Attendance at larger matches

[Al Capizzo]

I see that the Area 3 match has been cancelled this year. As far as I can remember this is the first time a match of this stature has been cancelled due to what appears to be lack of interest. The Area 4 match this year also had a much lower than normal attendance. Area 4 is usually held in late May/early June and in past years it was close to being sold out in January. This year there were a lot of empty spaces. So my question is, whats going on?  Are there simply too many "big matches" chasing a limited shooter base?  Are Area matches simply not as important as they once were? What I mean is, no one really cares about being "Area 4 Champion" or whatever.  Maybe this is a problem isolated to just these two Areas.  Are the other larger matches filling up?  Pragmatically, anyone have some ideas about attracting people to these large matches?  

Thanks

[bonedaddy]

    Hello Al!  And I'm glad you asked.  I think many of us are concerned about keeping attendance up and "keeping the sport alive".  There seem to be some manipulations going on to try and keep people interested.   Not all of these changes are good.  

   If we want to understand why people are no longer coming to our matches, we must first understand what attracted them to us in the first place.   After the "new" has worn off, most people don't care to drive 4 hours, to shoot for a total of five minutes, just to win a prize that they could have bought for less than the cost of the trip.   I don't think most shooters, other than the professionals or pro-wannabes, are concerned much about the prize table.   I do feel strongly however, that  prizes should be awarded strictly by performance and not by chance.   Some people do care about "being Area 4 champion"  or first "C" at Area 4.   I applaud these people and share their competitive spirit!  

   The people who are chosing to do something other than attending matches are opting to invest their time for other  kinds of "returns".   I believe that our match attendance, and thus the future of our sport, is based on meeting peoples needs.   Our sport must prevail in the "competition"  with other possible activities, for our members time.   What are the needs of our members?   What do YOU enjoy most about a match, if not winning?  What about friendship?  Or learing some new angle on the game from a more experienced shooter?  Me, I just like hanging out with other shooters talking about the game.   Competive shooters are the coolest people I know!  

    If our sport meets the needs of its members, it will survive and prosper.   If the sport is "one dimensional" and only addresses "winning" it will die, because only a few can win.   But this one dimension must exist, for it is competition!    Our challenge then, is to keep the sport "fullfilling" through friendship, learning, and awareness, until it is each persons "time to win".  With the times that are facing us in this nation, soon the feeling of "belonging" will be in great demand.   USPSA will win or lose based on our ability to fill this need.

[Al Capizzo]

Thanks for your thoughts Bonedaddy. And what your saying is absolutely true. Our sport must compete in a marketplace with a thousand other things an individual can be doing with his time.

But that begs the question, "How do we make it so that this is what people want to do?".  

Personally I'd like to see some incentive for the Big Guys to shoot the Area matches. The only time I've ever shot with Rob and Todd and Brian was at an Area 4 a few years ago.  You know how cool it was for my 15 year old son to be on a squad with Ted Bonnet, and have Brian Enos in the squad right behind him! I'd like to see USPSA or perhaps a pool of CASH sponsers set up some sort of recognition for the pros who do well in the Area matches specifically.  It doesn't take a business genius to figure out that profesionals have to make these trips pay in one form or another.

Anyone else have some ideas on what is happening to large match attendance and/or what to do about it?

[Phil Dunlop]

Al, I mentioned elsewhere that we followed the Australian example and contested a tournament for regional teams at the Nationals and our Island champs, in both Standard and open.

We, send gold and silver teams, and have found renewed enthusiasm for both the Nationals and the selection matches as well as better eposure to competition for local shooters.

Like Bonedaddy, I love socialising with like minded people, but for the matches to have credibility in my mind the best shooters in the country need to be there.

Looking at the Production and Limited 10 entries at this years US nats, 13 and 20,  (I know things were a little different this year!!!) it seems to me that the gear race is not the problem. I suspect that the more you dilute the pool of tallent across the divisions, the less appealing the match becomes.

P.D.

