USPSA & Marketing

[grassy knoll]

The club level politics is very complex, I can hardly imagine what it is like between international organizations.

I did not renew my membership at the range 5 minutes away, because they were so upset that I would want to even think about having club level IPSC matches and having non club members show up to shoot at the range.

"Don't you know we have to shoot behind those benches, five shots in five minutes, take more time if you need it."

I joined the next closest club, forty minutes away that has IPSC matches all season.  And they are actually a Fish and Game club.

[davecutts]

IDPA vs USPSA I don't realy know I've only shot USPSA and since there are three ranges within 25 minutes of me that host uspsa matches I can shoot 6 sanctioned matches a month a couple of different steel matches an American Handgunner style steel match, NRAA bullseye matches and PPC courses,and that's just the pistol.  I've yet to see any of these events publicised anywhere, but at the range, and even then you have to know where to look (no I couldn't shoot them all if I wanted to or could afford to).  What's my point I'm not realy sure what the intro has to do with the body.  I'll try to tie it in.

Something I have wondered since I started (and I know there would be a thousand obsticals) is why this "sport" we all play isn't on TV.  As a guy in his twenties I find it hard to believe that someone sits through a whole hour watching some dude fish, or f$@$#ing bowling.  Man we have a wiz bang product here that could realy be appealing ot a wider audience.  Now a USPSA course of fire might be tuff to televise, but a Steel challenge, or an American Handgunner type of match could be very cool.  Here are people doing things with pistol that far out strip any thing in the movies.  They do it safely and responsibly no one gets hurt.  I know we have (the name excapes me) the shooting show that TGO was on this fall.  I was imagining the X-games or something of the sort to start out and attract younger participents.  Yes I know we are a small "underground" sport, but so is competitive sky diving and some of the other wierd sh...poop that is exhibited (now that I'm thinking of it when was the last x game, and will there be another).  Anyway obsticals yes, but why not?

And

One gripe:  When I started I just went to the range and started asking questions.  I found a match and was told what I needed.  I went and had a blast.  So I've been back most weekends since.  I got on with a great squad of safety concious moderatly competative guys (where the woman at?) which at my level suits me great.  My gripe... no one was willing to help me into reloading.  Yeah I got advice and pointers etc. I asked straight out can you show me and not once did anyone invite me over, and I would have brought a six pack or pizza, for a lesson.  As a shooter to this day, and I've been reloading for a year and a half, reloading is still my biggest pain in the ass.  The boards have helped.  New shooted workshops sound like a great idea, but if some one askes please show them the reloading ropes.

[actionshooter]

I haven't seen anyone mention anything about SASS. We have lost a lot of shooters to what is no doubt the fastest growing shooting sport of all time. What did they do that the others haven't done? They spent an incredible amount of money on promotion. They hired a profesional consultant,and guess what,they actually listened to him!

I don't know as much about our organization as many of the people who are comenting here.

What I do know is buisiness and you have to spend money to make money and its time to take a chance.

Steve

[Flexmoney]

MB,

I'm not sure what you mean by the Street Nationals being a pressure point.  The format for Nationals is new and different.  Probably needs some time to soak in.  I know there has been some knee-jerk reaction.  Maybe it is justified, maybe not.  Still pretty early to tell.

[midvalleyshooter]

Michael,

Like Bill I am a former USPSA member who now shoots IDPA. I helped form and run an IDPA club that was once an USPSA club. In the el nino flood of 97 our range spent several months under water. Most of the BOD's quit. I was shooting cowboy action when my friend Duane who was the remaining member of the USPSA's club BOD asked me to help him out. When the waters receded we opened the target shed and it looked as if a giant had filled it with mud and shook it We shot a couple of matches to finish out that year ending with a nice donation to a local charity.

IDPA was just starting and we gave it a try. Why? Because it is a lot easier to run and IDPA club and just as much fun as USPSA to shoot. The club pays once to the official body. We can sign you up and classify you in one day We compute scores with a CALCULATOR because its easy to do. The stages are easier to set up and tear down. Less round count means less taping, brassing, scoring etc. IDPA is also more shooter friendly.

SASS matches run real easy also.

