Required Uspsa Membership?

[Crusher]

In the Mid-Atlantic Section we have a rule that you can join USPSA at a match and shoot that match for free.

GREAT IDEA, I will ask that the club institute this policy starting the first match of the season. How simple.

[dajarrel]

Well,

Here in the land of the Nuclear Mosquito, our club lets any shooter who has never shot with us shoot free the first time. We strive to make them welcome enough and hope to help them enjoy the experience enough to return and possibly become USPSA members.

That being said, IMHO, one shouldn't have to be a USPSA member to shoot a match at the local level, but should at any level II match or greater.

If the club is participating in sending in its fees as it should, it shouldn't make any difference to Sedro Wooley if they have a USPSA number or not. They still get an acitivity fee for that shooter.

FWIW

dj

OBTW, I still hate that the "edited by..." line still has to come up when I correct a grammatical error.

dj

Edited March 4, 2006 by dajarrel

[davidball]

If the club is participating in sending in its fees as it should, it shouldn't make any difference to Sedro Wooley if they have a USPSA number or not. They still get an acitivity fee for that shooter.

FWIW

dj

OBTW, I still hate that the "edited by..." line still has to come up when I correct a grammatical error.

dj

You need to edit it again . . . . "acitivity" is spelled "activity".

[Jim Norman]

OK,

At our club we have signed up probably 40 or more new USPSA members in the last two years. We did this by allowing them to shoot, not forcing them to join. In the Mid-Atlantic Section we have a rule that you can join USPSA at a match and shoot that match for free.

Really costs the club nothing more than a few pasters. It is a welcoming way to build the membership. Many of these people have gone on to become active club members as well as active USPSA shooters. Some have joined and never been back. As a generalization however most remain at least moderately active.

Try it. It is non confrontational and it is not a take it or leave it option as the join or leave is.

Jim Norman

I want to add here that there is a three tiered price structure with a few additional options in the Mid-Atlantic Section.

Non-USPSA Members $25.00

USPSA Members $20.00

Members of host club $15.00 (May or may not apply, this is at the option of the host club)

Juniors $5 if shooting with a shooting guardian (Parent)

Husband Wife $35.00 (Obviously if they are both host club members they are better off)

Join and pay the $40.00 and you shoot the match free.

This has worked extremely well.

As to requiring USPSA membership. I am 100% against it. Probably one reason I don't shoot IDPA. Also, I shot USPSA for a year before I joined. I only shot at our home club and didn't travel, so I didn't see a value. Now I wish I had joined sooner, but...

Forcing someone to join, in my not so humble opinion, forces them to make up their mind usually before they are fully informed. A the first match you have an unbelievable amount of information to process and the benefits of membership in an organization you just heard about is low on the list. Allowing the shooter to continue to shoot and never join, who does it really hurt? Yes it is true that USPSA can't claim one more member when we publish the "numbers" but we can still publish the total number of unique participants whether or not they are members.

Allowing the shooter time to make up his mind and/or doing what we here in the Mid-Atlantic do encourages the shooter to return.

Look at our demographics. We are not a group that got where we did by being followers. We are alledgedly a highly eduacted group (although some of my spelling may cause you to question this).

We are not a group that would take well to being told we MUST do anything. Look at the general population of competitive shooters. We are an independent lot. Probably too independent in some cases. We need everyone that owns guns to be members of the organizations that support us and to contribute to them, but beating us over the head to make us join is not the way to accomplish this, it is the way to get us to leave.

I know many that have left the NRA becasue they felt that too much of their money was going towards the NRA asking them for more money. We do not want to go down that path.

Jim Norman

Edited March 4, 2006 by Jim Norman

[et45]

I think it would be a bad idea.An IDPA club nearby lets anyone shoot member or not and they have upwards to 40 or more shooters at a match when the weather is good.25 to 30 when it is bad.Another nearby club requires IDPA membership and they have maybe 10 shooters on a good day.As others have stated USPSA still collects activity fees whether a shooter is a member or not if the club does what it is supposed to do.This is not the way to draw new shooters in IMHO.

[omnia1911]

Part of a better business model would have been to ony have annual memberships that were acquired by shooting classifiers. 8 classifiers per year got you your annual membership, or whatever minimum number of classifiers is required to establish a classification for new shooters (6?).

Running special classifier matches speeds up the process of attaining your membership, if you have your eye on a Level II or III match.

Increasing the classifier fee to maintain a neutral revenue stream to the organization that was equal to having separate classifier and membership fees would be necessary.

Shooters would have greater incentive to make sure the fees were being sent in by the clubs.

Pay as you play.

Membership stays active in match play, and classifiers keep current with shooter's true abilities.

