the sport by being members regardless of their actual competitive Association play (which we know is about six or so events a year) why would members stop tossing money in for the Greater Good?

Do they not feel that they are getting value for their support...as 48% of the current voters in your "objective" poll are indicating? Why do they not sense they are getting value? Is it the drug issue? The competitive structure?



Hawk, you've been taking lessons from Pat! Please explain to me why this isn't good? What are you comparing it to?

If you're going to conclude that the PDGA's performance is bad you can't simply pull numbers out and say they're bad. You have to compare them to something, say... softball, or curling. Of course, the more similar the sport the more relevant the comparison.

BTW - you might check with Pat, I've challenged him on these types of comparisons in the past. He may actually be working on this and have some information for you. Oh yeah, if you find out that our retention is better on average than other similar "sports" you will let us know won't you...

I would say we're doing pretty well if what we offer to join is enough to retain 80% of the people who try it. If I think of all the things I've tried over the years like new restaurants, women, sports, etc. I would say I've stayed with much less than 80% of them for one year let alone several. I haven't yet considered joining the National Scrabble Association even though it's just $20 and I've played since maybe age 6. If I get the bug to try competition sometime and have to join the NSA, who knows whether there's an 80% chance I would renew the following year?

I can take a swing at it. Not finding anything on an initial search of their web page, but I can give the Reasons to Join the UPA (http://www.upa.org/membership/reasonstojoinUPA) and information on the Costs and Benefits (http://www.upa.org/membership) . Oh, the magazine is included in the membership, and the reasons to join look very similar to ours in many aspects.

More to come, I'll drop them an email asking for the information if I don't find anything online.


Oh, a Google search reveals that the retention rate for the Usability Professionals' Association (UPA) was up to 50% in 2004, and they were pretty happy about that. ;) I guess a 50% retention among the short attention span geek crowd is good! (Before anyone hits me on this, I'm an IT pro, so I'm poking fun at us, not at them!)

I would say we're doing pretty well if what we offer to join is enough to retain 80% of the people who try it. If I think of all the things I've tried over the years like new restaurants, women, sports, etc. I would say I've stayed with much less than 80% of them for one year let alone several. I haven't yet considered joining the National Scrabble Association even though it's just $20 and I've played since maybe age 6. If I get the bug to try competition sometime and have to join the NSA, who knows whether there's an 80% chance I would renew the following year?



Sorry Chuck but I can't resist, how much does it cost to join the Professional Women's Association... :D I know, poor at best.

I can take a swing at it. Not finding anything on an initial search of their web page, but I can give the Reasons to Join the UPA (http://www.upa.org/membership/reasonstojoinUPA) and information on the Costs and Benefits (http://www.upa.org/membership) . Oh, the magazine is included in the membership, and the reasons to join look very similar to ours in many aspects.

More to come, I'll drop them an email asking for the information if I don't find anything online.


Oh, a Google search reveals that the retention rate for the Usability Professionals' Association (UPA) was up to 50% in 2004, and they were pretty happy about that. ;) I guess a 50% retention among the short attention span geek crowd is good! (Before anyone hits me on this, I'm an IT pro, so I'm poking fun at us, not at them!)



Thanks for looking. Hmmmmm! not sure if I should be worried about the results of such an analysis. However, this is where you really learn if you're going down the right path.

BTW - thanks for asking Brian!

Info:

http://www.acce.org/uploadedFiles/Publications/Publication_Blocks/Sect%20I-An%20Overview%20of%20Retention_Sample%20PPS.pdf

Interesting site, no info:

http://www.pellucidcorp.com/services/customer.html

Lots of stuff on how to enhance retention:

http://www.suefroggatt.com/featureretention.html

http://www.nd.edu/~sao/studentleadership/officerresources/development/retention.shtml

Rugby 50% annual turnover:

http://americanrugbynews.com/2006/05/09/member-retention-an-unresolved-issue

Health club retention rates:

http://www.sportseconomics.com/Images/PDF/SE_Perspectivevol3.pdf

Thanks again!

I think this 80% is somewhat misleading. I don't know if that % is good or not, but it is only one way to look at things. There are others.

One is to look at:

current members/total available member pool (current/total current and non-current who are still alive); or

current members/total available disc golfer pool (cuurent/total people who play disc golf).

Once again, if I had these %s, I wouldn't be able to conclude how great, or bad they are, but I would certainly be hesitant to matter-of-factly crow about them, like some here routinely do.