So my point is USPSA needs to make the matchs easier to run. Simplify the scoring and all the administrative chores. Slim down that rulebook. Ditch major/minor. Streamline, streamline, streamline. USPSA burns out its most important resources: the people who run the matchs at the grass roots level.

The "Street Gun Nationals" is the best thing I have heard come out of USPSA in years. But the rules must be changed so the match can be won OVERALL with a Glock 9mm or other such true street gun. How? It happens at IDPA matchs all the time. The stage design need to not favor 2 pound triggers with lots of tights shots. And the phony advantage of major/minor scoring must be dumped. There are other areas but thats all for now

Cheers,

Keith

[ErikW]

IDPA will become so similar to USPSA (and vice versa) that it will be silly to have them separate. But who's going to gobble whom? If USPSA wants those shooters back, it can do some things like spec out "defensive" matches, add an ESP-friendly division, and require carry leather for L10 in defensive matches.

Cowboy shooters are a lost cause; they aren't coming back or coming over. All we can do is learn from how SASS grew itself so quickly. (I get the impression cowboy shooters who abandoned USPSA did so because of the "unfun-ness" of competitive range lawyers and all that ugliness.)

I think there are plenty of shooters for USPSA to attract who don't currently shoot in other games. Look what happens when the USPSA nationals are shown on American Shooter; Sedro Woolley gets swamped with inquiries. Do something to attract these people. Produce a commercial to air during the outdoor shows.

USPSA should spend some effort finding out why the ratio of involved shooters to qualification course students is so bad. What happens to all these people who take the safe handgun competitor class and appear all jazzed up to go shoot? They don't ever make it, or only show up for a match or two. Does that happen to SCCA drivers or autocrossers or anywhere else?

[bgary]

I'll wade in on this marketing topic.  Michael Bane and I have been throwing ideas around for months, trying to figure out how to kick the topic loose in a productive direction.

Part of the challenge is the nebulousness (?) of the problem.  We know we *have* a problem (stagnant growth, low membership retention, etc), but we aren't entirely sure what is causing it.  Is it loss to other shooting sports?  Is it lack of alignment with our "core customer?"  Is it not returning what members view as tangible value for their membership dollar?  Is there something systemic wrong?  Are people just burning out?  Probably all of those, and none of them.  We, as a board, have had a very difficult time figuring out just what the problem is, so that we can define a good solution.

Also, part of the problem, is the "bigness" of the organization.  We have 500-some-odd clubs in the org, and each one has a different environment, with different needs and interests.  Somehow, we need to find a way to communicate and be responsive to member needs, whether those members are at a hotbed of competitive activity, or a club in the backwoods of Montana, 300 miles from the next nearest club.  

And, last, we need to make sure that whatever path we choose, actually accomplishes what we're trying to do.  NONE of us are interested in throwing money away.  We're willing to invest in the future of the organization, but we hope to have *some* form of assurance, or at least a way of comfortably believing, that the investment will bear fruit.  

Contrary to some opinions, we're not discussing this just to fill up idle time.  We're *actively* trying to find the combination to unlock this thing, and we're open to ideas.  If you have anything you'd like to contribute, feel free to email me directly - it *will* get attention.

Bruce Gary / USPSA Area-1 Director

[Patrick Sweeney]

A few observations:

Our club is the oldest in Michigan, and before our contretemps with our neighbors we were putting on the biggest matches around.  We've had to put a lot of work into getting back into the thick of things, and I've seen a few things that brought people in, and others that kept them away.

1)  Emphasize fun.  We print and hand out a club Match Guide.  It describes what we do, and what you need to do it.  and every other paragraph empasizes FUN.  If they aren't having fun they won't come back.  When someone starts asking questions, our club members whip out the Match Guide and hand it to the questioner.  "Keep it.  Read it.  What do you need to know?"

2)  Cost isn't the problem.  Ever price a surfboard and wetsuit?  A parachute and gear?  Ever replace a blown engine on a dirtbike?  The problem is equipment churning.  Spending a couple of grand isn't the problem, spending it not knowing if what you've bought will be obsolete next year is.

3)  Round count isn't a problem, kept under control.  We've had an influx of IDPA shooters at our matches lately.  They show up because they want more shooting than IDPA offers.  They just don't want to take it in the shorts and have to do a standing reload in a shooting box when the hi-cap guys don't.  Round count is good!

