...you left out "combination of the two"

what, $70 or $95?

The $20 for all members sounds good. That might keep more people current and draw new members. Better to have more members paying $20 than fewer paying $50/$75. rWc

If you change the membership fee to $20, which of the following membership benefits should be eliminated?

<ul type="square"> Detailed rules, reviewed and maintained by an organized committee. An organized nationwide tour of events - run under standard conditions with a standard payout formula by TD's who have demonstrated their knowledge of the game and their ability to carry out administrative tasks. World Championships held each year at locations screened by the governing body and supported by the governing body's staff. An International Disc Golf Center - a home for the sport, its Hall of Fame and a fantastic flying disc history museum. Player ratings, updated periodically and provide a relatively accurate comparative measure of players across the country or around the world. Technical standards for the discs and targets used in play. A message board where members can communicate, with each other. And many other things too numerous to mention. [/list]

So how much of our membership fees goes to each of these "benefits"? rWc

...or efficiency and sacrifices. No more paid over-seas trips and dump the defunct and burdensome Marshall program.

the hole forecaster is apparently very accurate. couldn't that replace some costly plane tickets?

brian,

how many staff members does the pdga have for the current membership? is 10,000 correct for current members?

kevin

brian

correct me if i'm wrong but your message implies that the pdga is re-processing members. "2500 more memberships to process," is the processing the same for new and old members? what exactly does "processing" entail?

kevin

BDH provided some nice numbers, but didn't bother to answer how much of the members' money goes to the different benefits. I'm asking how is the money spend. What percentage of my membership goes to what? rWc

http://www.pdga.com/documents/2007/0607FinancialDGWN81.pdf

interesting. let's go a little at a time. what are fulfillment services? it says:

"receive process and fulfill memberships"

it doesn't cost to receive mail, does it?

who processes, the staff? aren't they already paid for doing this?

what is "fulfill" memberships and how much does it cost? the discs and minis are paid for from the "other membership benefits" category so that can't be it.

what is merchandise? stickers?

event packages? what are these?

promo and info kits? what are these? brochures?

direct mails? what are these too? i'm stupid.

what are "incl supplies?" if office supplies, shouldn't they be listed under office?

postage? ok, but also office supplies probably.

what are "fees charged?"

the above equals $152,500. what is the big ticket item here? why does that stuff cost this much?

brian,

that's sort of impossible for me. any chance you could shed some light on what here costs $152,500? i know, as a member, i would be willing to sacrifice a few slices of paper on my renewal package, or actually the entire package to save some on my membership dues. thanks,

kevin

ps--i could also stuff a few envelopes for the organization at night after work if this would help too.

brian,

it the fulfillment house outsourced? it that the cost?

kevin

brian,

thanks for providing that information. sorry i'm not the cheerleader you wish i were.

kevin

so, as i see it, the fulfillment is done out of house. how does an increase of 2500 strain the pdga staff? personally, i don't need a letter at all, e-mail would more than suffice. anyone else wish to save some money on renewal packages? i think $100,000 could be saved here without knowing the exact numbers.

jeff, so far i've not chopped a thing off that list, no drop in membership benefits. according to brian, i have $200,000 more to make up. now he assumes 25% increase is generous. i would be willing to bet it could be even greater than that with a concerted effort by the membership. keep in mind, we have $180,000 in the bank.

next up, "other membership benefits." $171,250. greater than 10% of the total expenses is the "other" category. i don't have a lot of experience with budgets, but it seems weird that a percentage as great as 10 would be "other." my gut tells me that this is not normal. perhaps i'm wrong. any budget gurus out there?

If you change the membership fee to $20, which of the following membership benefits should be eliminated?

<ul type="square"> Detailed rules, reviewed and maintained by an organized committee. An organized nationwide tour of events - run under standard conditions with a standard payout formula by TD's who have demonstrated their knowledge of the game and their ability to carry out administrative tasks. World Championships held each year at locations screened by the governing body and supported by the governing body's staff. An International Disc Golf Center - a home for the sport, its Hall of Fame and a fantastic flying disc history museum. Player ratings, updated periodically and provide a relatively accurate comparative measure of players across the country or around the world. Technical standards for the discs and targets used in play. A message board where members can communicate, with each other. And many other things too numerous to mention. [/list]




jeff makes a good point. so lets find out.

the following list is probably horrorably incomplete. apologies in advance. i reiedto be as conclusive as possible/reasonable.

oh, if possible, please think ofthese a Member Benefits - things you get from your membership. not necessarily what you get from the players fees... thats a different story.

Dude... That's "Other MEMBERSHIP BENEFITS" not just OTHER.

I'd guess that the big item was the Magazine which if it were $15/year/member would be $150k.

The real "OTHER" category is at $17k, and that includes trademarks, legal fees and business fees... When you consider that a trademark attorney will run you $5-6/minute, even the most basic of issues can run you a few grand.

