USPSA Rate increase pushed back

[BritinUSA]

1 hour ago, varminter22 said:

35,000 X $40 = $1,400,000.  

 

It would appear that one could do okay on a budget exceeding $1 million.  

Now add match and classifier fees.

[BritinUSA]

Total Income from 2021 was $2,974,255

 

Source: https://uspsa.org/documents/minutes/20220531 2021 Review.pdf

[varminter22]

28 minutes ago, BritinUSA said:

Total Income from 2021 was $2,974,255

 

Source: https://uspsa.org/documents/minutes/20220531 2021 Review.pdf

Thanks.  I don't know "the other side of the story" but I would think that should be sufficient income.  

[euxx]

On 8/9/2023 at 9:57 AM, Fishbreath said:

Since Elo depends solely on relative performance, cross-pollination between groups of isolated shooters is necessary to make the numbers work out.

Have you tried to add stage specifics when running stage-based ELO?

E.g. something based on stage points/HF and maybe even take harder lean on classifier stages when comparing shooters.
 

On 8/5/2023 at 8:55 AM, euxx said:

There is enough data in the results to tell if stage required accuracy or hosing. Basically each stage can be identified as 2-dimensional coordinates: target points (5 - 160) and the best time (say 0.5 sec to 30..40sec). Though the time need to take into account what level competitors shot it. Then you can compare stages with similar parameters.

For simplicity the 2-dimensional space probably can be just broken down to 4 areas (e.g. fast and low points stage, fast and high points, slow and low points, slow and high points) or 9, 12 areas. That would reflect the non-linear dependency of HF on points and time.

 

[Racinready300ex]

On 8/11/2023 at 6:00 PM, RJH said:

 

Well crap, I would have swore I paid $35 last year. So if it's 40, your math is correct LOL

 

There also used to be a associate membership that allowed you to opt out of the magazine but now that's gone. You also got a discount per year getting a 3 or 5 year membership which is gone too. And then life membership doubles. So it is more than just a simple 60 whatever % increase. 

 

On 8/11/2023 at 6:02 PM, shred said:

  Would you pay $25 more to have more Nationals?  

 

The question for 34k of the 35k members is will you pay more for other people to have a better nationals? Hopkins mentioned on a pod cast there are only about 1100 IIRC unique shooters shooting nationals. Most of the people going go to multiple nationals. 

 

Maybe we should cut back to two nationals. Split the divisions up and have half at each. Make it a mix of high and low cap at each. One on the east coast one on the west. And if you go to one you can't go to the other. This means less nationals, so we loose less money. If each match can support 500 to 600 shooters then the same number of shooters get to shoot. But you now only get one shot at it. This way the 34k of us that don't go aren't spending extra money for a few guys to go shoot 4 or 5 different national championships. 

[Racinready300ex]

I think there have been about 250 new life memberships since they rolled back to the old pricing. That's a cool 125k for the org this year. 

[Fishbreath]

11 hours ago, euxx said:

Have you tried to add stage specifics when running stage-based ELO?

 

Only to a small degree. Because of the way matches tend to look in the US, I weight higher-points stages more heavily. I also reduce the weight of stages that large proportions of people zero, since Elo is all about relative performance, and lots of zero hit factors confuse things.

 

I have considered tracking overall Elo along with short course/medium course/long course Elo, or precision/normal/hoser Elo, but haven't had much time to work on that lately, with my season peaking in September/October.

[ddc]

On 8/3/2023 at 10:39 AM, Sarge said:

If it’s still offered and you’re eligible try to get the senior life membership. It’s not advertised. You have to call HQ. I think mine was $350.

 

it is still offered. I just took advantage of it.

 

As you mentioned you have to call HQ. Ask for Heather.

[euxx]

33 minutes ago, Fishbreath said:

Only to a small degree. Because of the way matches tend to look in the US, I weight higher-points stages more heavily. I also reduce the weight of stages that large proportions of people zero, since Elo is all about relative performance, and lots of zero hit factors confuse things.

 

I have considered tracking overall Elo along with short course/medium course/long course Elo, or precision/normal/hoser Elo, but haven't had much time to work on that lately, with my season peaking in September/October.