Apparently Curling does have a retention problem:

http://media.curling.ca/contentImages/File/Business%20of%20Curling/Operations%20Manual/Chapter_H_Membership.pdf

here is a comparison of the UPA and PDGA on financial measures. i dont have any access to UPA's membership data, so i cant help out on that comparison.

it will be interesting to see how people interpret the following numbers. dollars are from the most recent published IRS 990. Peer percentile rankings are from the collection more than 1300 peer organizations as determined by the IRS (UPA is indeed a peer organization according to IRS):

<table border="1"><tr><td>Ratio</td><td>990 line</td><td>UPA</td><td>PDGA
</td></tr><tr><td>Total Revenue</td><td>.</td><td>$1,056,509</td><td>$730,096
</td></tr><tr><td>Total Expenses</td><td>.</td><td>$893,841</td><td>$764,787
</td></tr><tr><td>Total Assets</td><td>.</td><td>$694,100</td><td>$131,364
</td></tr><tr><td>Total Liabilities</td><td>.</td><td>$161,477</td><td>$0
</td></tr><tr><td>Net Assets</td><td>.</td><td>$532,623</td><td>$131,364
</td></tr><tr><td>Program Ratio</td><td>.</td><td>90%</td><td>79%
</td></tr><tr><td>Debt Ratio</td><td>.</td><td>23%</td><td>0%
</td></tr><tr><td>Fundraising Ratio</td><td>.</td><td>5%</td><td>0%
</td></tr><tr><td>Contributions/Grant Ratio</td><td>.</td><td>12%</td><td>0%
</td></tr><tr><td>Other Income Ratio</td><td>.</td><td>67%</td><td>56%
</td></tr><tr><td>Program Service Ratio</td><td>.</td><td>21%</td><td>44%
</td></tr><tr><td>.</td><td>.</td><td>.</td><td>.
</td></tr><tr><td>.</td><td>.</td><td>peer percentile</td><td>
</td></tr><tr><td>Total Revenue</td><td>.</td><td>>90</td><td>>~90
</td></tr><tr><td>Total Expenses</td><td>.</td><td>>90</td><td>>90
</td></tr><tr><td>Total Assets</td><td>.</td><td>>90</td><td>50-75
</td></tr><tr><td>Total Liabilities</td><td>.</td><td><75</td><td><50 or >75
</td></tr><tr><td>Net Assets</td><td>.</td><td>>90</td><td>50-75
</td></tr><tr><td>Program Ratio</td><td>.</td><td><50</td><td>>~25
</td></tr><tr><td>Debt Ratio</td><td>.</td><td>>75</td><td>0-50
</td></tr><tr><td>Fundraising Ratio</td><td>.</td><td>>75</td><td><50
</td></tr><tr><td>Contributions/Grant Ratio</td><td>.</td><td>>50</td><td><25
</td></tr><tr><td>Other Income Ratio</td><td>.</td><td>50-75</td><td>50-75
</td></tr><tr><td>Program Service Ratio</td><td>.</td><td><50</td><td>50-75
</td></tr><tr><td>.</td><td>.</td><td>.
</td></tr><tr><td>Program Ratio</td><td>17</td><td>$893,841</td><td>$764,787
</td></tr><tr><td>.</td><td>13</td><td>$808,804</td><td>$600,778
</td></tr><tr><td>.</td><td>13/17</td><td>90%</td><td>79%
</td></tr><tr><td>.</td><td>.</td><td>.</td><td>.
</td></tr><tr><td>Debt Ratio</td><td>59</td><td>$694,100</td><td>$131,364
</td></tr><tr><td>.</td><td>66</td><td>$161,477</td><td>$0
</td></tr><tr><td>.</td><td>66/59</td><td>23%</td><td>0%
</td></tr><tr><td>.</td><td>.</td><td>.</td><td>.
</td></tr><tr><td>Fundraising Ratio</td><td>15</td><td>5739</td><td>0
</td></tr><tr><td>.</td><td>1d</td><td>127362</td><td>890
</td></tr><tr><td>.</td><td></td><td>5%</td><td>0%
</td></tr><tr><td>.</td><td></td><td>
</td></tr><tr><td>Contributions/Grant Ratio</td><td>1d</td><td>$127,362</td><td>$890
</td></tr><tr><td>.</td><td>12</td><td>$1,056,509</td><td>$730,096
</td></tr><tr><td>.</td><td>1d/12</td><td>12%</td><td>0%
</td></tr><tr><td>.</td><td>.</td><td>.</td><td>.
</td></tr><tr><td>Other Income Ratio</td><td>4</td><td>$9,209</td><td>$2,370
</td></tr><tr><td>.</td><td>3</td><td>$684,273</td><td>$408,970
</td></tr><tr><td>.</td><td>9</td><td>$0</td><td>$0
</td></tr><tr><td>.</td><td>10</td><td>$13,541</td><td>$0
</td></tr><tr><td>.</td><td>11</td><td>$0</td><td>$0
</td></tr><tr><td>.</td><td>sum</td><td>$707,023</td><td>$411,340
</td></tr><tr><td>.</td><td>12</td><td>$1,056,509</td><td>$730,096
</td></tr><tr><td>.</td><td>sum/12</td><td>67%</td><td>56%
</td></tr><tr><td>.</td><td>.</td><td>.</td><td>.
</td></tr><tr><td>Program Service Ratio</td><td>2</td><td>$222,124</td><td>$317,866
</td></tr><tr><td>.</td><td>12</td><td>$1,056,509</td><td>$730,096
</td></tr><tr><td>.</td><td></td><td>21%</td><td>44%
</td></tr><tr><td>.</td><td>.</td><td>.</td><td>.
</td></tr><tr><td>Expenses to revenue</td><td></td><td>0.846032547</td><td>1.047515669
</td></tr><tr><td></tr></td></table>

have fun

YMCA membership retention rate is about 25% over 5 years.