If you've never actually run a budget for a business, you will be surprised at what things cost. I know I was the first few times I looked at things.

thanks. that helps. that leaves about $21,000 for discs, minis, bag tags, stickers and "ratings processing." what exactly is "ratings processing?" isn't that outsourced too?

how many courses are there at the idgc?

two at the moment, with one more planned.

havent you played them?

not yet. are they open to the public? $100,000 to install two courses? that's just from last year and this year projected. seems like a lot. how much was allocated in previous years for these courses?

sure theyre open to the public. theres a small charge that the PDGA collects. i forget whether we keep it or if it goes to the county.

btw, the IDGC is not a PDGA owned project. the association manages the facility, but it is not ours. the seperation is due to the idgc being on county land.

...or efficiency and sacrifices. No more paid over-seas trips and dump the defunct and burdensome Marshall program.



This might be a useful statement if you had a clue how much those trips mean to the leaders and players in the countries where the trips are taken and how much is accomplished on them. After all we are talking about the fastest growing area of the association, one which has the Europeans in particular psyched. I agree there is room for improvement and cost savings in the Marshals program but its also done a lot of good in terms of fostering professional comportment by the players, especially near the top where there were some problems a few years ago that were in part the impetus for said program, and if you surveyed the Tds who receive Marshals I think most would say they appreciated the support and effort from PDGA.

In the meantime, thanks for your optimism!

BDH



I had the opportunity to work with Shawn Sinclair at Am Worlds this year. I was one of the course TD's at Dretzka and he was the Marshal at Dretzka. The Marshal program is worth every penny. Shawn worked his butt off and the event benefitted. Scores were processed super quick. He handled a few situations that came up very professionally. He helped with daily duties. He was nothing but an asset to the event.I applaud the PDGA for hiring help to support major events!!!

I like the question: what would you expect from a $20 membership?

I wouldn't expect much.

C) tiered membership

i could make an argument that what a yearly membership in the PDGA should cost; what one gets for their membership; and how the revenues and expenses are managed are completely independent of each other. i could also make an equally plausible argument that they are directly related to each other and you need to address all 3 issues together.

the bottom line for me is that $75 per year to support the governing body for the sport i am passionate about is a dollar amount i am more than happy to spend. i trust that those in decision-making positions are also passionate and have the best interests of our sport in mind, even though i know how they go about it and what their opinions are about different issues may be polar opposites of mine.

Dan, If I lived in an area where there were NOTHING but PGDA events, I would probably pay my AM membership fee. rWc****

If you change the membership fee to $20, which of the following membership benefits should be eliminated?

<ul type="square"> Detailed rules, reviewed and maintained by an organized committee. An organized nationwide tour of events - run under standard conditions with a standard payout formula by TD's who have demonstrated their knowledge of the game and their ability to carry out administrative tasks. World Championships held each year at locations screened by the governing body and supported by the governing body's staff. An International Disc Golf Center - a home for the sport, its Hall of Fame and a fantastic flying disc history museum. Player ratings, updated periodically and provide a relatively accurate comparative measure of players across the country or around the world. Technical standards for the discs and targets used in play. A message board where members can communicate, with each other. And many other things too numerous to mention. [/list]



this is the biggest load of bull ever jeff, and you know it. if the fee was 20$/year for everyone the pdga wouldn't have less money, it would have more. you'd probably have 5 times as many members so it would be like getting 100$/current member. can i prove it? no can you? no. but we've tried your way and it obviously isn't working. turnover is awful and we aren't keeping members.

i look forward to see how many people renew next year, i'm guessing we turnover will increase yet again.

whoah jeff..

you even managed to get Dr Evil out of retirement!

I am slowly converting to the "other" philosophy too. I look at NEFA-LAND and if dues were $25 for Ams and $40 for Pros, I think membership levels would rise to compensate for the lack of current memberships (The same is probably true in MADC, but I do not know about other regions.)

I also understand it's a very risky proposition..*If* membership levels do not increase by 50%, the PDGA would be taking in less than the previous year.

Does anyone have the number of PDGA members who did not renew from 2006 to 2007 (reason not withstanding)?

I think it should be no more than $40 across the board. I also like Biscoe's idea of a "half-in" membership for $20 to get a rating and PDGA number only.

$75 is WAY too much in my opinion. $30 or $40 max. Disc golf is a sport that is attractive to those without much money. So why is the membership so high? Why do ams pay less? I don't get it.

It seems to be discouraging people from signing up and renewing according to the 2006/2007 numbers. The PDGA would rather fleece it's die-hard members with higher dues than attract and retain new members with lower dues.

Considering the numbers thrown out on another thread about the #of players playing sanctioned events who are not members (~20% if I remember correctly) - I doubt lowering membership fees to $20 would yield a huge influx of new members. At least not enough to make up the difference ala BDH's post.

What I take issue with is that so called "pro" membership costs more than the so called "am" membership. When the competitive structure is set up to benefit the am moreso than the pro. Basic membership should be just that - a flat fee.
A starter membership would be a great thing (let's say $25 - that's $5 more than most local clubs charge) and should be a standard giveaway at all sanctioned events.

I'd be all up for a 20-30$ am membership, then require membership at all tourneys.

Something people are forgeting though is as more memberships are sold, the way things are done currently end up costing more sometimes. More printed junk mail, more back and forth processing, more reduency in outsourcing.

What a membership gets and doesn't get is not the point, its more about how money is being spent, and if it is in a way that the membership feels is competant or foolish?