Edited March 5, 2006 by omnia1911

[shopgun]

O.K., I've reread all the posts, and nowhere did i see anyone denying the BOD the right to discuss anything. But, IMHO, we members have that same right. I think it's a bad idea for all the above stated reasons. With the skill levels seen even at local clubs, USPSA can be intimidating for a new shooter. At my gunshop, i do a lot of talking to get a newbie to even try it. When they do, the deer in the headlights look is palpable the first few matches. The worst thing we could do is to require membership of a person who is already apprehensive of the game. Just another reason not to try. If this does get past the discussion stage, i would urge the BOD to poll all the clubs for thier views. The troops on the ground are where it's at in any org.

[chuckbradley]

I understand where Bruce is coming from. He is trying to do his best in his capacity as a director of USPSA.

I would like to do a little study. I dont have all the info right now but I beleive if you look at the financial staements you will see that the mission count taken in did not increase in correlation with the mission count fee increase. The fee went up 50% but the income didnt. Why is this? Clubs changed the way they operated. Why do we have so many rogue clubs? I believe the fee increase is to blame. Of course another topic is why salaries have gone up 3-4 fold while the number of mission count processed has dropped and has become more automated than in the past. And yes i have talked with Dave Thomas about this and my Area Director. The answer is not to increase fees or to force membership, this only drives people away.

I have one example. I know of one of the biggest, oldest clubs in USPSA who used to shoot 12 sanctioned matches with classifiers a year. After the increase they only did 8 a year. They still hold the other 4 unsanctioned matches and dont pay any mission count so it was a wash in total income.

USPSA already has paramaters in place to derive income from non members. Mission count and target royalty. So it isnt like they are doing it completely free. If a non member shoots a match, 3.00 in mission count still goes in. If they shoot one match a month thats 36.00 a year so they dont shoot for free.

The answer is to make the membership benefits more desireable to purchase. And maybe that isnt even needed if it was marketed a , not going to say better , little more or different. I personally think membership is a good value. the front sight and a system to keep track of your classifiers and the ability to shoot in larger matches is worth 40.00 a year. Maybe we just need to sell that at the local level and help the non members realize the benefits of membership.

[sandankenpo]

Chuck I think that you make a very good point

[omnia1911]

Two things:

1) - it appears on the agenda as a *discussion* item, not as a decision. We (as an org) need to decide what our business model is, and our current business model has "more hole than donut". Forgive me while I digress from the *exact* topic at hand, but consider this... at present:

-- a person does not have to be a member to shoot a USPSA match.

-- a club does not have to be affiliated to use USPSA rules, targets, ROs, etc

How does this square with the unholy alliance that took place when USPSA hooked up with the "gaming", "USPSA-like" SSC this year? Is the SSC going to affiliate/pay activity fees to USPSA from now on, or is it those dang little clubs out in the woods that are the problem? BTW, I think the SSC is a great match, and have no problem with how they run it.

USPSA makes money off of the sale of IPSC targets. Wouldn't you want to sell as many as possible, no matter who uses them? Or, take the reverse. Why doesn't USPSA require that its targets be sold to only USPSA affiliated clubs? Can the targets be legally protected somehow to prevent their unauthorized use? Would rogue clubs attract any USPSA shooters if they were forced to use another type of target such as a tombstone or IDPA target that doesn't seamlessly dovetail into the USPSA scoring system?

The ROs, nor the knowledge contained therein, are the property of USPSA.

If someone is in violation of any trademark or copyright laws, USPSA should be protecting its interests. Otherwise, stop whinning.

Is the next step to revoke the membership of anyone who shoots a "USPSA-like" match?

-- the whole revenue model is based on the idea that "Nationals slots are valuable" - if your members want a slot to the nationals, they will make sure the club sends in results (and fees), so that their "mission count" gets recorded, so they get slots they can hand out.... but... that whole model falls apart for the club (and arguably the member) that has no interest in going to Nationals.

If this was the revenue model of USPSA it did a great job of shooting itself in the foot when it started selling slots to the Nationals, thus, sticking it to the Sections, blowing a hole in the mission count system, and making volunteerism and participation at the club level even more irrelevant. Blame the BOD, not the membership on this one.

Take, for example, a small club out in the woods of wherever, where all they want to do is shoot "USPSA-like" matches. Why in the *world* would they send in their results and fees, other than out of a sense of honor? The thing they "get" in return for their fees has no effective value for them.

I personally know of at least a dozen clubs in Area-1 that have gone "off the radar" - they run USPSA matches in everything but name, and in doing so they "save" on their fees. As an aside, some of them actually claim they are providing a 'service' to the members that are interested in going to the Nationals... by not being an affiliated club, no classifiers ever get sent in, so shooters' classifications stay artificially low, which helps the odds of visiting a prize table early when they *do* go to a Nationals.

