ECF Game Fee in internal Club events

[Paul Buswell]

I assume Paul does know the attitudes of his local club membership which was why I asked if he could quantify the number of players he would lose.

I know the attitudes of the clubs that I have been involved with and I know of no club that has suffered any decrease in membership because its players have to play the ECF £12, which is why I was surprised that he considered it such a big problem

I'm not completely sure; it's an issue I want to avoid.

If we went down the road of "every Club member must be an ECF Member" I reckon up to 10: possibly those who never ever play any competitive chess, but definitely the two senior and influential Club officials whose distaste for the ECF scheme is so great that they have withdrawn from playing any graded chess of any sort. So we would have to re-vamp our membership tiers to avoid that compulsion.

I have only just been reminded that the old Game Fee had reductions for Club internal events which have now gone. An extra string to my bow in arguing for restoration of the discount, which I have to do both in my Club's interest and because I believe it to be better for participation at the fringes.

I am disappointed that Sean Hewitt DoMM does not feel it necessary or desirable to have printed literature to promote the ECF; I think he is wrong and that it is a necessary expense.

Thanks to all for views expressed, I will be taking this forward in some form to ECF Council (probably in April 2014), assuming I can get the necessary support for it to go on the Agenda, which I am sure I can.

PB

[Christopher Kreuzer]

University chessplayers tend to fall into two categories:
(1) Enthusiastic players who've played for most of their lives, who continue it on to University. These prioritise chess quite highly as an activity.
(2) Occasional players, who play chess because it's a club they can involve themselves in at University. These hardly ever play games because of workload, employment, or other reasons. Chess isn't a priority to them.

The former are looking for competitive games in leagues, the latter are looking for the odd game here and there.

Agreed, though there are some who play chess to a high level or play a lot after university, but don't prioritise it during university. Those are the sensible ones... (and also quite rare)

The teams that enter BUCA are, usually, full of players in category (1). We haven't got entries from Cambridge and Oxford this year because too many players from those institutions (who aren't otherwise engaged in Seconds Varsity) are in category (2). Cambridge's internal league (which allowed players from other colleges to play for your college, and games in each match could be played virtually whenever) has fallen to bits not because of membership, but because of players being in category (2).

That's just sad (the bit about Cambridge's internal league having fallen apart). I hope that is only a temporary state of affairs. When I ran it, matches were played over 4 or 5 divisions, and were not played 'virtually whenever', but as a proper match between two sides on one night.

<snip>

Bristol is thriving because it has a large number of players in category (1). The key to a successful University chess club in league chess is having an enthusiastic, dependable core of players for the occasional players to work around. By inspection (without knowing Bristol that well!), Martin, Thompson, Bahra, Young and Meadows are probably going to turn up in the vast majority of Bristol matches in league chess.

Yeah, that sounds about right. It's only because I know one of those players (Martin), but I had noticed that Bristol university chess does seem to be undergoing a bit of a resurgence. Back when I was at university, I had a game of e-mail correspondence chess with two players from Bristol, though BUCA wasn't around then I don't think.

Money is nearly never the issue. It's mostly a question of interest and priorities.

Agreed. Though jack prices up too much and money will start to be a factor.

The players who fall into category (2), upon leaving University, will hardly ever play competitive chess in England, or in their native country. The reason isn't money: They just don't have that much interest in chess. They're only involved at University level because it's a University club to join, which may appeal to them more than (say) football.

It would be interesting to survey graduates who return to higher activity levels in chess later in life after concentrating on a career and/or family (as many people do) and see if they played at university or not. I suspect there is a middle ground of moderate activity that you may be underestimating the size of.

[Alex Holowczak]

I am disappointed that Sean Hewitt DoMM does not feel it necessary or desirable to have printed literature to promote the ECF; I think he is wrong and that it is a necessary expense.

I am reminded of the time you felt it necessary for Sean to print literature for one of his Gatwick events. He ignored your advice, and had to close the event to new entries more than a week beforehand, because it was full to capacity at 150something.