  Instead of complaining about high round counts, emphasize to the "street guys" that nothing pumps up the stress and tests your skills and tactics like the fourth or fifth shooting box does.  Anybody can deal with the first three targets.

4)  We must not jump to address the membership "problem" without knowing what it is, and if it is real.  When I started martial arts sooo long ago, our classes were twenty people each.  Bruce Lee burst on the scene and classes were so full you couldn't move.  A year later we were back to twenty people.  All groups go through natural fluctuations in membership and attendance.

5)  Burnout is a real problem.  We have struggled for years to deal with it, and I think we have a better handle on it than other clubs around here, but it takes more of my time as President than any other problem.  The main thing to do is ease the load of the RO's.

As for USPSA gobbling up IDPA, more later.

[EricW]

Bruce,

I think you and the Board are asking the wrong question.  Instead of asking "Why are people leaving?" you need to ask, "What make us attractive?"  It's an easier question.  Frankly, it's the only one that matters.  Nothing is without a negative virtue.  USPSA positive virtues just need to clearly outweigh the negative.  That's the only "problem" to be solved.  The solution exists, it only needs to be implemented.

The Board is so paralyzed by the fear of making a mistake, that it is making the greatest mistake of all:  doing nothing.  The French have a proverb: "The road to hell is paved with good intentions."  For all the Board's good intentions of not erring, USPSA will surely meet it's demise.  I don't know whether a plummet to it's death is more virtuous than the current slow burn, but at least it would be decisive.  

You have a leader in Mike Voigt.  Follow him.  Take the risk.  Implement.

Best Regards,

Eric

[Rob Boudrie]

Eric - What level of "risk" do you recommend?  Should

we give a consultant $250K to assume responsibility

for marketing?  $500K? The level of caution required

is directly proportional to the investment required. I

hardly call not being willing to give the consultant

who made a presnetation to us a quarter million dollars

to "assume responsbility" for marketing, with his only

accountability being possible "non-renewal" after

spending our $250K to be "paralyzed be fear."

[Detlef]

what's wrong with making (a portion of the) payment contingent on success? Defined, e.g., as a certain growth in membership? Or call it an extra payment based on clearly defined success numbers. Maybe have not identified the marketing individuals/firms willing to take that on that would suit us best?

--Detlef

[EricW]

Rob,

I wasn't there for the presentation, nor do I know the consultant or his reputation.  If the guy was good and had the mojo to make it work I'd say yes, spend the money.  I'd have to look at a financial statement to know what type of commitment USPSA can afford.  

If USPSA is going to wait to enact a marketing plan until it's a "sure thing," why not just dump the whole effort now?  No reputable person is going to stand before the Board and give an iron-clad guarantee of success.

What is going to make marketing work is the attitude of "Let's go for it.  We can make this work!"  That's your risk mitigator:  Can Do.  I'm not trying to make any one mad or feel bad here.  I've just seen what works in this world and "Can Do" does.  

My $.02,

Eric

[Rob Boudrie]

Nothing can be done without risk.  The questions

are "how much risk" and "is the risk shared?"

<p>

I had asked the marketing person who made the presentation if he would be interested in a deal where USPSA  risked the expenses, he risked his labor, and he got paid several times what he was asking if, and only if, he go the kind of membership numbers he was talking about.

<p>

The answer was very polite, (and even started with

the word "Yes", as good salesmen often do), however, the answer was a clear and unambiguous "No."

<p>

In fairness to this presenter, he is the president of a samll but "real" established firm, and is used to dealing with clients who not being asked to commit approx (very rough numbers) 25% of their net worth to his fee on a single deal.  

[MBneACP]

Eric, Rob & All;

I would like to point out that the $250K is NOT the only bet on the table. I'd also like to point out that it's not my bet.

Eric, I tend to agree with you on the issue of risk. You gotta take some. In the Real World, I *teach* risk management and risk-taking to executives. The editors of FAST COMPANY magazine call me "the lord high god of risk management." I do not teach people to take risks lightly, or to commit to a program without understanding where and what the risks really are.

