Re: [AGA-sc] was gregwatson now membership -- or, do you want want Carol Merril has behind door number 3

["S. Hieber" <shieber@yahoo.com>]

----- Original Message ---- 
From: Cheryl Rogers 
To: AGA Board 
Sent: Tuesday, January 10, 2006 12:03:47 PM 
Subject: [AGA-sc] was gregwatson now membership 


>. . .We currently have 683 members. 

>When I generated the mailing list in November 2005, we had 727 members. 
113 people who expired with that issue have so far declined to renew. We 
have had 41 new members since November 2005. I don't think these numbers 
are particularly unusual." 
> 

Just based on the need to transfer funds occasionally, summer seemed to be very 
slow but the last month or so has picked up. 

>However, membership has been slowly declining since November 2004, when 
we had 850 members. I attribute this to a lack of an AGA convention in 
2005. So having a convention (or not) affects our membership in a big way. 
> 

It might be the lack of convention or it could be due to other reasons -- like 
other places to go for info, slumpy economy generally. . . 

>We could argue whether membership was artificially inflated by the fact 
that folks are *required* to join if they want to attend the talks, but 
I don't believe that the majority of people who register for the 
convention are joining only because they must. 
> 
I don't think it was artificially inflated since, iirc, we didn't see big 
spikes around conventions. 

> But we have a little money to burn 
and while I'm certainly not advocating that we spend willy 
nilly, we *could* afford to spend a little dough on advertising and 
*see* whether it works. 
> 

The problem is that a *little* advertising isn't generally what works. I think 
one of the root things in marketing is that the message/exposure should be 
clear, frequent, repeated and effectiveness is generally a function of those 
things. I don't have a problem with spending on advertising but I think we 
should have a plan and scope in mind for something more than a dabble here or 
there. Not that anyone has suggested a dabble. I only mean to say, I think we 
need to get on the horse and ride if we want to get anything noticeable out of 
advertising. Just walking the horse won't get us very far. I could be wrong -- 
I'm not a marketing expert, this is just what I have heard.

> 
Or print The Basics even though it's expensive. 
> 

Great. How do we deliver it? A mailing separate for TAG or as an enclosure (lap 
flap)? It is available on line for download for anyone that wants it so I would 
be hesitant to do a separate mailing. But as an added enclosure, that could be 
nice. Some further editing first maybe. And maybe then we could do one or tow 
on the Intermiediates and then on Advanced Topics

> 
Or sponsor an experiment. 
> 

In the last few years I don't recall hearing one that didn't sound either wonky 
or unlikely to produce meaningful results. But I wouldn't mind spending some 
money on experiment or study provided it was promising. And If we announced 
that we were offering some money to be award to the best proposal, we might 
hear some better experiments or studies. 


> 
Or pay the Treasurer a salary. 
> 

The Treasurer is getting what he's earned. 
But some genuine accounting advice could be very useful. 


>Or hire a lawyer. 
> 
I don't think we have enough money for that unless we have a specific legal 
issue to resolve. 

> 
Or buy insurance. 
> 
Only insurance companies can afford that! 

> 
Or software. 
> 

Glad you brought it up. I was gong to ask for $64 to upgrade the Quicken. 

>whatever. 
> 

> If we could point to marked increases from specific types of exposure, or 
> special reasons why one exposure might be especially beneficial, then I'd say 
> that it's worth the gamble to to buy or swap space for more of that kind of 
> exposure and see what happens. However, I don't see anything like that on the 
> horizon. 

>I understand the logic. And Scott, this is directed at the entire Board 
and not just you. But Pardon Me, how will we ever find out if we don't 
TRY? Or hire a professional? Or do something besides whine about 
membership and how much work we're all doing? 
> 

>It's *embarrassing* to me to have so much money in the bank and not be 
doing anything with it. I believe that we are letting the organization 
and the members down. Even if we try something and fail, the board is 
not doing its job if we sit on a wad of the *member's* cash like a 
grouchy old hen on a nest. 

>If the rest of you don't agree, fine. I'll sit down and shut up after this. 
>

If I understand you correctly, I agree. I think we should turn some of the 
money into active use for the membership. 

> Scott said previously: Not being as creative, I'll raise again an old idea: 
> Big TAG. Since TAG is our biggest reason for folks to join, a Big TAG still 
> might be our best chance to increase membership. If we did increase 
> membership with Big TAG, we probably wouldn't have a net increase in 
> revenues; we might even have a net loss for a period of time but I think, 
> given a year or so we could reach more folks *and* remain solvent, and that 
> fits within our mission. Maybe we could hook it's premiere into the promo for 
> 2006 convention somehow. 

>Scott, you are right. This is still a good idea. But with membership 
numbers down, and falling, I don't feel comfortable with committing to a 
big TAG in perpetuity. You mentioned before that perhaps a single, 
special issue Big Tag could be a compromise. I think that would be a 
good way to give back to the members some of their hard-earned money. 
> 

I don't think we could afford to do it in perpetuity. I think we could afford 
to do it for 2-4 issues, depending on how, if at all, it affected enrollments.

I think we definitely could at least commit to one special issue of Big TAG 
without placing the AGA in financial jeopardy. 
I think we could take it one issue at a time, or maybe better, every other 
issue at a time. We plan on for fall 2006 and Summer 2007 and if it looks 
imprudent to do another after fall 2006, we have time to not do one in Summer 
2007 and just do a regular TAG for Summer 2007. Then we don't have to try to 
change content halfway through putting a Big Tag together. 

I not only think we could do it. I think we should do it. I think it would be 
good way to put some of the money to use. 
This presumes that this much larger editing task would fit into Karen's life 
without unduly adverse results -- of course, that assumption could be as wrong 
wearing bucks after Labor Day or wingtips in summer.

It wouldn't be my first mistaek or my lsat.
_______________________________________________
AGA-sc mailing list
AGA-sc@thekrib.com
http://lists.thekrib.com/mailman/listinfo/aga-sc