[QCWA] Window of Opportunity

[Dave - VE3JX]

Greetings All,


Window of Opportunity

There appears to be a "Window of Opportunity" open at present, with respect to new Life Memberships!  

As announced at the Annual Metting at Dayton, the Life Membership formula will rise from fifteen-times the 1-year dues rate to twenty-times that 1-year rate.  That means that the US Life Membership will increase from $375 to $500.  DX Life Memberships, which do not include the QCWA Journal, will increase from $150 to $200.  Implementation is slated to begin in 2011.

Therefore, the "Window of Opportunity" is from NOW to the end of this year.  

All chapters and members can take advantage of this "Window of Opportunity" by using the savings involved ($125) to promote Life Memberships in their areas; this is a great promotional tool for us to use to increase our ranks.  It has all the attraction of being a time-limited bargain, to be seized before it disappears.  If anyone has been thinking of going to a Life Membership, NOW would be the time to do it.  The savings are not invisible; they are very tangible.  This is a great opportunity for LM recruitment.

An Additional Suggestion

Finances do seem to be a big issue right now in QCWA, especially since the Annual Members Meeting announcement of a coming increase to the Life Membership formula.  With the formula going from 15x (1 year dues) to 20x, new LM's may take a dive after implementation, so the extra revenues they would generate might be illusory for awhile.

However, I would like to suggest a minor adjustment to the US non-Life dues structure that may be palatable to all, and more immediately fiscally-beneficial for QCWA.

Right now, the non-Life dues are:

1 Year      $25
2 Years    $40
3 Years    $55

The 2-year rate gives you an extra year for only $15!  The 3-year rate gives you 2 extra years for $15 each!  QCWA may be losing money on these extra years.  

Currently, if a US resident opts for a 3-year membership - and I don't know why one would not go for 3 years with the rate system as it is now - he is only paying, on average, $18.33 per year!  That is a huge difference from $25/year.  For 2-year memberships, the average is $20.  Now, I believe in offering a discount for multi-year memberships, but the present ones are too much!  (In fact, I would suspect that most non-Life memberships purchased in the US are probably 3-year ones, due to the attractiveness of such deep discounts.  Even the ARRL does not offer such a steep discount for their multi-year rates!)

Notwithstanding, there is great value in offering an incentive to promote a multi-year commitment on the part of members.  Thus, whatever dues structure is used in the future, it should incorporate such an incentive, i.e. without "giving away the store".

Therefore, to still reward multi-year commitments without harming our financial picture, a structure like this would be advisable:

1 Year      $25
2 Years    $45
3 Years    $65

These multi-year commitments still involve significant savings but don't break the bank.  Each additional year's savings is $5 per year.  That would make the annual average for a 3-year membership at $21.66.  For the 2-year rate, it would be $22.50.  Does that not look more reasonable?  

Percentage-wise, the current 3-year rate is discounted by a whopping 26.7% [((75-55)/75)*100].  The 2-year discount is 20%.  The new rates would be discounted, as an annual average, by 13.3% for the 3-year one, and 10% for the 2-year rate.  Those modest discounts seemed to be more in line with fiscal sanity.  Plus, they are still attractive enough to entice prospective members, and renewing members, to opt for a multi-year commitment.

(Even if the new multi-year rates were to be 2-years: $45, and 3-years: $60, (instead of $65), this would create an increase in revenue of $5 per head over what we have now.) 

If there has to be a dues increase, this would certainly be less painful than trying to raise the base 1-year rate.  The one-year membership rate should NOT change.  And, it would clear up an apparent inequity between the 1-year rate and the 2- and 3-year ones.  (In fact, some might make the charge that the 1-year rate is set artificially high in comparison to the others, so as to make Life Memberships higher than they should be.  While that might be false, responsibly restructuring the multi-year rates will eliminate any basis for even thinking that way.)

I am posting this on QCWA's public board because ALL QCWA members should be concerned about recruitment, and our finances.  And, that being the case, maybe others have a "better idea" than mine.  If so, please speak out.  This is a member-driven organization; your thoughts, feelings, and ideas are very important.

Congrats

I take this opportunity to offer my congratulations to all candidates in the election; both successful or not.  Your volunteer spirit is an example for us all.

Yours in promoting QCWA,

Dave VE3JX.
LM #33597