Look at the bottom of this page:

http://www.ymcaofportage.org/membershipmain.htm

retracted. not worth the bother.

retracted. not worth the bother.



My feelings are hurt. I'm not worth Pat's bother. BTW - how much is a bother worth these days?

In fact, the only renewal rate that I can think of that makes any real sense to look at would be the number/percentage of active/paid members in 2005 who renewed in 2006.



Rhett,

Since you asked....

Here are the percentage of lost members per year. Comparing previous years current, minus the newbies who signed up the next year.

2000: 20% non renewal of 1999 members
2001: 19% non renewal of 2000 members
2002: 22% non renewal of 2001 members
2003: 20% non renewal of 2002 members
2004: 23% non renewal of 2003 members
2005: 18% non renewal of 2004 members
2006: 16% non renewal of 2005 members

Average retention loss over the past seven years: 20%

For a sport that calls itself a game for life that people can play into their 70's and beyond (unlike Pro Football to use your comparison) that's not very good.


Why do you say that, Hawk? I have no idea what comparable organizations are at on this, but I think an 80% retention rate from year to year sounds fantastic. I didn't think it would be that high. This "sport" or game or whatever you want to call it certainly follows a "fad" cycle for many players, so 80% seems very good.

The next set of data I would like to see is 2 and 3 year retention rates for new memebers. That is, new members in 2004 who renewed in 2005 and 2006, 2003 in 2004&2005, etc, and new in 2003 who renewed in 2004-5-6.

So far Hwak has been trying to paint a very troubling picture yet the renewal percentages don't seem to bear that out. I would even venture to say that Hawk is way off base and is in facr wrong.

I think it is great to see 80% retention rate . I would also think that it would be MUCH HIGHER and our number of members would be MUCH BETTER if the fee to belong would be lower .
Just my 2 cents .

I would even venture to say that Hawk is way off base and is in fact wrong.



Quit feeding the troll. Even when you prove a troll wrong, it will not prevent him from continuing to post erroneous assumptions and conclusions.

Quit feeding the troll.


But I like it when he says the PDGA has a 80% year-to-year retention rate and then tries to say that is bad. :D

Quit feeding the troll.


But I like it when he says the PDGA has a 80% year-to-year retention rate and then tries to say that is bad. :D



Don't have to stop feeding the troll, just feed him Brodifacoum.

80% is very good. On top of that, the last few years were even better.

Now I wonder what the 2006 to 2007 will look like. I bet it will be around 70-75% because of the increase of dues.

"if what we offer to join is enough to retain 80% of the people who try it." - PDGA Apologist

actually for a numbers guy you are drastically misleading people. if there are 40,000 numbers or so, and only 10, 000 members or so, we only retain 25% of people who have joined so far. hmmmm.

i stick to my opinion the pdga is growing in spite of itself and could do a much better job of getting the average joe on the course into "the association"

Read.....the......thread.....

I understand the percentages. Just keeping the dialog simple.

Perhaps it's heresy to say so but the PDGA is an association for disc golfers who want to play in or keep up with what's happening in organized competition, and is not intended for every disc golfer. Much of the "free" things our members provide for the larger disc golf community such as rules, tech standards, message board, course directory, and course evaluations are perceived as needed elements to support competition so nonmembers currently get those free as an offshoot of PDGA efforts. Yes, there are also those who support the association for the betterment of the sport without always getting their money's worth in competition benefits each year.

So, the PDGA is for disc golfers who have those interests. We want to attract and retain those that have them and do a good job with those services. If 20-30 times as many people play disc golf as our number of members (vendor estimates), I don't think it's worth losing sleep over. Likewise, those who have been members will float in and out of having those needs from year to year which is reflected in the retention rate.

Is 80% retention per annum good enough?

Let's compare:

Above I gave a link for Rugby 50% retention per annum.

Bowling: 73% retention per annum.

http://www.bowl.com/downloads/pdf/USBC/ALH/USBC_Leadership_Hndbk_Chap14.pdf

Tennis clubs with stong member relations hit 67.4%

and fitness clubs hit 64.4%

http://cms.ihrsa.org/IHRSA/viewPage.cfm?pageId=1935


I'm still looking, and I should mention that I've seen some retention rates that are higher (in the 85% to 95% range, but none in sporting clubs or activities).