When Dave Arnold and I launched the NSSF media program, we were told in no uncertain terms by major people in the industry that what we wanted to accomplish--driving a wedge between the media and anti-gun forces--was impossible, and that we were "risking the farm." The "farm" comment came from one of the top pro-gun people in the country, directly to me at SHOT 2 years ago. In 18 months, the NSSF program has become the benchmark for the industry. We have friends in the media at levels we've never had before; our own lobbyists are telling us that, in some cases, the anti-gun people can't even figure out what happened. We also been able to deflect some very bad national press, including a television piece specifically attacking USPSA and practical shooting. That piece was totally killed, thanks to our efforts (and, believe me, there were some scary moments!). NSSF took a leap of faith in launchng the program. It was expensive; it was high risk. The way we managed those risk was *communications,* constant real-time feedback of what was working, what was not working and what opportunities were opening up or closing.  That's communication between me and my client, NSSF; from our instructor base; from executives at the gun companies; from people within the pro-gun movement and from the journalists who have participated in the program. Marketing/media/messaging isn't a box of software that you can buy off the shelf, nor is it something that can be *safely* delegated to someone else, even an established firm.

Similarly, when I began working with USA Shooting, the U.S. Olympic team, there were huge, apparently unsurmountable, obstacles. In 90 days, we've completely revamped the way USA Shooting works, including redefining the concept of "sponsorship." USA Shooting is launching their own action pistol team, sponsored by a major gun company that has never before put money into our sport. There's now an excellent chance that one or more of "our" shooters, guys we know, will be going to Athens to represent the United States in 2004. I believe it would mean a hell of a lot to USPSA is Todd Jarrett or Bruce Piatt or Doug Koenig or Mickey Fowler stepped onto that podium in Athens, and I'm working for that.

Risk is scary, and sometimes you fail. Sometimes you fail a lot. The trick is to understand that this is a *process* headed toward a specific end and never lose sight of that end.

MB

[EricW]

MB,

Amen.  

Eric

[bgary]

Eric -

I would agree with you that there are better questions to ask.  I phrased my questions the way I did because they are ones I am particularly interested in.  Things like "why do so many shooters join for a year, figure out they can keep shooting whether they are members or not, and never join again?"  That, in particular, intrigues me because it goes to the core of several issues:  we *do*, apparently, have the ability to attract several thousand new members a year, but we also seem to have the ability to let a like number of members "slip through the cracks".  In many cases, they still shoot the matches, they still get benefit from the things USPSA does, they just don't seem to feel that it is *enough* benefit for them to send in that 35 bucks.  Same with clubs - I know of a number of clubs that have not re-affiliated, but they still put on "USPSA" matches... same rules, same targets, USPSA-trained ROs, they just don't feel that there is any (or, at least enough) value in being affiliated with USPSA.  I' like to solve *that*, for a number of reasons - partly because if we get it solved, we probably have several thousand member-a-year "growth", right off the bat.  But also because, in solving it, we'll be working to find the things that make us "sticky", as Michael Bane has said.

Are we risk averse?  No, not in my opinion.  We're absolutely willing to bet on things that will make a difference.  What we haven't found yet is the right bet.  But, we are *actively* looking - we're not just sitting around saying "oh, I wish there was something we could do..."

We have a very interesting membership.  We have some who are angry at us for doing "nothing", some who will be angry at us for whatever we do, and some who will be angry at us if it costs any of "their" money.  Somewhere in between all that, we need to find the right thing(s) to do... and we're working at it.

[bird]

I think that at the local level printing flyers and putting them up at sporting good stores, gun shops, bait shops etc is a great idea.

I also agree that Television exposure is the best way to market the sport, I can't see how people can watch fishing and bowling, talk about freaking boring.

I get an adreline rush watching the 3 minutes or so of IPSC on American Shooter.

USPSA should spend their money on television exposure.

I know people who shoot IDPA and not IPSC because they feel that they are not ready for IPSC, they need race gun equipment, or IDPA is more realistic in real world shooting, all of which is incorrect.

There is a more "common man" attitude concerning IDPA and cowboy stuff.

I think alot of people are afraid to shoot IPSC and are intimidated by the elitest perception that IPSC has.