[Chriss Grube]

Al,

I think part of the problem is the match fee and the problems with prize tables. A cash incentive for the top guys? They are sponsored and most will go where the sponsors send them. Is it fair to pay them to go when the rest of the shooters have to pay their own way? Yeah its nice to see Todd and Robbie at the big matches, but the only time I saw them at Nationals was lunch and after the match. If you're shooting the match you usually don't have time to go watch the super squad. I'm a little busy trying to shoot my best not worrying what they are up to. This sport is expensive. The lower match fees are great for the average shooter, most aren't going to win anything anyway. I spent about 1000-1200 dollars plus 5 vaction days to go to nationals I won a barrel and probably a plaque for 2nd in my class. the match fee was 225.  This is not a cost effective sport. Nobody gets in it to make money, lower the match fee, come up with set budgets for section,state and area matches and a shoot for trophies. If you have a prize table put the distribution order out with the application.

[benos]

I'm on (long distance) dial-up this weekend, so I'll be brief for now. I think the overall attendance has a lot to do with how many "big dogs" are there. In the early 80's, we used to drive to LA, from Phx, for a chance to see and possibly milk Mike Dalton or Mickey Fowler. We were juiced to just be on the same range, or drive down the same road they did to get to the range. OK, I may be exaggerating a bit, but you get my point. I don't think it's a coincidence that when the Area 3 and 4 matches were the place to be, they had the best overall prizes. They were huge. Also, you have to realize that even though there are a FEW sponsored shooters, most don't make enough from their sponsors to justify going to (read spending approx $1000 per area match) just to go. Most sponsors do not require their shooters to attend area matches. If they do, they pray their own expenses. So, unfortunately it comes down to the match. I agree, we need to find a way to get the big boys back, otherwise an area match is basically a big local match.

be

[Flexmoney]

NHRA (hotrod) has Spring Nationals, winter Nationals etc.

How about a point system for the big matches.  The guy with the msot points for the year is the National champ.

Just throwing out a thought.

If we all throw some thoughts, something might stick.

[Al Capizzo]

Flexmoney,

This is right along the lines I was thinking on.  Shooters earning points (and cash wouldn' t hurt either) at each Area Match that determine....I don' t know what.  Maybe a bigger cash prize,  or points acrued from the Area matches determine US Gold and Silver teams when USPSA sends shooters to international events.

Refering to Brian's comment above,  there is probably a "which comes first" or whats known in philosophy as the chicken and egg syndrome going on here.  Do big shooters come because the prize table's great, therefor lots of other shooters show up, or is there already a large turn out, so the prize table grows followed by the big dudes?

Anyway, the reason I brought the question up in the first place is  because a friend of mine is going to become Area 4 Director in January, and I'm sure I'll have the opportunity to help get next year's Area 4 match together.  I'm looking for any thoughts to help make it something people want to do (and if you want to suggest some stage designs, that wouldn't hurt either).  

[Singlestack]

I agree with Chriss. The heck with prize tables except for sponser donations and go with a trophy only system and get the cost down. Nobody makes enough off of the prize table to cover costs anyway.

The point system is not a bad idea. The only way for a cash prize is to charge big entry fees and I don't agree with that.

[Patrick Sweeney]

Gentlemen,  (and ShooterGrrl)

We do not compete with other shooting sports for competitors.  We compete with all outdoor sports that have an adrenaline component.  A surfer pays more for a board than we do for a Limited gun.  A dirtbike racer pays more for protection gear than we do for holster, mags and pouches.  Why?  Because it is cool and fun.

If we want this to be bigger, we have to decide how.  Will it be bigger becuase it is fun, and everyone wants the rush?  Then figure out how to make it fun and sell the fun to the adrenaline-craving masses (and the cool-seeking wannabes).

Will it be bigger because it is a money and status thing?  Then we need to figure out how NASCAR did it (and Indy is trying to do it) so we have the cash to make it status, and draw the status-seeking masses and the cool-seeking wannabes.  When the Steel Challenge becomes the Valvoline Steel Challenge, then we are on our way.  As long as the sponsors are only firearms sponsors, we can't generate enough cash flow to have shooting stars like driving stars.