[Perhaps it's the name, perhaps just the perception. Maybe if it was something like the World Disc Golf Organization ...



Several years ago the current members were polled at election time. Which do you prefer: Players DG Assoc (PDGA) or Professional DG Assoc (PDGA) ?

Lots of orgs maintain their identity/brand/acronym while evolving what that acronym stands for.

In the case of PDGA, 95% of those who voted indicated they preferred Professional DGA ...

PDGAHQ



if you polled the membership and asked them if they'd rather be known as a 910 rated player or a 1000 rated player -- 95% would probably choose the latter. (even though it wouldn't literally be so accurate)

wouldn't there be real advantages to separating the top Pros from everyone else and making them the PDGA and then having an affiliate organization like was proposed above that supports the top Pros and the growth of the National Tour? i know that sort of happens under the present configuration, but it isn't like we have catapulted the NT into the national spotlight following the status quo so perhaps we should consider new ideas...

Here are the percentage of lost members per year. Comparing previous years current, minus the newbies who signed up the next year.

2000: 20% non renewal of 1999 members
2001: 19% non renewal of 2000 members
2002: 22% non renewal of 2001 members
2003: 20% non renewal of 2002 members
2004: 23% non renewal of 2003 members
2005: 18% non renewal of 2004 members
2006: 16% non renewal of 2005 members

Average retention loss over the past seven years: 20%




average ANNUAL retention loss is 20% -- but if we keep 80% of the membership going into the following year, how many do we keep 2, 3, 4, and 5 years down the road? how often does our membership total double given that disc golf is growing as is the number of disc golf courses? have we kept pace with the growth of recreational disc golf or are we failing to attract and retain the growing base? maybe we do need a separate organization that caters to amateur and casual players and a separate association for the top Pros and the NT... the two would be affialiated of course (worship of the status quo and fear of change notwithstanding).

Don't know if it's so much am and pro as it is organized competition and friendly sport. There needs to be an organization that provides some service to those not so interested in organized competition, but still interested in seeing the sport as a whole grow.

gary meet the pdga. pdga...gary.

gary meet the pdga. pdga...gary.



Actually, Gary is right on. I see your point dscmn, but take for example HFDS League. There is a group of players in Houston that play League and non-sanctioned casual events (more on this later) that want nothing to do with the PDGA. They find PDGA events to be stressful, and way too structured. They obviously want some kind of structured event since they play league and non-sanctioned tournaments.

The best example of non-sanctioned tournaments that get these players out is the Moffitt Show. Very casual, and it plays with a five card bounty. You get five cards, each that has a different non-standard throw. For example, roller, forehand shot, offhand putt, etc.

Now this tournament is well attended and the crowd includes only a handful who play PDGA events. The tournament includes an auction that raises more money for PDGA events than almost anything else HFDS does. Oh yeah, the culmination is at a bar with steaks on the grill and a putting zone!

Even at a different level there is... well was, the Texas 10. Non-sanctioned, average payout (with a big bonus payout at the final and a lot of mini events like a $30,000 hole in one competition, and a lot of money going to the Lance Armstrong Foundation.

This event averaged over 200 players per tournament during it's heyday (the last year petered out due to the fact that the TD was wrapping it up). People came out of the woodwork to play these events because they were a blast and well run. You got Pros out, but they were the lower level Pros (with the exception of Des and Yeti who came to the finals, if I remember correctly).

PDGA events are great, but there is a huge opening for something else. Call it the ADGA if you will. The events would be more casual with more give-aways, more food, more beer and more mini events. The very structure that we're reaching for to give us credibility excludes this group. I'm betting there's more money and more growth with that group than even the great growth the PDGA has had.

Here are the percentage of lost members per year. Comparing previous years current, minus the newbies who signed up the next year.

2000: 20% non renewal of 1999 members
2001: 19% non renewal of 2000 members
2002: 22% non renewal of 2001 members
2003: 20% non renewal of 2002 members
2004: 23% non renewal of 2003 members
2005: 18% non renewal of 2004 members
2006: 16% non renewal of 2005 members

Average retention loss over the past seven years: 20%




average ANNUAL retention loss is 20% -- but if we keep 80% of the membership going into the following year, how many do we keep 2, 3, 4, and 5 years down the road? how often does our membership total double given that disc golf is growing as is the number of disc golf courses? have we kept pace with the growth of recreational disc golf or are we failing to attract and retain the growing base? maybe we do need a separate organization that caters to amateur and casual players and a separate association for the top Pros and the NT... the two would be affialiated of course (worship of the status quo and fear of change notwithstanding).