So when it comes to printing literature, I have to say that based on past experience, I'm prepared to put more faith in Sean's judgement.

[Alex Holowczak]

That's just sad (the bit about Cambridge's internal league having fallen apart). I hope that is only a temporary state of affairs. When I ran it, matches were played over 4 or 5 divisions, and were not played 'virtually whenever', but as a proper match between two sides on one night.

I don't know the full details, but I know the Cambridge President (who wasn't President last year) was running a team from one college, and was fed up to be playing teams from other colleges basically combining. Now he's President, he's come up with an alternative format to keep the competition alive, but perhaps not in its former glory, as it were.

It would be interesting to survey graduates who return to higher activity levels in chess later in life after concentrating on a career and/or family (as many people do) and see if they played at university or not. I suspect there is a middle ground of moderate activity that you may be underestimating the size of.

I'm sure that quite a few people return to chess later on in life, once they've got a bit older. Some return to chess when their back/legs/knees etc. give up and they can't play rugby/football/cricket/hockey etc. anymore. What we'd have no evidence of is whether or not their very limited University experience of chess has made any impact on their decision.

[Roger de Coverly]

Passing it all on to the entry fee perhaps didn't help because entry fees were quite price sensitive, in a way that membership fees might not be.

It remains bizarre that it was simultaneously unacceptable to add £ 2.50 to the entry fee but demand £ 15 increasing to £ 27 as a condition of entry to your first ever internationally rated event. I refer to any e2e4 event before September 2012 when club players were henceforth only charged an upgrade cost.

Perhaps there should have been stronger resistance to Stewart when he came up with the idea of charging an arm and leg for the privilege of attempting to gain a FIDE rating from a modest BCF grade. But that was entry fees. The combination of accelerated pairings with the entry fee structure meant that early in the tournament, not only did you not play anyone on the same score, but you didn't play anyone who had paid the same entry fee.

[Andrew Zigmond]

I am disappointed that Sean Hewitt DoMM does not feel it necessary or desirable to have printed literature to promote the ECF; I think he is wrong and that it is a necessary expense.

PB

I was planning to post along similar lines before I saw this but I agree entirely.

It's much easier for club secretaries to sign up as many members with the ECF as possible; the £13 minimum only has to be paid once and it saves much effort working out game fee liabilities with a calculator. At my club (Harrogate) we have achieved almost universal membership where it has been required. Obviously if a new member comes along who is new to the game and just wants to enjoy a social evening (at least to start with) we're not going to sting them with £13 on the club subscription. However it would be nice to be able to say to a new member, `We encourage all our members to join the ECF, here is a brochure explaining who they are and what they do.` At present the information is there but it's very wordy and difficult even for those with a knowledge of chess politics to digest.

Sean admitted on another thread (I think the Yorkshire/ ECF disparity one) that a grade is not the only benefit of joining the ECF but `is the most tangible reason for doing so`. I sometimes feel as if I'm being asked to tell players they should join the ECF because they'll get a grade and because they really ought to be members of their national federation. There has to be a better sell than that.

Or put more bluntly, the ECF's weaknesses are well publicised. The work they do that is of value passes under the radar. It frustrates me that the ECF board do not see an opportunity here.

[James Byrne]

...

[Paul Buswell]

I am disappointed that Sean Hewitt DoMM does not feel it necessary or desirable to have printed literature to promote the ECF; I think he is wrong and that it is a necessary expense.

I am reminded of the time you felt it necessary for Sean to print literature for one of his Gatwick events. He ignored your advice, and had to close the event to new entries more than a week beforehand, because it was full to capacity at 150something.

So when it comes to printing literature, I have to say that based on past experience, I'm prepared to put more faith in Sean's judgement.

Maybe you're right, maybe not. But I think there is a qualitative difference between selling a Congress, a tangible product, to a market of people committed to competitive chess, and selling a semi-tangible - ECF membership and a grade if you play enough - to people who are only marginal customers.

PB

[Greg Breed]

I am disappointed that Sean Hewitt DoMM does not feel it necessary or desirable to have printed literature to promote the ECF; I think he is wrong and that it is a necessary expense.