So, part of this discussion is about the revenue model. It costs money to run the operations of the org and to provide the benefits to shooters (whatever you may think of them, they do cost money to provide). How do we continue to be viable, in an environment where "volunteerism" and such seem to be declining commodities?

2) The other part of the conversation is a little more tactical. Right now, because there is no rule that requires USPSA membership, anyone can walk off the street and shoot a USPSA match. There are a number of places where there are individuals who have proven to be highly disruptive influences... and the clubs have no way to protect themselves - they *have* to let anyone shoot their match, according to the affiliation agreement. Even if a person's membership gets revoked by action of the Board, they can *still* show up, plunk down their money, and the club pretty much has to let them into the match. So... one of the facets of the conversation is whether or not requiring membership at club-level matches - as we already do at Area and higher matches - is "worth doing" from the standpoint of returning some control to the club. (Note that a possible alternative is to create a rule or bylaw that says somethign like: Clubs may, at their discretion, decline the entry of anyone whose membership has been terminated...)

I admit, I have not thought all the way through this, and the comments above are very helpful, but... my own personal bias is based on two things:

-- I have always wanted to be a contributing *part* of the sports in which I compete. If it is worth my time to play, it is worth a little bit of money to me to support the org that gives me a *place* to play.

It is the local ranges that are gracious enough to welcome the formation of a USPSA club on their property that is giving us a "place" to play. An analogy would be that the clubs are the hardware and USPSA is the software. The reality is, the hardware business model is more easily protected from rogue use than is the software business model.

With all the time and money that has been spent on turning USPSA from a pistol game to a multi-gun/pistol game don't you think it is time for the multi-gun players to stop ridding the financial coat tails of the pistol matches and start paying their fair share of activity and classifier fees? It is an under utilized revenue stream.

-- we're not talking about a lot of money. An annual membership costs less than a couple matches worth of bullets and powder.

I agree we have to address the new-shooter issue, and there should be a way to balance "want to play the game" with "don't want to support the sport", but... the thing I keep coming back to is, if people (and clubs) keep "gaming" USPSA (e.g., finding ways to get all the benefits without contributing to the costs)... I frankly wonder what the long-term picture *is* for the org. I know that in my home section, clubs have dropped off-line because they can no longer find people who are willing to help set up matches.... I worry about what happens to the org, when we can no longer find people to support the things we provide.

$.02

Bruce

Edited March 5, 2006 by omnia1911

[38superman]

I was under the impression that USPSA membership was increasing steadily, both in the number of affiliated clubs and individual members.

Am I wrong?

I cannot imagine wanting to be part of this sport and not joining the sanctioning body so as to have a valid classification and participate in the major matches.

The cost of a yearly membership is barely enough to buy a couple of pizzas.

I spend more than that every week on ammo.

I understand the sentiment of the officers regarding rogue clubs.

I'm sure these rogue clubs charge attendance fees.

They should be able to generate enough revenue to run their club and still do their share to fund USPSA.

Unless they are running their club "for profit", why wouldn't they do the right thing?

However, if they want to use our targets USPSA is still getting revenue via royalties from the target manufacturer.

I believe the people that were elected to steer this boat are thoughtful and reasonably intelligent.

I trust the BOD to weigh all the pros and cons and make the right decision.

Tls

Edited March 5, 2006 by tlshores

[Tangram]

Bottom line forcing people to join is not as good a solution as making USPSA membership so useful that people cannot hold themselves back from joining."

What are the ideas that would make the membership so useful...?

[GeorgeInNePa]

Bottom line forcing people to join is not as good a solution as making USPSA membership so useful that people cannot hold themselves back from joining."

What are the ideas that would make the membership so useful...?

Help us figure that out.

I'm a life member, what makes you want to be a member of USPSA?

[j2fast]

The answer is to make the membership benefits more desirable to purchase. And maybe that isn't even needed if it was marketed a , not going to say better , little more or different. I personally think membership is a good value. the front sight and a system to keep track of your classifiers and the ability to shoot in larger matches is worth 40.00 a year. Maybe we just need to sell that at the local level and help the non members realize the benefits of membership.

+1

I shot a match yesterday that had probably 6-7 new shooters. 3 of them were in my squad, membership came up when we were shooting the Classifier. The 2 guys in particular that we were talking to were surprised it was only $40 a year. One had actually already shot a couple of matches last year but it didn't sound like anyone had ever covered the membership benefits before.

For me personally I joined before my first match last year because I'm a "little" competitive personality wise and wanted my scores to count towards something. As the year went on I actually discovered the other benefits such as Front Sight. I also like some of the other seemingly same benefits like the new email notification of scores being posted (couldn't believe I shot yesterday and the scores were up last night).