I agree with your point, but on a separate note, finding an approximation of retention length is easy enough, If we lose 20% a year assume that number spreads across all classes, that is those with the PDGA 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, etc. years and you can get an average retention rate. That number won't be true because those that stay around tend to do so for a long time, but you'll get a "feel" for what's going on.

I'm willing to guess that we aren't keeping up with recreational disc golf. That may actually be good. Take the PGA, what is the frequency of PGA golfers to rec golfers? I bet it's huge. I'm betting the gap in disc golf is much lower. The more casual players out there buying 2-5 discs, the more money that Innova/Discraft make, the more they sponsor tournaments, EDGE, etc.

We're still too young to be worrying about differences in growth, any growth is good growth.

gary meet the pdga. pdga...gary.



I think we've met. The ams that make up the majority of the PDGA are probably just as interested in what the PDGA offers in the way of competitive golf as any of the Pros. The moint we are missing is that there are a lot more players that are not that interested in that level of competitive play, but are interested in doing something to support the growth of the sport. I'm not a good person to ask about what a membership is worth because I've been an Ace club member almost as long as the Ace club has been an option. I already pay double the new Pro rate as an Am, but I think there should be a lower rate somewhere below the current full competition rates. Not quite the same benefits, but still a feeling of being a part of the PDGA and helping the sport grow.

a partial solution might be as simple as something proposed a while back by a southern nationals member. although he was run out of here pretty darn quickly he made a good point that would benefit many in the disc golf community and the pdga at the same time. currently, the lvdc here runs 12 events a year, all unsanctioned. it would be nice to have pdga support for these small monthly get-togethers. additionally, the pdga could gain support from these players, win-win. i think something in the range of $1 per player is plenty and a $100 series sanctioning fee...perhaps.

i was just kidding about the introduction, but i suspect you knew that already. i'm curious, why the concern about the "growth" of the sport? i think it's growing just fine on its own. maybe too fine.

a partial solution might be as simple as something proposed a while back by a southern nationals member. although he was run out of here pretty darn quickly he made a good point that would benefit many in the disc golf community and the pdga at the same time. currently, the lvdc here runs 12 events a year, all unsanctioned. it would be nice to have pdga support for these small monthly get-togethers. additionally, the pdga could gain support from these players, win-win. i think something in the range of $1 per player is plenty and a $100 series sanctioning fee...perhaps.

i was just kidding about the introduction, but i suspect you knew that already. i'm curious, why the concern about the "growth" of the sport? i think it's growing just fine on its own. maybe too fine.



This comes up frequently as an issue. There are a lot of semi-Pros out there who think they should be able to make a living at disc golf :D. One of the complaints is that if the PDGA grew the sport better they could make more money... Of course they never say it that way. :D

I like the notion of two tiers of sanctioning but I suspect some would say C tiers or X tiers are supposed to accomplish that. I wonder if for a guy throwing a small un-sanctioned event, the whole registration and keep track of things seems like too much of a burden?

One thought I've bounced around some players here is an online registration tool for TDs where they could enter basic information and set up their tournament. There are some tools like this around but nothing too robust. You'd want it to be hyper-simple so that any TD could quickly and easily set it up. Another thought might be to set up a cyclic tool for these regular events, you could even provide a tool for the TD to track things and easily get them up here on this site. Consequently, you make his life easier and bring the people who play in those events to this site.

40 players X 12 events + $100 is $580. (fingers crossed on the math) you seem to be saying that it costs more than that to "process" 12 events? sounds like a job for a programmer.

40 players X 12 events + $100 is $580. (fingers crossed on the math) you seem to be saying that it costs more than that to "process" 12 events? sounds like a job for a programmer.



Sorry I wasn't clear enough or maybe I don't understand what you're saying (I'm a little slower than some). I think that TDs might view the process of sending information to the PDGA and getting the results back to them as too much hassle. The cash they handle is the same either way. For it to be worth thier while you need to give them a tool that makes managing the affair easier than doing it on their own.


I agree that having a programmer set this up for you is key!

I have to admit, I'm not sure what your numbers mean, but it's entirely possible I missed something. Is that the revenue from the event?

40 players X 12 events + $100 is $580. (fingers crossed on the math) you seem to be saying that it costs more than that to "process" 12 events? sounds like a job for a programmer.



Sorry I wasn't clear enough or maybe I don't understand what you're saying (I'm a little slower than some). I think that TDs might view the process of sending information to the PDGA and getting the results back to them as too much hassle. The cash they handle is the same either way. For it to be worth thier while you need to give them a tool that makes managing the affair easier than doing it on their own.


I agree that having a programmer set this up for you is key!

I have to admit, I'm not sure what your numbers mean, but it's entirely possible I missed something. Is that the revenue from the event?

well yes, from the series, based on 40 person fields. sorry. i agree the process could be made easier from the td perspective, but having multiple individuals share the td chores makes it more manageable.

my question is why doesn't the pdga want this business? my numbers were there to show the revenue, how much does it cost to process an event?