I personally think IPSC shooting is incredibly fun and if

that fun was translated to the average shooter you would see membership rise.

In California just owning a gun makes you supsect in alot of peoples eyes, let alone discussing competition.

Even at work I have to be careful about discussing the sport because of all the PC crap today,even amongst fellow gun owners.

I am a new shooter and a USPSA member and damn proud of it.

I joined after meeting Mike Voight at a Junior Safariland outing with my wife and kids.

Mike took time out of his busy day and discussed the sport with me and my family, at that point I had never shot a competition in my life but soon did and I was hooked.

I think Mike Voight has some great ideas and the BOD should really listen to him.

[RIIID]

Bruce the answers your looking for are with the people who have left USPSA. A survey must be developed to ask the questions you seek. Send it to ALL of the ex-members w/return postage. The cost of this would be small compared to a markrting firm. I know you won't get a 100% return on this survey but hopefully enough would come back to answer why they're leaving. Getting more NEW members with a marketing plan isn't the answer. USPSA is broke, we as members need to fix it starting at the top and going down to each and every member. One thing to try first before hiring a marketing firm is to hire a marketing director. A paid employee of USPSA. If they don't get the desired results then look at a marketing firm. If you need help in coming up with questions, mailing them out, and compiling the results let me know I would gladly do it.

Rich

[Jack T]

Greetings,

Having been away from IPSC/USPSA for the last 10 years for health reasons I have seen virtually little change from back then and now except for the major difference being the dominant presence of high capacity guns.  Lets face it, to be competetive in this sport it takes a major investment in time and money.  If I was going to race cars I wouldn't jump into Formula 1, I would start off at the local track and race what ya brung.

My point, there is so little emphasis placed on limited 10 guns that one feels that for initial entry into the sport you have to invest in big buck equipment.  Our sport began with the slightly modified 1911 single stack.  It appears to me that the current mentality needs to be changed toward promoting the single stack, not treating it as  a step child.  It is an excellent entry level/cost  effective gun and it is a hell of a lot of fun and challenge  to shoot.

PS.  Place yourself as a new shooter (limited knowledge), you go to buy a new hi-cap gun and raise the question about magazines procurement.  Get my drift.  

[ErikW]

Just what kind of emphasis do you want? They've separated the Limited 10 nationals from Limited and Open, which will get a lot more people shooting the L10 nationals. But at the previous combined nationals and at most other matches, more people choose to shoot in other divisions.

It's a free market system right now and the market has made its choice.

Again, what emphasis do you want? Force people into L10? Allow single-stack .45s only in L10? Offer better prize tables for L10? Lower match fees for L10 entrants? Get manufacturers to offer contingency awards for L10?

[Rob Boudrie]

"Slow but steady decline?" - actually, the problem is more a lack of growth.  Membership numbers for 2001 and 2000 are actually _UP_ from the previous year (but so slightly as to be statistically insignificant).  What is down is the "club count" - and that's no wonder, since we used to have 100% market share, and now share it with IDPA.  IDPA offers clubs a lower cost option (no mission count), which can be attractive if the members chosing their affiliation are not interested in USPSA program such as our larger matches, NROI programs, paying for a World Shoot team, etc.  As we focus on figuring out what we need to do to encourage growth, we must not lose sight of the fact that we offer something from value.  Where the "crunch" hits USPSA is that expenses increase every year, and with a flat headcount, we're not growing revenues as fast as our expenditures.

<p>

It is also important to consider the marketing proposal from Michael Bane in perspective.  He has many good ideas, and there may be services of value which he can offer to USPSA.  What the membership must realize, however, is that the board must balance possible benefits, costs, and risk.  Michael's proposal is professional and prepared with great care - but is also a request for a consulting job which, if accepted, will cost USPSA more for his services that we pay our full time executive manager or our president (and the proposed fee is not contingent upon results).  I'm not offering that as a criticism, but as an observation from someone who shares the burden of assessing "risk/benefit", and is responsible for both growing your organization as well as safeguarding your financial assets in USPSA.

<p>

Any large "marketing expense" to a consultant would have to come from deficit spending of our assets, as we do not have an operational surplus sufficient to fund the kind of proposals we have received.  This increases the risk, because we may never be able to recover from a failed marketing program if it consumes our nest egg. In this context, success and failure is defined by the number of members and affiliated clubs - "buzz" or "favorable trade press" is of little benefit if it does not translate to stastistically significant (there's that term gain) increases in membership.