Using points or just HF won't be representative... The idea is to compare similar stages, so precision/normal/hoser would be along the lines (though I think it may need to be more granular).

[Darqusoull13]

On 8/11/2023 at 5:02 PM, shred said:

I think one or two of the presidential candidates said there's not enough money to run more than maybe 2 Nationals a year without losing money.  Maybe that's where the increase is going.  Would you pay $25 more to have more Nationals?  

No, but I would pay $50 more per match  

I would however expect a good dry fit shirt, a good awards dinner, fun side stages / vendor demos and reinvestment of match fees into make the match more exciting. I'm taking 20-24 stages with bridges, balance beams and activators exciting not pool noodle exciting. 

[BritinUSA]

USPSA is funding  Nationals due to the way that the sponsorship is handled. I think the prize table should be abolished, sponsorship should be in the form of cash not prizes.

 

The money is applied to the match, stage props, targets, facilities, awards dinner etc..

 

This is how IPSC does it and it works.

 

If a sponsor wants to provide prizes in addition to cash then those prizes can be used in raffles.

[Joe4d]

sponsors want their products in the hands of winners who will hopefully give them a good review and sell products to those that look up to said winners... Well thats the theory,,,, we all know the reality is those prize table awards on Sunday are in the BE classifieds on Monday.
But IMO,, if the BOD cant make a profit on a major, sponsored, high profile match that 427 people signed up for, the BOD, President, NROI and everyone else should be impeached by the membership..

 

[shred]

...apparently it's time for me to rerun this rant again..

 

As a small-time match sponsor, sponsoring with cash is a total loser.

 

With product, it gets into somebody's hands that wants it and I can bill it at retail, so the match gets, say $1000 worth of prizes that cost the sponsor a fair bit less than $1000.  I'll do that because it gives back a bit to the sport and gets things in hands (I don't really care if it shows up here for sale the next week, maybe others do.)

 

Sponsoring matches is already a net loss to the sponsor--  I've talked to several retailers that say they see no bump in sales due to sponsoring matches-- why should they if maybe 300 people even see their banner at the match?  One in ten of those might notice it and one in ten of those might buy something... so, 3 sales?

 

(and in case you think this is an unreasonable estimate, three is larger than the number of thank-you emails I've ever gotten from sponsoring a major match).

 

Red Bull doesn't sponsor every wacky sport in the hope the participants will drink more of it.  USPSA needs spectators and video views if it wants real-money sponsorships.

 

 

[RJH]

1 hour ago, shred said:

...apparently it's time for me to rerun this rant again..

 

As a small-time match sponsor, sponsoring with cash is a total loser.

 

With product, it gets into somebody's hands that wants it and I can bill it at retail, so the match gets, say $1000 worth of prizes that cost the sponsor a fair bit less than $1000.  I'll do that because it gives back a bit to the sport and gets things in hands (I don't really care if it shows up here for sale the next week, maybe others do.)

 

Sponsoring matches is already a net loss to the sponsor--  I've talked to several retailers that say they see no bump in sales due to sponsoring matches-- why should they if maybe 300 people even see their banner at the match?  One in ten of those might notice it and one in ten of those might buy something... so, 3 sales?

 

(and in case you think this is an unreasonable estimate, three is larger than the number of thank-you emails I've ever gotten from sponsoring a major match).

 

Red Bull doesn't sponsor every wacky sport in the hope the participants will drink more of it.  USPSA needs spectators and video views if it wants real-money sponsorships.

 

 

 

 

So, this gives me an idea. Should USPSA start a show, something along the lines of shooting USA? I mean it could be for YouTube only. It could have commercial breaks for sponsors, match footage, technical stuff, etc

 

Basically dump the magazine and start a YouTube channel, or get it on a cable channel if that would be possible. But something high production, not some guy with Parkinson's holding a cell phone.

 

 

Think something like that would work? And more importantly would it pay over time instead of costing? 

 

I know three gunnation had a show that was somewhat interesting, but I don't know if that show paid or not.