The thing is that offering something like that has to be offset from how much it will take away from existing revenue when all of the TDs in a given state/region take advantage of the option and call all of their events a series and request the series rate. Instead of gaining revenue from 50-60 new events, you will lose a big chunk from 100-200 existing events that that figure out they can take advantage of the new rule by changing their name or sending $2 a head to the SNDG and becoming an SNDG event too.

gary,

do you think then that there is a problem with the pdga product that so many would be so willing to jump to the lowest tier available? is it just human nature?

do you think it is possible for the pdga to "incentivize" the tiers so that there is intrinsic value in running a higher tier event? just some thoughts, thanks for your replies.

kevin

It's not "jumping on the lowest tier". It's the SN asking for special treatment that no other series in the country receives or even asks for.

Okay, so it's not "The SN" asking for special treatment, it someone from SN country asking for special treatment for the SN.

Why should the SoCal Series pay more for sanctioning than the SN? We shouldn't.

If the SN doesn't think it's worth the money to be PDGA sanctioned, then they should choose to not be sanctioned. Which I think they do. It's their right. Just because they choose that option doesn't mean they should be begged to come into the PDGA fold with a better deal than countless other regional series' take part in. It is obviously "worth it" for other series all over the country to be affiliated with the PDGA for whatever reasons they have.

If the SN ever decides that they want to join forces with all these other regional series to help promote disc golf on a National/international scale, then it is simple for them to do. If they choose not to, that's fine also. But they most definitely do not need any freebies or discounts or special treatment in order to do so.

this is not really about the sn. i just thought it would be a good idea for small club series and for an additional revenue stream for the pdga. gary made the point that clubs would jump on this tier level rather than pay the higher fees for a higher tier.

my question still stands, why? what's wrong with the product if so many would indeed sign on at the lowest level. additionally, what can be done now with the tiers to add that series level and avoid a mass exodus from higher tiers? any ideas?

You never mentioned anything about a special tier, only a special rate. Higher tier levels mean players can get more points. Points allow you to be invited to worlds. No one gets turned away at worlds today. Points aren't a drawing point.

Ratings are the drawing point of C and most B-Tiers. Added cash starts becoming a draw at A-Tiers and above in most cases. If I can get my event sanctioned and get ratings for my players and also get them qualified for the SNDG championships at no additional cost and possibly a slight savings, then of course I am going to choose that. Especially if I am anywhere near SNDG country.

The other side that does not include the SNDGA is a group of TDs within a region or state joining together and making the events a series in name only just to get the discount on sanctioning. If the PDGA adds rules that prevent that, I know several TDs that will not sanction just because they can't get the same rates as other TDs.

Hey Rhett,

I think dscmn is trying to address the issue of players that like events that aren't PDGA sanctioned. What is it they're looking for? Is it cost structure, atmosphere, the PDGA?

He's asking an even more important question, is there something the PDGA could build or offer that would attract those small non-sanctioned events without offending or losing the regular PDGA events.

The question that can be asked is: what does the PDGA do for a "regular" event, and what could they offer at a lower level to attract smaller events?

There is no question that there is a whole world of casual players that don't come to the PDGA. The HFDS has 60 or more members who are not PDGA. What could the PDGA offer or build that would get those players involved?

It's a good question.

I think dscmn is trying to address the issue of players that like events that aren't PDGA sanctioned.


Then you should be asking "what is it about unsanctioned events that players like?"

Unsanctioned events around here: <ul type="square"> Dirt cheap entry fees Casual atmosphere with low structure Little to no rules enforcement or attention to PDGA Rules of Play 804.05 Friendly [/list]

If that's what you like about non-sanctioned events, that is fine. Some events should not be sanctioned, and many players do not want to give up some of the freedoms that non-sanctioned play allows. There is nothing wrong with that.

I think that the majority of average players just want to play. They hear about the PDGA from TDs and other players and join to support the sport. Other's join because the want ot play in A-Tiers or Worlds, or just want to have their ratings trackeed.

If you are in an area where the PDGA is not prevalent, then the average player probably hears very little about it and gets no peer pressure to join.

We have to reach the TDs to get the word out, but we have to sell the players. Once the Players are sold, the TDs that sanction will get better attendance. The TDs will sanction when they have to and only as many events as they have to.

If you can hook the players, the TDs will follow. The reverse isn't true unless you have several A-Tiers in the area.

The question that can be asked is: what does the PDGA do for a "regular" event, and what could they offer at a lower level to attract smaller events?

and basically we're back at the core of the question that hawk asked six months ago :eek:

Then you should be asking "what is it about unsanctioned events that players like?"