As some have already said, I think that we as a sport need to figure out how to get people to want to join because they can't resist. How do we do that, better marketing, etc., I'm no expert??? Moving towards the more info front (marketing) what about a simple one page handout that clubs could print from the USPSA website that defines with some impact the benefits of membership? Something were the clubs can enter in or it populates their contact info/clubs facts. So at each match when a new shooter registers they can hand them the sheet.

I don't want to put any more weight on our volunteers, I'm not taking about a big glossy brochure that you have to take to Kinkos and pay $5 a sheet to print. Just something that someone could print out a handful of copies on an ink jet that looks half decent. In most cases I would think that a club isn't getting a ton of new shooters at every match so the cost of printing out 5 or 6 once a month or so would be negligible. Maybe I'll send this to my AD or 2 AD's since I live in one and shoot mostly in the other.

[Jim Norman]

USPSA has a brochure that you can pass out. Perhaps that brochure could be scanned in and the local club info could be edited in.

Make the newbie feel welcome. Assign a "Mentor" to them at their first couple matches. At our club we have this pretty much in place and also run 23 "Practice matches a year where we also run a tutorial for new shooters. It has picked up our join rate immensly as well as our home clubs joining rate.

One of our next projects will be to run a clinic on a Saturday before our regular match that gets the new shooter out and helps them learn to breakdown a stage so that they can get past just the shooting part. We have many people that can shoot really good, but they can get "lost" when it comes to seeing the path they need to take through a stage.

Everything you do to welcome a newbie will help keep them coming back. Don't ignore them, they will go away and they'll tell their friends and they won't come out. Make them feel welcome and they will be back. Explain what they are seeing. Let them know that Production is just as much fun and just as challenging as Open, maybe more so. Try to reduce the intimidation factor. They need to be on a good squad, but not maybe your local "Super Squad" You don't want to scare them off.

Jim

[Gary Stevens]

It is a lot easier to pull a rope than push it. With that being said, if a shooter wants to join a club and or organization, the chances are much better of him/her staying around and being a productive part of the club. Let's face it, Americans don't like to be forced to do anything, it is just the way we are.

It will take a bunch of convincing for me to ever vote for mandatory membership at the club level.

Gary

[aerosigns]

This has probably been said by someone else, but like voting I thought it was important to speak my piece.

I am a member. My son (25 Yrs.) shoots with me occasionaly. It's something we like to do together.

If he were told that he had to join or don't shoot with us, I already know what his answer would be. It simply wouldn't be cost effective for him. He doesn't have the time or devotion to USPSA shooting that I have.

So the local clubs that we shoot at would loose his participation ($$).

Next, now that this is no longer a family activity we can enjoy together, and I must now shoot alone. What do you think my future actions will be.

No family. No fun. No longer a member of USPSA.

I am only one person, but I would think it reasonable that others would feel the same way.

Thanks.

Jim

[jspruance]

As in any good successful business it is necessary to recruit new blood to make that business grow and prosper.

But I wonder has the organization considered steps that would keep members from leaving the flock What is the ratio each year between new memberships and expired non-renewals?

In the last two years I personally of 10 or 12 members who have dropped out of USPSA. Most of them were older guys who mainly shot 1 or 2 local matches a month. About once a year we would all go to a "big" match, usually a sectional or maybe an area match, mainly just to get out together and have a good time. All of us were over 55 and knew we were not going to the prize table. We were there to have a good time and to support the sport. Most of them dropped out after the last membership increase.

Many people say the $45 membership is a non issue but for people on fixed incomes it may truly be important.

If USPSA can give discounts to Juniors to get them started and involved why not a discount for seniors to keep them on the rolls. Many of these people are RO's and CRO's who work major matches and some shoot only local matches.

[JD45]

If gas would go back to $1.15 a gallon I could afford to buy three memberships. The fuel to get to matches is robbing everyones competition funds.

[Jim Norman]

Membership Costs as taken from the USPSA website. Life membership is a deal!

U.S. Annual $40.00 US Dollars

U.S. 3 Year $105.00 US Dollars

U.S. 5 Year $175.00 US Dollars

U.S. Life $500.00 US Dollars

U.S. Annual Associate* $25.00 US Dollars

U.S. 3 Year Associate* $75.00 US Dollars

U.S. 5 Year Associate* $125.00 US Dollars

Benefactor $1000.00 US Dollars

I too wonder what the drop out rate is. Personally I thinkthat mandatory membershio would increase both rates, new membership and drop out. I think that the net would be a DECREASE, not an increase in membership.

Jim

[Flyin40]

No go on the forced memberships. It wouldn't be wise.

Life memberships are the way to go. I need to do that.

Flyin40

[Shooter Grrl]

Thanks everyone for some civil discussion - I *knew* you could do it I'm going to close the thread however, because the Board meeting is over - we can open a new one once the minutes come out, if someone so desires.