Personaly I think the IDGC is a waste of money, but others would disagree I am sure, same with a magazine tied to the PDGA.

I would rather see the PDGA operate independant of many of these things, and let people decide if they want to support things like IDGC, and a Magazine by sending in extra money, or subscribing to them.

A membership form should be more like...

Membership 30.00
Would you like to donate money to:
XXX
XXX
XXX

Would you like to subscribe to the XXX Magazine for $$$.00

Some benefits don't cost a whole lot to keep or to have for extra members, others do.

But untill the membership can see where our funding is being used it is all specualtion, and a very non looked after approach.

I am asking, no DEMANDING, that we we the membership speak up and ask... Where exactly our money is being used. Heck my church is more open and upfront about there finances then PDGA.

if the fee was 20$/year for everyone the pdga wouldn't have less money, it would have more. you'd probably have 5 times as many members so it would be like getting 100$/current member. can i prove it? no can you? no.



If every single non-member playing in a PDGA tournament, and every single non-member playing SN or NEFA, joined the PDGA at the lower fee---you wouldn't have 50,000 people.

[quote if the fee was 20$/year for everyone the pdga wouldn't have less money, it would have more. you'd probably have 5 times as many members so it would be like getting 100$/current member. can i prove it? no can you? no.

[/QUOTE]

Right now there are 11564 current members...do you really think that lowering dues will yield 57000 members?

I don't know, nor do I think anybody else knows whether dropping the fees will increase membership. But, having heard from many people that they won't join the PDGA due to the high fees, I think it is certainly worth reducing the amount to see what happens. I'm for a lower fee, but I think it should be consistent across the board (pros/ams the same).

You don't know if the IDGC is open?

If you want to find out more about the IDGC facilities there are several sources of information.
- The first one is obviously this website - click the link at the top. (Of course, actually paying staff to update the content would be something that you'd consider an unnecessary expenditure.)
- Second one is Disc Golf World which has had info in several issues (oh yeah, I forgot, you don't need or read that mag).
- Third one is the other disc golf newspaper (I confess I can't remember the name, though I like it a lot, too!) which had a nice article about Matt Ellis and the IDGC recently. (OK, you'd probably think that source is all right since it is a private enterprise ...)

Glad you can take the time to comment on finances, but it might be better to take some time to familiarize yourself with specific programs before doing so.

And ... this comment not directed at you personally, but as a general observation. Many folks in their younger years do not have a particularly good sense about how businesses work and what it costs to run them. But you've got to remember that the PDGA is a business. Most of us members treat disc golf like a hobby, one place where we spend our discretionary income. However, the PDGA has to be run like a business, think like a business, and be a business. (Likewise, tournaments can only be successful if they operate in the same way.) A general thread among those who complain about this or that specific cost seems to be the underlying belief that since they personally either don't value what was purchased with that expenditure, or don't understand the costs associated, that it is clearly a *bad* expenditure. Opinions like that make for entertaining reading on the message board, but often it might be recommended that comments be based on more solid information. (For example, back to the poster's question about the IDGC, not even knowing enough about it to be aware whether the center is open or what facilities are included -- office building as well as courses -- might be considered sufficient lack of information as to disqualify serious consideration of the comments about expenditure of funds on it.)

I would encourage all of those who do not like what the PDGA offers to create a new sanctioning body. Not sure where the PDGA's patent is for all things disc golf. Last time I checked anybody could play this game with anything they want with any rules they like. Do we need the PDGA? No. Does the PDGA need us? Yes.

I have been thinking about this ever since the Turbo Putt fiasco. What's to stop any company from creating any kind of disc they wanted, who cares if the PDGA doesn't approve it. A helluva lot more people play disc golf than are members or may ever be members. 34000 members in about 25 years. I would be willing to bet at my home course for every 1 member there are 100 non members.

What's stopping any company from creating their own sanctioning body, their own rules, their own tech standards? Nothing!! PDGA haters band together and create something new, something better, something that's mission statement is on par with what you are looking for, low member fees and no international travel expenses. Don't let the PDGA monopolize the national disc golf tournament market. Every sport has many different governing bodies, the most popular or best are usual the ones that have the most to offer. Let's see a rival association formed, maybe SN or NEFA could go national and squash the PDGA. This is America, this what we are all about, more choices, why should the PDGA be the only nationally recognized disc golf entity?

You know there was an organization (United Disc Golf) formed around 2 years ago because they thought they could do it better. It fizzled out like a spark in a bucket of water. In fact, I just checked and the site is just a generic parked page.

Interesting that [censored] is still a banned word(s). :p

Not sure where that fits in our current MB rules.

On what new and/or expanded and/or revived activities and programs would you like to see the PDGA spend this theoretical $50,000 ?

Serious answers, PLEASE!

And thank you.



Disc golf on TV!

Disc Golf Live video magazine.. Reaching those who know nothing of the gospel of disc golf, all the while preaching to our choir, one public access station at a time.

Seriously.

