[QCWA] Assoc. Membership ...

Fri Nov 11 23:31:06 EST 2011

At 04:19 PM 11/11/2011, Don Tucker wrote:
>The 'long distance organizations', such as QCWA (and a host of other like
>entities) are all facing declining memberships. Local clubs and like
>organizations that can draw members together in a regular and routine face
>to face activity still appear to be doing well. Why?

If this were only true.  Sadly, "local clubs" are suffering in the 
exact same way as are large national groups.  Many formerly 
successful clubs are fighting to survive in the face of competition 
from the Internet and sites there-on that emulate ham radio.  While 
there has been definite growth in the hobby, it appears to be in the 
realm of the 20-something to 43-something "lone wolf" maker/hacker 
who loves the technology of communications but not necessarily the 
organized social aspect or the "traditions" that those of us licensed 
in decades past adhere to.

>I suspect it has something to do with the rising popularity of Twitter,
>Facebook, Google Plus and all the other social networks, including Yahoo,
>QSL.net and the popular reflectors which are generally all cost free. And
>cost I suspect is part of the equation. The lackluster economy that we are
>all facing, worldwide, when you are out of work or retired, and your savings
>and/or retirement funds have been partially decimated, makes one think hard
>about when to spend their money.

I believe the national unemployment rate currently stands at 9.85% 
+/-.  By reason, its likely that among this group an equal percentage 
are hams.  When one has little to no income and must feed a family, 
pay a mortgage, put clothes on ones back and the like, the first 
thing that gets set aside is ones hobbies.  Survival comes first -- 
all else is secondary.

>Most amateur radio operators (well, many)
>belong to the ARRL, a local club and perhaps other specialized groups like
>QCWA, OOTC, and others to numerous to list. Each has some sort of a dues
>requirement.

Yes that is true.  And being "hobby" related they become the lowest 
of the low priority to support.  Food, clothing and shelter come first.

>The QCWA Directors, in my humble opinion, need to look closely at those
>items which cost the most. I would suspect the Journal is not inexpensive to
>publish. I, for one, skip over the Chapter News.

Having served two terms (24 months) on the National BoD I can tell 
you that expenses such as the Journal have been an often discussed 
paramount issue.  Every aspect has been weighed, but after all the 
polls and all the discussions, when I left national BoD service it 
was realized that The Journal was the main reason msny -- and likely 
the majority -- were members.  Its a special niche magazine that 
serve a very specific clientele.  Take it away, and you effectively 
give many no reason to continue their membership.

>I would expect to get that
>information from my Chapter. Not that I don't care but it is difficult for
>me to raise my interest level in what the Chapter in Secaucas did the last
>couple of months. Significant cost would result from dropping this part of
>the Journal, which was 23 of the 56 pages in the Fall Issue.  I would be
>more interested in seeing material more related to those whose tenure in
>amateur radio was lengthly, not necessarily personal articles, but perhaps
>more in depth material on older equipment, restoration ideas, places to find
>parts, etc, etc, etc. Maybe in one issue a year there could be a capsule of
>each of the Chapters activities during the year, very abbreviated.

Again, see my previous comment.  As I said, the Journal is a kind of 
"printed cement" that binds the QCWA membership together.  Tamper 
with it in any way and you will likely loose far more members and 
their dues than you will gain in savings.

Also, to those who have suggested replacing the print Journal with an 
electronic version, to to that you must have a membership base that 
is 100% computer literate and equipped with a high-speed 
connection.  While I no longer have my notes from those BD meetings, 
about 40% of the membership (4 years ago) had no computer; had no 
interest in ever owning one; obviously has no high sped Internet 
access and no way wish to receive an "e-zine."  Rather they look as 
the Journal -- as now presented -- to be their reason for their 
membership and their "connection" to QCWA..

Can QCWA affort to alienate about 1/3 of its dues paying members?  I 
would think not.

>Someone suggested a nominal charge for awards and certificates. Other than
>the awards for QCWA sponsored events or contests I think this is reasonable.
>It doesn't have to be a lot, even a couple of dollars would help defray the
>cost of printing and mailing.

This too was discussed during my BoD tenure, but the feedback from 
the membership was highly negative.  Again, remember at a large 
number of QCWA members are elderly and on fixed income.  Charge to 
much and they go away.  After all, they do not need QCWA to be hams 
and to individually enjoy the hobby.  Its the other way around:  QCWA 
neets their membership to survive.