[Joe4d]

shooting shows shoothemselves in the foot. Start off ok, Like sports coverage.. Then the TV people get involved insist on "DRAMA" back stabbing he said she said stuff, voting people out sneaky sneaky , create a villian with an abrasive attitude..
And th e shooters turn it off because of the drama , the non shooters dont care about the game and turn it off

[shred]

Very few shows last forever, but when Top Shot was a thing, random gun owners off the street that happened to wander by the range during some National-level match I was at were way more impressed with "He was on Top Shot" than "He's won six national championships".

 

[Nik Habicht]

4 hours ago, shred said:

Red Bull doesn't sponsor every wacky sport in the hope the participants will drink more of it.  USPSA needs spectators and video views if it wants real-money sponsorships.

 

 

This exactly. I'd venture that most of the 300 attendees are already aware of the sponsor, and the sponsor's products - so with the possible exception of first time attendees who started in the sport mere months ago - you're not finding new customers through sponsorship....

[BritinUSA]

The banners and stuff at matches are essentially worthless without media coverage. As @shred stated, only those people at the match will see them.

 

Banners are typically placed where they can be seen by participants and spectators, but they should be placed where they are most visible to downrange cameras. This way both the shooters face and the banner are visible.

 

A frontal shot of a competitor is more dynamic and will result in a more usable and commercial image. 
 

Hosting live coverage of Nationals is achievable (including commentary and live scoring). The way it's being done now is horrible.
 

Using a free service such as YouTube is not recommended, they frequently censor channels/people that they disagree with. It's not necessary either. Web hosting that offers unlimited bandwidth and streaming is a better solution. 
 

It could be broadcast live and then available for purchase afterwards if people wanted a permanent copy. This would increase revenue and provide for a ROI for sponsors.

[ltdmstr]

Nationals is a niche event that doesn't have much appeal to the average member.  And none that I know wants to pay higher membership fees so a select few can enjoy "better" Nationals with "better" prizes.  I'm retired, have cash, shoot a lot, but looking at the (Limited) Nationals, it's 5 days between driving and shooting and $2k+ cost to shoot 3x6 stages.  Big whoop.  Gonna pass on that.  Most of the members I know don't even shoot level 2 matches any more due to the time and expense involved.  And those same members are seriously considering dropping their memberships as it's not required to shoot the L1s.  As for televising the Nationals, that's never going to happen because of the production costs and limited market appeal.

Edited August 15, 2023 by ltdmstr

[JWBaldree]

10 hours ago, Joe4d said:

shooting shows shoothemselves in the foot. Start off ok, Like sports coverage.. Then the TV people get involved insist on "DRAMA" back stabbing he said she said stuff, voting people out sneaky sneaky , create a villian with an abrasive attitude..
And th e shooters turn it off because of the drama , the non shooters dont care about the game and turn it off

Agreed. The appeal of Top Shot to my kids was the exploding targets, slow mo video of bullet impacts, different and unusual guns, and heads up competition. Even as a competitor, there are only so many times I can watch the same game plan being run on 3GN or a USPSA stage, and after John Wick the average person is going to be yawning at GM level performance. 

 

I can see TV coverage working more easily for steel challenge and pro-am style events, especially if it could be made more heads ups racing style or varied like coverage of different holes at a golf match.  Throw in some side match shoot-offs with exploding targets mixed in and maybe you have some entertainment value for the masses. You don't need to add personality drama, but some competition drama wouldn't hurt.

[rowdyb]

18 hours ago, shred said:

...apparently it's time for me to rerun this rant again..

 

As a small-time match sponsor, sponsoring with cash is a total loser.

 

With product, it gets into somebody's hands that wants it and I can bill it at retail, so the match gets, say $1000 worth of prizes that cost the sponsor a fair bit less than $1000.  I'll do that because it gives back a bit to the sport and gets things in hands (I don't really care if it shows up here for sale the next week, maybe others do.)

 

Sponsoring matches is already a net loss to the sponsor--  I've talked to several retailers that say they see no bump in sales due to sponsoring matches-- why should they if maybe 300 people even see their banner at the match?  One in ten of those might notice it and one in ten of those might buy something... so, 3 sales?

 

(and in case you think this is an unreasonable estimate, three is larger than the number of thank-you emails I've ever gotten from sponsoring a major match).