What's stopping any company from creating their own sanctioning body, their own rules, their own tech standards?

exactly the reason i suggested new competitive entities as a significant organizational threat while doing our SWOT analysis at the summit. the corrollary question of course is "what's encouraging some company to create their own sanctioning body, their own rules, their own tech standards?" thats an interesting one these days.

BDH, if our leaders are presumed to bne so wise, then why should we bother to suggest how to spend the money? our leaders are cetain to make the correct call. in fact, we should not even inquire as to what the decision was, or quantify results.

so BDH, you yourself admit to not feeling comfortable with some one BoD member. that doesnt sound much different from other things that have been expressed.

we've been asking for input from members for quite some time now. i am gald you are finally coming over to our way of thinking.

tiered membership

tiered membership



rah! rah! sis boom bah!! i honestly don't see why this idea isn't gaining more traction.

yes, i understand that position. two-way communication channels often feel more uncomfortable to those who are accustomed to controlling both the medium and the message.

no single input source will ever tyield the full story. the discussino board is as valid as any in making its contribution to the overall picture.

disque... tiered is cool with me.

tiered membership



rah! rah! sis boom bah!! i honestly don't see why this idea isn't gaining more traction.


In theory, that is the answer. But in practice, the org (borg?) would see each "non-premium" membership a loss of revenue &amp; find some other way to attempt suck that $10 fee out of the pockets of those lower-tiered members to make up for it.

vegan surmises correctly. the other reason is that our data systems cannot handle tiers.

for those in NEFA and SN areas, think of those regional memberships as third party proxies for something the assocaition cant/wont do.

PDGA haters band together and create something new, something better, something that's mission statement is on par with what you are looking for, low member fees and no international travel expenses.



You might need more than hatred to bind your new organization together.

Such a group may agree on low fees / low services, but I can't imagine the mess when you start disagreeing on other things....or on exactly who among the PDGA-haters gets to make the decisions on how best to be anti-PDGA. Should be entertaining, though.

sigh......

the discussino board is as valid as any in making its contribution to the overall picture.



The Discussion board certainly enables individuals to continually push their own personal agenda into the face of the membership. Unfortunately, the most vocal here are rarely in the majority. The DB merely allows those with tiny positions to appear larger and more substantial than real life.

On what new and/or expanded and/or revived activities and programs would you like to see the PDGA spend this theoretical $50,000 ?

Serious answers, PLEASE!

And thank you.



Depends on what your stated goals are IMO.

If your stated goal is to promote competition - then the money might best be spent on a more media attached promotion of some expanded version of the NT.

If however your stated goal is to promote the game of disc golf, then the money would best be spent on exposure to young people. 50K could afford a lot of local, regional, or national level players the means to take DG to the schools on a much more aggressive scale than exists currently.

If it's revenue the PDGA needs - and the basic product can be had for 10-100 bucks (think - any DG related product - disc, bag, membership, entry fee) - the most lucrative market would be the "every kid needs a disc" market.

What exactly are our stated goals? Is this something that each new BOD reviews and ammends upon taking office? If it's not - it should be.

vegan surmises correctly. the other reason is that our data systems cannot handle tiers.

for those in NEFA and SN areas, think of those regional memberships as third party proxies for something the assocaition cant/wont do.



Maybe it�s just the way I interpret it, but it strikes be as very weird that a current PDGA board member would continue to come across as so anti-org both of the current and past regimes. This thread seems to illustrate it brightly. Under 'New and Expanded Activities", the best that is brought up when asked for input is tiered memberships and criticisms of the system? Compared to the idea that was offered to start this (restarting the PDGA Innovation Grant program), what a rather uninspiring approach.

this venue is for discussion, not to deliver edicts. what one calls criticism, others call honest questions or observations. i am not gonna burden myself by accepting the derogatory labels some (including the previous regime) chooses to use.

discette, the discboard does indeed allow individual agendas to see the light of day. and that is bad how?

I wonder if you think you're actually communicating honestly with people in your message board Kung Fu ?

You continually fail to answer honest questions, ignore the valid criticism others, but appear to be so very easily offended when others minimize the value of the petty squabbling that some try to pass off as contructive criticism.

If your head isn't stuck in sand, you can go back and to the post you are referring to and answer your own question.


discette, the discboard does indeed allow individual agendas to see the light of day. and that is bad how?

hello vanessa,

not sure where you're getting your information from but i'd be happy to clear up some errors in judgement that you've made about me.

1. i believe the message board is a valid expense.
2. i support a pdga magazine. however, i don't support dropping this expense on the backs of the members. i see now why the republican tax measures have been so successful, tax the middle class, eh vanessa? we pay for membership, discs, equipment, weedwackers, etc. i don't think it would be too much to ask the manufacturer or advertisers to pay for or subsidize this venture.
3. no i don't support the magazine solely because it is a private enterprise. you're impression of me is quite amusing. i've never before been called a supporter of private enterprise. i feel so dirty.
4. i'm familiar with idgc.
5. thank you for the advice. but i got to tell you something. the pdga is not a business. not yet anyway. ;)

6. i'm not really a billionaire.

peace.

tiered membership



rah! rah! sis boom bah!! i honestly don't see why this idea isn't gaining more traction.