>Like others have expressed, I see little to be gained from an Associate
>Membership, unless it was perhaps made available to a select cadre, such as
>school clubs, and for a very specific reson. like perhaps an intent to
>better infuse students learning about amatur radio why so many have
>dedicated much of their life in amateur radio service (and maybe establish a
>mentoring process too). The reason for such a move should be focused on what
>QCWA would bring to the Associate, and what the Associate could bring to
>QCWA.

Associate Membership has been debated long before I was ever a QCWA 
member.  I really have no personal stand on the issue.  The reason 
is, to attract an "Associate Member" the organization must offer 
something tthat will be of interest and/or necessity to entive a less 
than 25 year license holder to join.  But when you take a step back 
and look at the structure of QCWA one has to ask: "What do we really 
have to attract a newer license holder?  And in looking at the 
overall structure of QCWA is now, I am hard put to find any reason 
for someone licensed less than 25 years to join.

Also, the majority of those licensed less than 25 years are 
Technician class.  Its no secret that heir main interest is chatting 
on local repeaters or playing with some of the more exotic digital 
modes.  For a good number, their only financial investment i is a 
dual-band HT on a belt clip.

However, QCWA is specifically geared to an older generation steeped 
toward  long established High Frequency operations.  Even if QCWA 
were to offer an Associate Membership category, I have to wonder how 
many (or how few) this would attract.  Again:  What does QCWA have to 
attract the 20 to 40 year old so-called "ham in the street" working 
DX without a mic or key.

As to schools and other such entities; Many if not most schools 
resurrecting long dormant ham radio clubs or forming new ones are not 
involving themselves in the traditional HF Morse and phone 
operations.  Rather they are being built around onre or more of the following:

1: ARISS and talking to astronaut hams on-orbit.

2: A younger generation of the earelier described "maker / hacker" movement.

3:  An analog or digital repeater.

4:  Involvement in exotic digital modes that interface to the 
Internet and WWW.

Note the absence of an HF transceiver, a microphone and a key -- let 
alone installing HF antennas.  For the "instant gratification" 
generation, if its not akin to the social network nature of the WWW, 
there is no interest.  At least no widespread interest.

On the other side we have the majority of QCWA members whose only 
interest is the world of Morse and SSB onthe HF bands. Where is the 
commonality of interest on a widespread national or world-wide level?

>I'd buy a QCWA rubber stamp if it were small that I could use on my QSL
>cards (no I don't like the QCWA QSL cards, remind me to much of the old WRL
>ones - plain jane). But, that's a personal thing. I have some sticky back
>colored QCWA labelsbut they are too large and hard to deal with.
>
>The Board of Directors have a difficult job, keeping the organization
>solvent and finding ways to grow membership. It would be interesting to know
>just how many amateur radio operators have 25 years or more in the service,
>but with some leaving and reentering all the time there is no way to
>establish that. I suspect QCWA represents only a minimal number.

Take this a step further.  It would be interesting to know how many 
amateur radio operators that have 25 years or more in the service, 
but came to the hobby at the dawning of the digital age can see any 
reason to connect with and join QCWA when they are eligable under 
current membership 
rules. 

>The Board needs to continue looking, and the members need to start 
>contributing ides. While wild ideas might draw a lot of criticism, 
>they might also might draw out some new good idea that no one had thought of.

 From my own first hand knowledge, I can tell you that the BoD does 
just that.  But it must also be mindful of the wishes and desires of 
the membership majority.  In reality, the BoD only can follow and 
react to the desires of the membership.  Like the rest of us, they 
are mere mortals like you and I.  Therefore your response should be: 
"What can I as a QCWA member suggest to the current BoD to assist in 
all aspects of keeping QCWA a vital organization?  If you were a 
seated member of the BoD, what would you suggest that meets the 
criteria of not accepting Associate Members; does not in any way 
change the character of The Journal and does not in any way cost 
current members additional monies?

Saving the QCWA is not something to say is the BoD's total 
responsibility.  Its just as much yours and mine.

de
Bill Pasternak, WA6ITF

>Surely the membership can put on their thinking caps and throw out some
>ideas that the Board can consider.
>
>Don W7WLL (Original call)
>Licensed July 1954
>Tektronix 1958-2001
>
>
>______________________________________________________________
>QCWA mailing list
>Home: http://mailman.qth.net/mailman/listinfo/qcwa
>Help: http://mailman.qth.net/mmfaq.htm
>Post: mailto:QCWA at mailman.qth.net
>
>This list hosted by: http://www.qsl.net
>Please help support this email list: http://www.qsl.net/donate.html