[Chriss Grube]

Patrick,

I totally agree. IPSC is not a real spectator sport. When I first started shooting it was a club that shot falling steel. No walls, no paper just steel and instant feed back. The wife (who was just the girlfriend at the time) went and watched every match. Now with IPSC she stays home. She said I see you shoot but I don't know what you shot at or if you even hit it.( Gee thanks dear!) Until we find a way to set up cameras along the courses of fire and have targets that the spectator can see a hit on we're going to be a participant sport not a spectator sport. Nascar is popular because you can pack 100,000 people into a track sell them shirts, beer and cars then they get to watch people crash cars at 150 miles an hour. People like to watch death and destruction. Nascar used to be a drunken redneck, low class sport. They marketed it to corporate america and look at it now! USPSA needs to get a good PR firm and start marketing the sport. We can set up a couple steel stages at big matches or within a course of fire and people can see the overall run and then a close up of the steel going down. We have millions of gun owners and a few thousand members. We need to run this like a corporation and not the way it is now. We can't agree on match fees, prize tables and rules, until we can solve those problems we can't move on. People watch synchronized swimming, I think we are a little more exciting than that!!!! As much as I hate these stupid new catch phrases we really need to think outside the box!

[bonedaddy]

    Patrick, a good marketer would try and figure out which other products we shooters are likely to be big consumers of.   (Yes, beer would be an obvious product).  Perhaps we could conduct a survey and discover what other products we share a taste for.  (Yes, beer is still the obvious one).   You mentioned "adrenaline craving masses", some possible sponsors for these masses would be sports drinks, knife makers, energy bars, athletic wear, off-road driving accessories,  performance tires, trucks, bicycles, ect.  Remeber the Chevy Sportsman's Team Challenge?  The basics are there.  The numbers are there too.  It's just a matter of time until someone discovers the potential.  PRCA Rodeo was a poor boy's sport just 20 years ago.  Sombody figured out that most cowboys wear Wranglers and dip Copenhagen.  Pretty soon Dodge Trucks jumped in and a new big money sport was born.

       We could work on the spectator element with a fair amout of ease.  We already have the big billboard timer displays, a large video screen would be easy to engineer into a big match stage.   Undoubtedly, there would be some nay-sayers, crying about how it will ruin the sport.   But screw them, this is how we re-invent the sport.  If more people shoot,  individual freedom is the benefactor.  

    The anti-gunners will hate us.  From now on, all matches should begin with the "Pledge of Allegiance to the Flag".

[Patrick Sweeney]

As a side note, we have a question elsewhere about the HFX scoring system that the International group is flogging.

Wrong direction. Our scoring is already too complicated.  Do you think people would stay glued to their sets to find out if Tiger Woods won the US Open if they had to grind the scores through the computer for an hour?  (Just try explaining the current system to a new shooter and watch his eyes roll into his head.)

Chevy Truck is/was popular (I haven't paid much attention for a few years) because the spectators can see the targets fall.

If we want IPSC to be a popular spectator sport, we need to do two things:  make at least some stages 80-90% steel, and make scoring a "time-plus" system.  Instead of "An A and a C" the target should be scored "Plus a tenth."  Score A's as par, B & C as plus .1 second and D as plus .2, and we can all keep score on the back of our coursebook.

Adjust the plus times for Major and minor, and to reward or slow the shooting pace, but make it simple.

[benos]

Everything Pat said. The Great One and I have been talking about all this stuff for 20 years. Will the sport ever be "big"? Probably not. The sad fact is that it's just too controversial.

Phil,

"it seems to me that the gear race is not the problem. I suspect that the more you dilute the pool of tallent across the divisions, the less appealing the match becomes."

I agree.

Also, on the chicken and the egg thing, I feel that if you have a good match and good prizes, like the area 3 and 4 used to be - that's first and attendance follows.

be

[38supPat]

Theres a huge flaw in time plus scoring too. Lets take the examples listed to promote HFX. A 40 point speed shoot shot in 2.00s (for ease of math) is a 20 hit factor or 20 points / second so a tenth of a second is worth 2 points. Now take a 40 point stage shot in 4 seconds (assume steel and activators) is a 10 hit factor so a tenth of a second is worth 1 point. Now both stages have their challenge, one is a hoser while one is accuracy intensive. Both are worth 40 match points currently and so are equal in the overall match score. According to time plus if the winner shot the first stage clean in 2.00 sec and you shot it in 2.00 sec but down 2 points you are at 2.20 sec or + 10% of the winners score. If on the other stage the winner shot it in 4.00 sec clean and you shot it in 4.00 but down the same 2 points, you are at 4.20 sec or + 5% of the winners score. Now on the speed stage accuracy becomes more  important as each A is worth 5% and time becomes more important on the accuracy stage as each A is only worth 2.5%. So you have to slow down and shoot A's on the first and hose the second. It has the reverse effect on the stages that our current scoring system has.