In theory, that is the answer. But in practice, the org (borg?) would see each "non-premium" membership a loss of revenue &amp; find some other way to attempt suck that $10 fee out of the pockets of those lower-tiered members to make up for it.



i'm all for it, but this might encourage more poor players. and let's face it. sometimes their cars are really embarrassing in our course parking lots and sometimes they smell like boiled cabbage.

discette, the discboard does indeed allow individual agendas to see the light of day. and that is bad how?



It is good that people get to post their opinions and positions. The problem is when certain posters continually post the same position over and over in an argumentative manner. It often ends up in flames. It doesn't matter if the flame is openly hostile or snidely superior in an attempt to appear civil. All of this petty bickering wastes bandwidth and annoys people.

It is also bad form when current volunteers continually post to the message board and belittle current and former PDGA volunteers in an effort to bolster support for minority opinions. Personal attacks show a complete lack of professional behavior and come across as juvenile attempts to prop up the "size" of their argument.

In theory, that is the answer. But in practice, the org (borg?) would see each "non-premium" membership a loss of revenue &amp; find some other way to attempt suck that $10 fee out of the pockets of those lower-tiered members to make up for it.



Why does the "org(borg?)" not take a hard look at the retention figures and realize the current system ain't working. I am willing to bet that a two-pronged approach with substantive outreach to underdeveloped areas IN CONJUNCTION with a well thought out tiered membership package would not only double the current membership numbers in 3-5 years, but would also make huge inroads into the membership retention issue.

As to the tech issue, I cannot believe that is a make or break hurdle. There are literally tens of thousands of organizations with tiered membership programs tied to organizational databases. It is not a question of inventing the wheel. Just go to Big 10 Tires and tell 'em what you want.

"yes, i understand that position. two-way communication channels often feel more uncomfortable to those who are accustomed to controlling both the medium and the message."

Hey, nice quote Pat! My dad was actually a U of Toronto colleague of Marshall McLuhan's whom I met over dinner at our house a couple of times many yrs ago.


are you saying i quoted McLuhan?

are you saying i quoted McLuhan?



If you had a hundred monkeys sitting at a hundred typewriters . . .

that $50,000 question is a great topic.

i think the pdga should save 5 children, orphans from around the world where death and violence is the daily situation, and bring them to the US. if it can only be 4 or 1, i'd like to see the money spent on this. i think it would be fun also if we could some how have updates on their well being. that's what i'd like to see done with my $4.00 contribution.

Edited out due to finding the financial statement thanks to krapicka

Did you even bother to look at the financial statement (http://www.pdga.com/documents/2007/0607FinancialDGWN81.pdf)?

Did you even bother to look at the financial statement (http://www.pdga.com/documents/2007/0607FinancialDGWN81.pdf)?



No but it's good to know there is one. Thanks.

What's stopping any company from creating their own sanctioning body, their own rules, their own tech standards?

exactly the reason i suggested new competitive entities as a significant organizational threat while doing our SWOT analysis at the summit. the corrollary question of course is "what's encouraging some company to create their own sanctioning body, their own rules, their own tech standards?" thats an interesting one these days.



The potential competitive threat to the PDGA is nothing new. It's something the organization has been considering for years. The bottom line is that there is only one organization, for profit or not-for-profit, that would stand a chance of being a serious threat in the short term. In the long-term, the PDGA needs to be aware of potential threats, and going through a regular SWOT analysis, as done by Pat at the last Board meeting, is a good way to stay in front of any potential issues.

With regards to the overall issue of the pros and cons of raising membership fees, it has been proven repeatedly over the last 6 years that the increases benefit the growth of the organization more than they threaten it (due to loss of new members or reduction in growth).

Almost everyone on the Board feels that a good tiered membership structure could benefit many and promote more growth, but the path to a new structure is complicated and has led to many debates - very few of them leading to resolution.

Why does the "org(borg?)" not take a hard look at the retention figures and realize the current system ain't working. I am willing to bet that a two-pronged approach with substantive outreach to underdeveloped areas IN CONJUNCTION with a well thought out tiered membership package would not only double the current membership numbers in 3-5 years, but would also make huge inroads into the membership retention issue.



Rates of PDGA Membership Attrition &amp; Retention (http://www.pdga.com/documents/2007/MemberNumbersOngoing2006.pdf)

Page 2 of this linked document disproves the first sentence quoted above. Without doing the mathmatical calculations, but considering the membership growth rate year over year, it appears previous fee increases have not had a negative effect on overall membership as a whole. Obviously, we'll have to wait to see the differential between '06 to '07, but I suspect there will not be much variance outside previous trends.

Is there room for improvement in the current membership structure? Absolutely. I doubt the number of current members could be <u>doubled</u> in 3-5 years, however, a "well thought out tiered membership package" might greatly increase the growth rate of the organization.

Why does the "org(borg?)" not take a hard look at the retention figures and realize the current system ain't working. I am willing to bet that a two-pronged approach with substantive outreach to underdeveloped areas IN CONJUNCTION with a well thought out tiered membership package would not only double the current membership numbers in 3-5 years, but would also make huge inroads into the membership retention issue.



