Re: [AGA SC] Membership Committee Initiatives

["Karen Randall" <krandall@rdrcpa.biz>]

I agree with most of what Scott has said, but I'd like to make a couple of
comments/clarifications.

> I think volume is important. 800-900 members might have
> been critical mass for sustainability a few years ago, but
> I don't think it will be in a couple of years from now.

I certainly want to see us continue growing.  But 800-900 was NOTY "critical
mass for AGA until we went to color.  Up until that point, each member paid
enough to cover their entire magazine/postage cost, then some.  EVERY year
that AGA was in existence, (until we went to color) we had more in the bank
than the year before.  That's one of the reasons we decided to try to make
the leap to color.  We felt like we needed to give more back to the members.

>So
> lower rates/premiums if they work as incentives are a good
> idea (assuming the marginal return is positive which it
> should be until membership is much much larger than it is
> now).

Except for inflation, (whcih can be addressed trhough dues increases) the
marginal cost for new members should stay about the same between 1000-2500,
at which point it drops slightly again.  Beyond that, the cost doesn't drop
much at all, because you're getting close to just plain paper cost on the
increased number of magazines.

Between where we are now, and 1000, each membership only costs us postage
(about $2 per year domestic).  Between 1000 and 2500 (assuming the increase
is similar to what it would have been with Amprint... it might be slightly
less now, but I'm betting most of the cost reduction was on the front end)
the magazines cost about $1 a piece.  So the marginal cost per new member is
$6.00.  Still gives you a LOT of wiggle room for "promotions".

What we need to watch carefully is that we are actually parlaying promotions
into INCREASED membership, rather than ending up reducing membership costs
for current members.  But I think the way Cheryl has proposed this, it
SHOULD turn into more new members.  And we always also need to remember that
historically, aquarium societies (as well as most special interest groups)
need to count on REPLACING about 20% of their membeship annually just to
keep membership numbers stable, as people move on to new and different
hobbies)

> Note that I'm not at the other extreme. I'm not suggesting
> that it would be prudent to do what, for exdample, Amazon
> did and intentionally lose a large fortune for several
> years just to build up market recognition and a customer
> base.

Although, that's kinda what we did going to color TAG ;-)

> I think there was more to Larry's comment than what I saw
> at first sight.  To take the other side of the coin from
> what he said, you only have to look to see the hobby is
> growing and there is a role for AGA to play.  We need to
> grow with the hobby or eventually be seen as a less and
> less important element. Also, note that I'm not talking
> about, for example, Karen's place in the hobby, which is
> unquestionable. But *AGA's* role -- if AGA doesn't do more,
> than it's doing it will be seen as less than it is. And it
> will become much less than it can be.

While I agree completely that AGA can't rest on it's laurels, and needs to
CONTINUE to grow along with the hobby, I think you "youngun's" might need a
bit of a history lesson/-reminder, here.  AGA is _not_ following on the
coat-tails of the planted tank movement.  AGA STARTED the planted tank
movement.  Before AGA there was NO vehicle for those interested in planted
tanks to communicate and learn from each other.  Even the term, "aquatic
gardening" came from the AGA.  Before that, there were just a very few
lonely, quirky aquarium hobbyists here and there that, for some reason,
prefered "live plants" (isn't incredible that we had to specify "live"?!?!)
to the plastic aquarium decorations (I refuse to say "plants" ;-) that most
hobbyists used.

Anyone who thinks otherwise hasn't been in the hobby long enough to remember
the "good old days".<g>  When I think that 5 or 6 years ago, AGA was STILL a
group of just FIVE individuals struggling to push this gigantic cart into
motion, it takes my breath away to see how far we've come since then.  You
may find it ammusing to know that there was a motion by one person to
actually LIMIT memberships at one point because they thought the
organization was getting too big.<g>  I think the misperception back then
was that "THE AGA" was much bigger and more secure than it was.  We had
money, but that's ALL we had.<g>  I often felt like we were "the man behind
the curtian" in the Wizard or Oz.... Or don't you guys remember that one
either? ;-)

OK, stern talking-to by Grandma is over now.<g>

Karen


  ------------------
  To unsubscribe from this list, e-mail majordomo@thekrib.com
  with "unsubscribe aga-sc" in the body of the message.
  Old messages are available at http://lists.thekrib.com/aga-sc
  When asked, log in as username is "aga-sc", and password "incorp".