<p>

On a separate matter, I have corresponded with ShooterGrrl, and will be getting her the info she needs to try to revamp the USPSA site (sorry it's taking so long).  Although I am somewhat territorial about the "data management" aspects of the site, I am very open to contributions which will result in a more user-friendly appearance.

[Jack T]

Eric,

The question on the table is, "What can be done to stem USPSA'S slow but steady decline."  Where did most of the single stack shooters go?  Not too many of them shoot IPSC anymore because they found other competition more readily acceptable.  Tell me if I am wrong, but is it not a correct assumption that most potentialy new shooters are led to believe that they must have a hi-cap pistol to compete.  I have met numerous shooters at the indoor range where I practice at night and invite them out to one of our matches.  The most common reply that I get is that they don't have a hi-cap gun or can't afford one yet.  They seem to think they are looked down upon for shooting a single stack.    Many new shooter look at IPSC as mainly an equipment game, although those that have been in it for many years know it is much more than that.  This is one reason why many shooters seek the other shooting disciplines in lieu of USPSA.   When I made the decision to try and compete again, I had to start from scratch.  All my guns were destroyed 5 years ago in a hurricane.  I was not prepared to drop the big bucks for a new open gun and find out I was not capable of competing at the same level I once did.  I wanted to shoot a single stack and find out, but everyone and their brother tried to talk me out of it.   Everything feels fantastic again and I am back with a new open  gun and having fun (not quite at the same level yet, but fun all the same).  The difference being is that I knew I had a choice.  Again, I feel strongly about recommending limited 10 to a potentialy new member as a cost effective initial entry into the sport.   If he/she wants to make the initial investment for limited/open so be it.  Let's promote the option, not ignor it.

latter

[shred]

Had a thought as I was reading this... does the trend (at least in my area) towards seemingly ever-increasing round count have anything to do with the reluctance of new shooters and relative lack of interest in the 10-round categories??  I know I don't like telling prospective shooters "well, you need a gun, holster and, uh, five, magazines and pouches".  I think I'd never done a single speed reload in my life before shooting my first IPSC match.

We've all seen great 14-round stages, and lousy 40-rounders.  Can we do anything to stop the "I'll force everybody to do a reload" mentality of stage designers?

What's the obsession with big-match round-count too?  Was it once a sign of quality?

Enough of my ramblings.. off to get coffee

[PaulW]

Honestly, I have to agree with Jack for the most part.  I remember when I was first introduced into the sport I was so intimidated I didn't actually shoot my first match for a year.  And when I did finally shoot my first match I was worst than last.  Now, I did start with a high cap, but I still can see the intimidation factor for a new shooter.  I try to be very positive to new shooters, but the intimidation is still there unless they "want" to work at becoming better themselves.  So on one hand I agree, and then on the other hand for not a whole lot more money you can buy a para and play this game just as well.  In IDPA you can dust of your grandpa's old gun and go out and shoot.  But in IPSC it's a little different, a more advanced, leading edge, equipment type of game.  What century are we in?   Now that does not mean we don't have to welcome the l10's and production shooters.  I am thinking of shooting these more just to try and push these divisions.  But it's hard when you have a full out blaster.

[JZELEK]

Hello,

I am a former USPSA junky who now shoots IDPA almost exclusively. I strayed away because 5000

dollar race guns are just not practical in the real world.

I was pleased when you came out with a production class. This past summer I went to what was labeled as a production only match. Of course when I get to this match expecting a level playing field, several shooters showed up with their Hi-cap Major scoring raceguns. The first racer up draws his weapon which flys out of his hand, hits the frame of a door and lands on the ground pointing at the crowd behind him! I was sure this guy was going to get DQ'd but the RO just picked up his gun handed it back and told him to get ready for another run.

Of course a racegun won the match.

I wouldn't doubt this so called "Streat gun nationals" is going to be more of the same, shooting unrealistic guns in unrealistic stages.

Until this  major/minor scoring is swept aside and all guns are scored the same your sport will remain in decline.