Rates of PDGA Membership Attrition &amp; Retention (http://www.pdga.com/documents/2007/MemberNumbersOngoing2006.pdf)

Page 2 of this linked document disproves the first sentence quoted above. Without doing the mathmatical calculations, but considering the membership growth rate year over year, it appears previous fee increases have not had a negative effect on overall membership as a whole. Obviously, we'll have to wait to see the differential between '06 to '07, but I suspect there will not be much variance outside previous trends.

Is there room for improvement in the current membership structure? Absolutely. I doubt the number of current members could be <u>doubled</u> in 3-5 years, however, a "well thought out tiered membership package" might greatly increase the growth rate of the organization.



&lt;gasp&gt; :eek:
How dare you use intelligence and facts on the message board!?! BURN THE HERETIC!!

;)

are you saying i quoted McLuhan?



If you had a hundred monkeys sitting at a hundred typewriters . . .



Is that comment on post counts? :D

I'd also like to add to this by pointing out that even in the last weeks this very issue of retention has been discussed. Looking at retention rates and concluding there is a problem is a mistake. How do you know there's a problem? Is it your gut instinct? Did the Great Spirit tell you? Perhaps a dissatisfied Board Member? To gather meaning out of those retention rates you have to at least compare them to something, say... the retention rates of similarly sized and structured sports organizations.

Shock of shocks! We do better than 90% of the organizations I looked at in just such a comparison. Now, rather than go through the orgs I looked at for the third time, I might suggest you go look for yourself.

&lt;gasp&gt; :eek:
How dare you use intelligence and facts on the message board!?! BURN THE HERETIC!!

;)



Around here they get swiftboated, not burned. :p

"Grog for me mates, Publican."

BTW ... why were retention rates discussed?

Nice chart - reinforces something I've been saying for about 15 years - now the numbers back it up. According to this chart - the PDGA sees (or has seen) between 600-800 new memberships every year for most of the last 20 years (ok the last 2 years are more like 1000-1500).
But there are now over 800 sanctioned events a year. If it were mandatory to giveaway one new membership as a prize at every sanctioned event - we would significantly impact our new member rate. Would we retain them? Guess we'll never know if we don't try ay?

"Grog for me mates, Publican."

BTW ... why were retention rates discussed?



Some one tries to make the PDGA look bad by saying the numbers are bad. It crops up about once every 6 months. The sad thing is that there are some Board members who support the position despite knowing it isn't true.

BTW - as in the past, I want to remind people that those retention rates... restate, those great retention rates, were built on the efforts of Brian H. Kudos.

Regardless how "good" it is, I suspect that a decent percentage of those not renewing might be salvageable while others won't renew no matter what - not even because they are disappointed, just because they're moving on to other things versus disc golf competition. Figuring out if the cost versus benefit of capturing those salvageable I would think is worth pursuing.

Chuck, or anyone....
Do you know how many total entries there were in all events in the 2006 tournament year? Who would be able to give me that information, or what document should I search for that number?
Thanks

Brenner just posted the stats for member and non-member entries somewhere on here about a week or so ago. Worked out to be about 20% non-members in events. For some reason I'm thinking the number was 60K-70K players entered in almost 800 events during 2006. Not sure if that's on the Tour stats page.

Regardless how "good" it is, I suspect that a decent percentage of those not renewing might be salvageable while others won't renew no matter what - not even because they are disappointed, just because they're moving on to other things versus disc golf competition. Figuring out if the cost versus benefit of capturing those salvageable I would think is worth pursuing.



i know of at least 5 renewing members that did so for one tournament only. the retention rates don't show how these renewing members feel about forking over $75 just to play in one tournament. some even attended the event and didn't play. now this may be more isolated than i suspect, but i'm just relaying my impression of "the feeling on the street."

Regardless how "good" it is, I suspect that a decent percentage of those not renewing might be salvageable while others won't renew no matter what - not even because they are disappointed, just because they're moving on to other things versus disc golf competition. Figuring out if the cost versus benefit of capturing those salvageable I would think is worth pursuing.



Wow! A really good idea. I didn't think that was possible here. O.K. jaded sarcasm off.

Regardless how "good" it is, I suspect that a decent percentage of those not renewing might be salvageable while others won't renew no matter what - not even because they are disappointed, just because they're moving on to other things versus disc golf competition. Figuring out if the cost versus benefit of capturing those salvageable I would think is worth pursuing.



i know of at least 5 renewing members that did so for one tournament only. the retention rates don't show how these renewing members feel about forking over $75 just to play in one tournament. some even attended the event and didn't play. now this may be more isolated than i suspect, but i'm just relaying my impression of "the feeling on the street."



This would be consistent with Temp memberships. I wonder how hard they'd be to administer, whether they'd be cost effective, and whether any would be interested?

The reason I ask is to determine the effect of lowering the membership fees and raising the per player fee in each event. In my opinion the player going to 10 events per year is getting more value from the PDGA than the player going to 3 events, and should pay accordingly. The touring pros (or top amateurs) who attend the most events probably also win the most cash or prizes (pseudo cash) and should provide a larger share of PDGA revenue. Even those who don't cash but attend more events get more PDGA value than those who play one or two close events.
How would revenue be affected with a $30 membership fee for everyone and a $10 PDGA Player Event Fee for members and an additional fee for non members?
If you play 20 events per year then a member pays $230 in PDGA fees. Play 3 events and the member pays $60.
All in the spirit of you play more, you pay more.
Given the lower figure of 60,000 entrants in 2006, a $10 fee yields $600,000. And that does not include the non member fees.
It also encourages more casual players to join since the cost of membership is more approachable for the casual competitor than the $50 or $75 currently required for membership.