I am reminded of the time you felt it necessary for Sean to print literature for one of his Gatwick events. He ignored your advice, and had to close the event to new entries more than a week beforehand, because it was full to capacity at 150something.

So when it comes to printing literature, I have to say that based on past experience, I'm prepared to put more faith in Sean's judgement.

Maybe you're right, maybe not. But I think there is a qualitative difference between selling a Congress, a tangible product, to a market of people committed to competitive chess, and selling a semi-tangible - ECF membership and a grade if you play enough - to people who are only marginal customers.

PB

I have to agree with Paul here to a certain extent. When this ECF Membership scheme all began this forum was the only place i knew about that was discussing it. As I am the only member of my club that is even aware of this forum let alone a member of it, my club would have been completely oblivious to the new scheme had I not brought it to their attention.
If the governing body of an association makes such a radical and compulsory change as this it has to provide literature second and notification first. In my eyes it did neither. It is not up to the casual player to scour the ECF website to find the latest updates on politics and finance. I can certify that non of my club care a jot for that sort of thing, including me.

So it is appropriate for the ECF to provide something for the membership fee we have had thrust upon us!

[Sean Hewitt ECF DoMM]

Everyone's entitled to their opionion of course, and I don't want this to become an "economics for dummies" lesson, but it simply isn't viable to produce this literature.

Firstly, think about the printing costs. Any congress organiser will give you an idea how much a leaflet costs to print. They're not cheap. Then multiply that cost by say 10,000.

Then, think about distribution costs. There are alot of clubs out there. I don't know how many, but there are circa 40 counties with perhaps an average of 20 clubs in each (some more, some less). 800 clubs then, and postage is not cheap.

Then, who do we send them too? The ECF doesn't have contact details for every club. Counties don't always keep their officials details up to date. There would certainly be some work in compiling a distrbution list.

Then think about the likelihood of the material not going in the bin. Congress organisers know that often, entry forms sent to the club secretay never make it to the club. Would these be different?

Then think about how many extra members the ECF might get as a result of all this time and expense. It already has more than 9,000 members without it. Some non-members aren't going to join because they don't play many games, and a handful won't on principle. So you're aiming at those who would join "if only there was a flyer to tell me all about it". I reckon you'd have to sign up an extra 300 members just to break even on your costs and frankly I just don't see that happening.

The cost of customer acquisition is an important metric. There comes a point when the cost becomes greater than the benefit of acquiring the customer. I would say that we have reached that point in respect of ECF printed flyers.

However, as I've said, I am happy and will produce such a flyer. It will be a pdf download from the ECF website and anyone will be free to print and distribute it at their club if they want.

I'll look forward to the extra memberships rolling in

Alternatively, I'll offer anyone who thinks I'm wrong a deal. You produce the leaflets. You distribute them. We'll pay you 50% commission on any sales you make.

[Sean Hewitt]

I have to agree with Paul here to a certain extent. When this ECF Membership scheme all began this forum was the only place i knew about that was discussing it. As I am the only member of my club that is even aware of this forum let alone a member of it, my club would have been completely oblivious to the new scheme had I not brought it to their attention.

Really? Your league and county association reps were entirely silent on the matter? There was not a discussion about consequential league fees at the AGM?

[Roger de Coverly]

Really? Your league and county association reps were entirely silent on the matter? There was not a discussion about consequential league fees at the AGM?

Those who wanted to put the scheme to a vote at their local AGMs were informed that the final details weren't available and any votes of rejection were not valid. Such was the haste and the number of late changes, including those of principle, that hardly anyone got such a chance. The best you could do was to note that the ECF were forcing the scheme through and the only choice was between closure as regards grading and national participation and trying to work out an accommodation.

As regards costs of implementation, the original Farthing paper claimed that the scheme would show a saving even its first year. I thought at the time the paper was totally biased, not mentioning marketing costs of any radical changes was one of them.

[Steve Rooney]

Everyone's entitled to their opionion of course, and I don't want this to become an "economics for dummies" lesson, but it simply isn't viable to produce this literature.