Unsanctioned events around here: <ul type="square"> Dirt cheap entry fees Casual atmosphere with low structure Little to no rules enforcement or attention to PDGA Rules of Play 804.05 Friendly [/list]




I would agree with that list except for the attention and enforcement to PDGA Rules of Play. I don't know what it's like in your neck of the woods, but we play by the rules around here even in unsanctioned events or casual rounds. Okay maybe we don't give penalty strokes for a scorecard adding error. But falling putts, stance violations, OB penalties, 2m rule violations, missed mandatories, etc. are all called just the same.

We enforce the penalty for a misadded scorecard and the NK rule, one throw penalty for pulling out the rulebook during an AMMO. We know the stinkin' rules :D

The largest series of non-sanctioned events in Texas was the Texas 10 and all PDGA rules of play were enforced including 804.05. This may be unexpected since the primary sponsor of the tour was a beer company and beer was served at every event between and after competitive rounds.

Sorry this took so long, I was at a conference over the past two days so I couldn't get to digesting the info and posting it here. From the #$*&$!, here are the retension figures for Ultimate in the years 2002 through 2005:

<table border="1"><tr></tr><tr><td>Year Total New Members Returning Retension %
</td></tr><tr><td>
</td></tr><tr><td>2002 15180 4690 10490 69%
</td></tr><tr><td>2003 17497 5987 11510 66%
</td></tr><tr><td>2004 19234 6424 12810 67%
</td></tr><tr><td>2005 22079 7735 14344 65%
</td></tr><tr><td>
</td></tr><tr><td></tr></td></table>

Most of their gains have been in the youth and college memberships as reflected in their 'Ultimate Revolution' efforts that have concentrated on getting the game into the schools, detailed greater as follows:

<table border="1"><tr><td>
</td></tr><tr><td>Year (New Youth Members) (New College Members)
</td></tr><tr><td>
</td></tr><tr><td>2002 430 3340
</td></tr><tr><td>2003 1058 3102
</td></tr><tr><td>2004 1483 3415
</td></tr><tr><td>2005 2376 4216
</td></tr><tr><td> </tr></td></table>

While this effort looks like it has been doing great things for increasing Ultimate participation among the education crowd, I'm sure it also increases their overall retentsion rate. Just for fun, here's some info on their 'regular' members:

<table border="1"><tr><td>
</td></tr><tr><td>Year (Total) (New Members) (Returning) (Retension %)
</td></tr><tr><td>
</td></tr><tr><td>2002 6310 850 5460 86%
</td></tr><tr><td>2003 6427 743 5684 88%
</td></tr><tr><td>2004 6436 538 5898 92%
</td></tr><tr><td>2005 6693 729 5964 89%
</td></tr><tr><td> </tr></td></table>

Sorry about the table formatting. I didn't take the time to figure out the tricks to making neat columns.

Several surveys over the past few years have indicated that a large number of members wish to opt out of the magazine, for whatever reason.


After being asked about this by an interested party, I'm going to retract
this statement and apologize for making it without having the facts at hand
to back it up. I was operating on memory of discussions that had been going on since I've been on the Board. I'm also retracting it because I'm away from home, promoting disc golf to 20,000 Physical Education teachers at a national conference and don't have access to my PDGA files, or the time to track this down.

I will, though, maintain my opinion that the magazine should be an option. Whether it makes economic sense for the publisher is for the publisher to decide. I happen to think it makes sense for our members to have that choice.

Magazine shoud be a part of membership. Even it is like the old self published mag.

I will still buy a subcription of DGWN (shoot, I should still have credit for more than a year)

But I would rather see it be monthly or bi monthly over quarterly.

hmmmmm???

the PDGA helps create a system for a national sport...invites everyone in for a very very small fee...grows the sport, maintains the sport, supports anyone in the sport, basically has made "the model" for the sport to be competed with-in...IS the backbone of the sport...goes above and beyond anything ever imagined maybe 15 years ago for the sport...

and some fool wants to boycott them?.....it is like a young kid watching their parent drive a car, and then thinking they can also do the same thing, and of course the kid is going to crash on their own...

just pure immaturity by Hawk, and lack of respect and intelligence to consider boycotting the PDGA...

very few times i would wish for a discgolfer to go away from the sport, but with the popularity and strength the sport now...we can lose many of the anti-PDGA and pro-drug people without any worriies....so CYA'

Chains

You've seen through me Brandon...I'm totally pro drugs. That's why I joined the PDGA in the first place. It's a very welcoming environment in that regard.

As stated previously the "sport" grows without the PDGA. As of this morning Association members per course in America is 3.4 players. Seems like there are an awful lot more players out on the courses than that around here.

Point...not too hard to figure out...is that the PDGA / "organized disc golf" is popular, and strong enough NOW that any people who have problems with the PDGA, OR advocate drug use being acceptable during PDGA events, can now go away making NO difference in the future of the sport. have fun with any goofy calculations that people will now pull out of their %$#$'s.