I think what would happen with that model is that more TDs would go non-sanctioned. You may get more members at the lower dues rate but fewer sanctioned events. That could be good or bad depending on the goals.

Maybe, but we are already collecting $3, $4 or $5 from players depending on tier.
From the TD's standpoint, why would that increase affect sanctioning?

That's just my guess based on behavior of TDs regarding fees over the years. I think any radical change in fee structures wouldn't be approved by the Board. However, if that direction made sense to them, I would think it might be phased in over a 3-5 year time period.

If it brought in more members and revenue, it may be worth a try.
I agree that the Board would be opposed because it is such a radical change in approach.
I can also see the TD's taking a bunch of flack from players in a very personal face to face discussion. Plus it would be a nightmare to 'phase in'.

The reason I ask is to determine the effect of lowering the membership fees and raising the per player fee in each event. In my opinion the player going to 10 events per year is getting more value from the PDGA than the player going to 3 events, and should pay accordingly. The touring pros (or top amateurs) who attend the most events probably also win the most cash or prizes (pseudo cash) and should provide a larger share of PDGA revenue. Even those who don't cash but attend more events get more PDGA value than those who play one or two close events.
How would revenue be affected with a $30 membership fee for everyone and a $10 PDGA Player Event Fee for members and an additional fee for non members?
If you play 20 events per year then a member pays $230 in PDGA fees. Play 3 events and the member pays $60.
All in the spirit of you play more, you pay more.
Given the lower figure of 60,000 entrants in 2006, a $10 fee yields $600,000. And that does not include the non member fees.
It also encourages more casual players to join since the cost of membership is more approachable for the casual competitor than the $50 or $75 currently required for membership.



If this was the case I would'nt attend that many tournaments anymore. Why should I get punished because I get my value out of my membership.

Why would you consider it punishment? You traveled to 18 events this year from California to North Carolina. (Thanks for coming to two of mine!) You must pay thousands in travel expenses, paying a maximum of $7 more per event seems like a drop in the bucket.
Why should I be punished (though I don't consider it punishment) because I pay pro dues and am not able to play anymore? You certainly benefit more from the PDGA than I do, should I pay more than you?

Edited part....
And it is really not about me. I'm paid through 2011 so I certainly support the PDGA, even though I don't expect to be able to play in even one event in that time. I was just thinking about new members and overall revenue generation.

No I moved to Virginia most that is why I was able to play NC and TN events.

Why is it always about getting MORE money out of the players? You want to take MORE money from the players who are supporting the PDGA taking out more in fees? Again, it wouldn't work where I live and the more I hear, it will be a long hard road for a PDGA to regain a foothold in the southeast.

In our little series, there is no sanctioning fee. We just pay the SN $2 per player, ALL of which goes back to the Pro and Am championships, so players, at least those who choose to attend, SEE a return on their money. Event fees are reasonable and fun is had by all.

Granted, there is no magazine, but at most event, you can get the FREE Disc Golfer mag. There is no insurance, which is a plus for those parks that require it. That is a great PDGA perk. There is NO NON MEMBER FEE! If you want to toss in more money, you can buy a bag-tag for $20 and the money goes back to the Pro Championships. Not to mention there are 100 events a year. Depending on where you live, there is most likely an event every weekend within a reasonable driving distance.

It's not an umbrella org like the PDGA and is not meant to be. But the players enjoy the events, the people and the competition. Of course, it also doesn't have the overhead the PDGA has either.

rWc3523

The TD would see it coming out of his pocket (we know it doesn't but it is the perception). $3/player comes out to a little over $500 for some weekends around here. Bump it up to $10 and now the TD is looking at writing the PDGA a $1800+ check for the weekend. Non-sanctioned events now seem a lot more attractive for the TD...

The TD's perception is really the point.

On the one hand, you may have a lot more PDGA members that are interested in playing in PDGA sanctioned events because the membership price was dropped and it is in the TD's best interest to sanction the events.

On the other hand, you may get more members that don't want to pay the higher per event fees except at A-Tiers and Majors.

If the average player plays only 15 (I think that is the number that Chuck used) rated rounds per year, I think this may be worth considering to help those players that only play one or two events a year decide to join and stay current.

IMO, much of the membership value isn't related to the number of tournaments attended per year. Tech standards, a governing body, magazine, message board/web site, ratings, the disc golf center and so on come to mind. There are arguably some benefits that relate more to the actual attendance of tournaments, but perhaps the $3 per person covers these adequately. I'd even venture to say that the $3 figure was determined on the cost of providing these benefits.

There are probably three or four main reasons people join:

1. I believe in the mission
2. I want to save on entry fees
3. I want benefits

What you need to do is structure membership packages that fit each of those needs, but doesn't cannibalize from the others in terms of profit, i.e. still allows you to carry out your mission.