I think that while our current system is a bit complicated (though not as much as HFX) it is fair in balancing the stages against each other, and scoring in comparison to the winning  score (the only one that really matters )

Pat

[Al Capizzo]

I've got to agree with Pat in regards to scoring.  With new shooters or non-shooters I only explain scoring for the hit factors.  Thats not to difficult.  Figuring match points is hard to understand for most people until they've seen it a few times.  In fact, even though I scored our club matches for years with a calculator, I've got to really think hard to remember how to do it now.

Thanks again to everyone for the comments on attracting shooters to the bigger matches.  I guess the conclusion is once a match begins to lose its reputation as a great match, it will take a few years of diligent work, good course design and word of mouth publicity to make it something people want to attend again.  In the meantime, lower match fees might help to bring in a few more shooters, and help spread the word.  Consider it the cost of advertising.

[Phil Dunlop]

Al,

I'm not so sure of your conclusions on the match fee issue. I think it comes down to value for money, rather than straight cost.

We run cheap matches, <$100 for the nationals, after surveying the 450 members down here, yet we never attract more than 75 of them to those matches!!!

I think people have lost the urge to compete, too many gun cuddlers and couch potatoes!

[Al Capizzo]

"I think people have lost the urge to compete, too many gun cuddlers and couch potatoes!"

Does this mean its hopeless? Nah, can't be!

How bout if we give a gun with each paid entry? That should generate some interest. I know I'd be there!

[Chriss Grube]

I think we may be getting too many big matches. This last year I shot 7 "big" matches within a 4-5 hours of NE PA. Everybody wants to have "the " big match. There is a lot of competition for sponsors, shooters and prestige. It is almost too much of a good thing. It gets expensive and after a few it is just another big club match. There should be something special for Area matches.

[Phil Dunlop]

I hate to admit it but I've got too many already. Truth is the only ones that get serious work are my SV, 1187 and 6mm varminter because they are used competitively.

I'm not sure about other sports, but I think the same is true for them as the shooting disciplines, (Bianchi, UIT/ISSF, etc) the numbers are down.

Maybe there are more sports around, e.g mountain biking, windsurfing, etc  or maybe people are more inclined to be entertained by the sporting excellence of others, pay sports TV is HUGE over here, while our national game is in decline,and suprise suprise the local rugby clubs don't have enough players to field teams anymore.

Just my $NZ's worth!

[John Thompson]

Particiaption in all sports are down.  Just look at high school football.  Kids today would rather watch TV, play on the internet, and smoke cigarettes.  The wimpification of the American male progresses faster and faster.  

[benos]

"the wimpification of the american male"

Sounds like an expansion, for the hate page, might be in order...

be

[Detlef]

back to the original topic: From my experience traveling to and talking to others at the big matches, bring back the *top dogs*, and people will start flocking again. It's that simple...

--Detlef

[bonedaddy]

Any ideas what it would take to bring back the professionals?  I'm guessing a rich prize table, but there may be some other means of compensation for the guys we all come to watch.   Personally, I would like to be able to see the Super Squad shoot more of a match.  

[Detlef]

it doesn't take much looking around to see how it can be done (this may just be one way...): Frank Garcia's Florida Open has been the kiss of death to FIPT, a well-established match in the area. He decided to pay large  cash prizes to the top shooters (I think it's $ 2000.- for the Open and Limited winner), let people shoot the match in one or two days (as apposed to the 3 mandatory slow days at FIPT), and just present a good and challenging match with field courses only. Last time even the world champion came over from France, and just watching him is worth every dime of the (high!) registration fee!

--Detlef