IMO, this would actually be a great thing for the sport.

Done with this...Brandon

we interrupt this reality check for a special news bulletin
************************************************** **********************

over on other threads some of hawks most vocal detractors have been discussing the formation of a new disc golf players association type thingie. one actually suggested that disc golf might be better off if things worked out such that the Association went pop.

************************************************** **********************
this concludes the special news bulletin. now back to the reality check in progress.

we interrupt this reality check for a special news bulletin
************************************************** **********************

over on other threads some of hawks most vocal detractors have been discussing the formation of a new disc golf players association type thingie. one actually suggested that disc golf might be better off if things worked out such that the Association went pop.

************************************************** **********************
this concludes the special news bulletin. now back to the reality check in progress.



I really need to start watching more CNN.

Point...not too hard to figure out...is that the PDGA / "organized disc golf" is popular, and strong enough NOW that any people who have problems with the PDGA, OR advocate drug use being acceptable during PDGA events, can now go away making NO difference in the future of the sport. have fun with any goofy calculations that people will now pull out of their %$#$'s.

IMO, this would actually be a great thing for the sport.

Done with this...Brandon



Still not quite sure how I got lumped in with the pro-drug crowd. Is membership here truly that incriminating?

Hey everybody look...it's the first scared TD of 2007.

And here's a Hot Tub point that I keep meaning to bring up: <font color="blue">[Offensive comment removed]</font> Pat motioned for the BOD to give me a courtesy 2007 membership. However Pat didn't pony up any of the actual money that kept me here. That was done by Steve, Theo etc. Why doesn't Hot Tub go after them?

And here's a Hot Tub point that I keep meaning to bring up: He clearly has a hard on for Pat and has brought up several times the fact that Pat motioned for the BOD to give me a courtesy 2007 membership. However Pat didn't pony up any of the actual money that kept me here. That was done by Steve, Theo etc. Why doesn't Hot Tub go after them?

I have a sensitive set of antennae regarding Pat's board work because of some of his first actions on the board, Hawk, nothing against Pat himself.

As for your 2007 renewal: (This is subtle, read slowly.) Pat wanted to spend the members' dues on your membership. The others voted against it but "threw" the new board member "a bone" by paying for your renewal with their personal funds.

Like I said, read it slowly (and think carefully, too). To most people, there is a meaningful distinction in there.

So Hot Tub,

Since the whole pro "amnesty" thing this year was in no way related to the dues increase (per your earlier post) and was simply a brilliant idea on your part that you had been pushing for the past five years to help out the members (you care so much it hurts I know) who had foolishly fallen for the siren song of prodom, that we can expect this to be an annual policy of The Association from here on it? Surely The Association and you don't think that no player(s) will ever get trapped on the other side again and need an easy way back. One would have to imagine that some of the 80% of players who actually renew each year might eventually find themselves in the same fix in 2008, 2009, 2010 etc.

whats the opposite of "prodom"?

One would have to imagine that some of the 80% of players who actually renew each year might eventually find themselves in the same fix in 2008, 2009, 2010 etc.

Personally, I would like to see amnesty repeated annually for the high percentage of PDGA members who renew.

Only a handful of people took it this year. (A tiny percentage of those probably did use it to just save $25. There are ways to fix that problem, if it appears to get out of hand, though.) I think more will see the value next year, after watching their friends getting out and competing more this year.

Every time I have been around assembled disc golfers this year, I have heard very positive stories about and from people who did take it, though. One masters-aged player told me earlier today that it has made disc golf so much more fun for him because, among other things, he doesn't feel the need to practice as much.) I suspect that is because people around here heard about it all year from me; people in other locations who were eligible may not even have noticed it.

I appreciate this opportunity to remind people that even without a general amnesty, anyone who is Pro can request a change in status to Am, and would be given a chance to make their case. There is no reason for anyone with a rating in the low 900s to be stuck in the Pro category.
you care so much it hurts I know

I do, you know. :cool:In the first PDGA sanctioned event I played this year I was beaten by a single stroke by an amnestied newly-Am player. I face the same guy this Sunday. Next week, I face a 963-rated newly-Am masters player in Bowling Green. At Am Worlds, my toughest competition is likely going to be a newly-Am Senior Grand Master with a rating 20 points higher than my own.

You know what? I'm as happy as can be with that. :D

whats the opposite of "prodom"?



Amdom, or the leadership of the Association. Your choice.

Anyone know what the satisfaction ratings are? Voting seems like such a commitment, I wouldn't want to be called to testify my position in any distant future!

I too have no problem with being beaten by amnestied pros, and already have been. I'd rather these guys stayed in the game.

Hey Bruce.....should I Am Down??

Z

Hey Bruce.....should I Am Down??

Z

click, click, click, back, back, back...

Not for the money anyway. :D