Yesterday I was startled to learn that a well loved local pro who is one of the main folks responsible for getting me and my son to play disc golf is not planning on renewing his membership this year due to the costs involved.

This guy has put on a widely attended A-tier event for many years that he tells me brings in over 500 dollars to the PDGA and might not do that either. I offered to pay his membership fee, but he will have none of that.

It concerns me that the membership fees, especially for pros have reached a certain critical level where the cost for some is starting to be a major concern. Lord knows most don't even come close to making back their expenses in prize money. I'm sure many good arguments can be made to justify the need for higher fees, but there comes a point where one kills the goose so to speak that is laying the golden eggs.

By my calculations, the PDGA will be out over $500 dollars in this case.

At a minimum, certain TD's - A and B tier for example (C tier may be too small to justify this at times) who actually earn the PDGA money through their VOLUNTEER efforts, should receive free membership. This is the right thing to do and makes fiscal sense as well becuase it earns the PDGA money by encouraging qualified pros to put on big tournaments.

Finacially speaking, the sport may be at a critical juncture where it absolutely cannot grow without outside money coming in. An even larger emphasis should be devoted (I'm sure they are already doing this) by PDGA staff directly and indirectly by encouraging others to do so - to bring outside sponsors into the sport. I don't think I'm exaggerating to say that at this point the future growth of the sport depends on it.

"Finacially speaking, the sport may be at a critical juncture where it absolutely cannot grow without outside money coming in."

hello david. did you mean this? the sport? or did you mean the pdga? i see a distinct difference. just curious. i was struck by your sincerity. and surprised by the lack of responses. here's one for you, why don't we pay tds? not "allow" them to skim off the competitors, but pay them with pdga revenue. i'm surprised that we have 9 or 10 paid employees and not one a paid td.

I agree that we should be paying TDs for their efforts. But I think that it would be best if the actual 'customers' of the TD (the players themselves) provided this payment. At least until tournaments grow more popular to the point where sponsorship can provide the compensation. After all, participants of the tournament are directly receiving the benefits and are in the best position to provide the feedback (by whether they come back or not) concerning whether the service offered was of value.

I don't view this as 'skimming' from the players. Its charging for services offered, and I think we may get better events in the long run if more TDs would take compensation for their time without reservation.

This argument gets made frequently and in different forms. So much so that it gets old.

1) TD's should be paid period.
2) Our current structure focusing on the Pro game is antithetical to that. When you're trying to put every penny into the Pro game, there's not a lot left over for anyone else; especially TDs.
3) The problem lies in the structure of the sport. No sport of this nature is ever going to support a Pro class well. Our ability, or should I say inability, to recognize this is based in our egos and desire to "be a pro!" We all harbor that dream to be a top pro thinking that someone is going to pay to see us play!

In order for a sport to survive as a Pro sport, it has to have a financial foundation. That is, money from nothing, or sponsorship. To get that money, you have to have something to offer. Problem is that we have nothing to offer.

Take our closest analog, Stick Golf. The foundations of sponsorship in this sport is two fold, it's attraction to the rich and the amount of money that those same are willing to spend on equipment. This makes the sport a bonanza for sponsorship. Disc golfers on the other hand fit the opposite mold. We're the poorest of the poor. There are a few rich players (a senator, rumor has it that Cher plays, that the Frost Bank family plays, and a few other rich people). Well if you have any money at all, you can build your own course and maintain it. Many do. That can't happen in BG unless you're the uber-rich.

We just don't bring enough money to the table to compete, and our cost structure allows those who do have money to go it on their own. Adding insult to injury, we have all the presence of softball a sport which is where in terms of sponsorship? A great sport by any measure, but not one you're ever going to see on T.V.

The best model that fits disc golf is an Am model, possibly one that incorporates a few Pros (like the running model - although I don't think that will fit either, a running event can have 5,000 participants to support the handful of pros, a disc golf event can't). The Am - trophy only model allows the TD to charge a small fee, take home enough to make it worth their time, and sell plastic at a high enough frequency to cover their costs. It's not a model for huge growth but it works,

Our current model works but only barely. It requires a fresh infusion of Pro and TD wannabes as the old set burn out due to a lack of support and money. Hence Dave W's Pro leaving the sport.

Dave is incorrect in his notion that the PDGA should give money to this Pro. Yes, it will work a little and keep the guy around a while, but do you really think this token would make a real difference? There isn't the money in this sport to make a difference to this guy. Until he realizes that there isn't much there for him, he will struggle around the edges and once he decides this is for fun and not profit, then he can decide what level he wants to play at. Alternatively, he can quit.

One thing I've observed is that a lot of the old time players who long ago realized this was for fun are still out there. I see them here in Houston frequently, and even more so in Austin. They realized a long time ago that this sport should be for fun and dropped out of the Pro circuit. They play league, drink a beer and smoke a joint (Oh yes they do) and have a lot more fun than the whole Pro circuit pursuit allows many players to have.

Right now we're on the wrong path in this sport, but that's O.K. The real sport is still there right under the surface and one day well wake up and realize, this sport is never going to have a real Pro circuit.