Firstly, think about the printing costs. Any congress organiser will give you an idea how much a leaflet costs to print. They're not cheap. Then multiply that cost by say 10,000.

Then, think about distribution costs. There are alot of clubs out there. I don't know how many, but there are circa 40 counties with perhaps an average of 20 clubs in each (some more, some less). 800 clubs then, and postage is not cheap.

Then, who do we send them too? The ECF doesn't have contact details for every club. Counties don't always keep their officials details up to date. There would certainly be some work in compiling a distrbution list.

Then think about the likelihood of the material not going in the bin. Congress organisers know that often, entry forms sent to the club secretay never make it to the club. Would these be different?

Then think about how many extra members the ECF might get as a result of all this time and expense. It already has more than 9,000 members without it. Some non-members aren't going to join because they don't play many games, and a handful won't on principle. So you're aiming at those who would join "if only there was a flyer to tell me all about it". I reckon you'd have to sign up an extra 300 members just to break even on your costs and frankly I just don't see that happening.

The cost of customer acquisition is an important metric. There comes a point when the cost becomes greater than the benefit of acquiring the customer. I would say that we have reached that point in respect of ECF printed flyers.

However, as I've said, I am happy and will produce such a flyer. It will be a pdf download from the ECF website and anyone will be free to print and distribute it at their club if they want.

I'll look forward to the extra memberships rolling in

Alternatively, I'll offer anyone who thinks I'm wrong a deal. You produce the leaflets. You distribute them. We'll pay you 50% commission on any sales you make.

I am actually in the printing business but I wouldn't dream of suggesting that a centrally produced leaflet is either necessary or a good use of ECF funds.

It really isn't that difficult. I have attached the letter that was circulated in Shropshire. I don't know the precise numbers of county players who have joined but the scheme has not been raised as an issue as far as I am aware since our AGM when we agreed to just get on with it.

We know all too well that some individuals here will never be reconciled with the membership scheme, but the fact remains that over 9,000 people have joined so far with the likelihood of more to follow as people do the maths on pay-to-play.

[Roger de Coverly]

We know all too well that some individuals here will never be reconciled with the membership scheme, but the fact remains that over 9,000 people have joined so far with the likelihood of more to follow as people do the maths on pay-to-play.

The ECF announced that it was tripling Game Fee, but as a concession the amount paid by club players would be capped at £ 12 a head. The short term effect is likely to be that active players will opt for the cap. What would be the likely long term effects, particularly if the retention of even a tripled Game Fee is only seen as a short term measure? The medium term objective being to insist on £ 12 or such amount as the ECF may demand, even for a single game.

The scheme could be reversed by a 50% Finance Council vote. Without changing any of the rules, the members would melt away, presumably, should the meeting set membership at say £ 20 by integrating Bronze and Silver and Game Fee at say 80p.

The objection in principle to any form of universal membership scheme if you have plausible alternatives are the costs both of marketing and collection. The ECF dodges facing these costs by imposing on the goodwill of local organisers to do its marketing and collection for it. Provided you were sensible about not trying to apportion every last penny, the universal Game Fee system was easy for clubs and leagues to run. Running an MO surely requires much more work keeping track of individuals and their payments. It certainly needs someone to volunteer to run it.

[Christopher Kreuzer]

I am actually in the printing business but I wouldn't dream of suggesting that a centrally produced leaflet is either necessary or a good use of ECF funds.

It really isn't that difficult. I have attached the letter that was circulated in Shropshire. I don't know the precise numbers of county players who have joined but the scheme has not been raised as an issue as far as I am aware since our AGM when we agreed to just get on with it.

That letter looks good. Was it prepared using ECF materials? Is there an argument that where some county or clubs are less organised but prepared to print something, material could be e-mailed to them and distributed digitally in a 'print-ready' format? I'm the e-mail distribution this was done anyway, but not sure about 'print-ready' distribution. I can see an argument for limited printed material being made available, but not sure where the cut-off point would be.