 

Red Bull doesn't sponsor every wacky sport in the hope the participants will drink more of it.  USPSA needs spectators and video views if it wants real-money sponsorships.

 

 

Match sponsorship is a loss. Working for a company who did sponsor matches we always operated at a loss. Whether it was selling product at the match or offering gunsmithing services. (On top of what we paid for sponsorship) The only good thing about being a sponsor was gaining entry into matches that filled.

 

And regarding sponsorship, shooting, tv and so forth I have some experience there as well. First, I was on a televised shooting show. No one watched it. The YouTube views of the episode are ridiculously low. And they did everything possible to make production cost as little as possible and it was still unprofitable.

 

And unlike almost anyone in uspsa, I paid to visit a sports marketing agent in Los Angeles with my lawyer to discuss sponsorship. This agent represented freestyle mx riders, Olympic gold medalists in shotgun and biathlon, extreme free skiers and other x-games athletes. His questions were:

• Is your sport televised? If not, is it on the web?
• How many people participate at the national and world level?
• How often is there a world championship?
• Can I buy a magazine at B&N or a grocery store that shows your sport?
• How much prize money is there? What does a national or world champion receive?
• Are you in the top 10% of competitors?
• How much money would you need to be totally successful in a year?

In the end they passed. There was no audience, no glamour, no show, no excitement, no exposure and the dollar amounts were trifling. To quote, he said "Your talking about $100,000 dollars. The people I represent deal in millions of dollars. As your sports sounds there is no way Red Bull or any other multi national company is going to be interested."

 

And yet cornhole and axe throwing are on tv and have multi thousand dollar pay outs for winning.......

Do we want 'action shooting' to go throught he process skating, surfing, rock climbing, mnt biking and any other number of 'fringe' sports went through to be competitive and profitable to their elite participants?

[MHicks]

Videos of even top shooters get boring real fast. Even if at the end of the stage  they list the time and number of alphas, charlies, deltas etc. It would be more interesting to me somehow if they could show the hits on target or at least a couple of the most difficult targets.  Although people who don't compete likely won't appreciate how difficult some of those shots were at the speed of the top shooters.

[truespode]

1 minute ago, MHicks said:

It would be more interesting to me somehow if they could show the hits on target or at least a couple of the most difficult targets.  

 

I saw a youtube video awhile back where a guy had a small colored triangle show up on the target as he shot in the approximate location of the hit. Green triangle for A, Yellow for C. That type of thing. It was really well done and looked cool as could be. Even on my phone it was clear.

 

Unfortunately, I didn't subscribe and was late to my next meeting so I forgot about it until I read your post.

 

[RJH]

On the TV part, it *seemed* that the three gun Nation show that was on was fairly popular, am I wrong in that? Does anybody know for sure?

 

If it was fairly popular, did they do anything USPSA could copy? If it wasn't popular as I think it was, it doesn't really matter anyway

 

One other thought, is there a way to get a show that's already somewhat popular like shooting USA more involved in covering USPSA? I know they did the Bill drill challenge for whatever at carry optic Nationals, but I'm talking more on the area and national match coverage as well.

 

Could USPSA do something along the lines of having to qualify for Nationals at area matches? To build the drama of shooting Nationals on television? Or maybe qualifying for the super squads more so than Nationals?

 

I don't know if any of those are anywhere near a good idea, I'm just kind of spitballing. But it seems like without big prize money it's hard to draw big interest from Big sponsors, but it's hard to get big prize money without big sponsors, or at least that's what I think of reading from y'all that have messed with it

[Racinready300ex]

The tricky part is the media hates us so getting on regular TV is going to be a challenge. Then if you do get there, one well publicized school shooting and it'll get canceled. Plus, do people even watch TV anymore? I don't, everything I watch is streamed through the internet.

 

Youtube would be the answer but youtube is google, google hates us. We know they shadow ban, throttle and demonetize shooting content. So we're probably not going to get super far there.

 

 

It needs to happen on the internet, and we should probably be working with existing youtube creators to get ideas how to move forward. If people will watch corn hole they'll watch USPSA we just need to polish it some to make it interesting and then get it in front of them.

 

We should probably hire someone who's hole job is this kind of thing.  Oh...wait.