Communication Strategy

[Roger de Coverly]

There's a paper on the ECF website
http://www.englishchess.org.uk/wp-conte ... rategy.pdf

I cannot help thinking this is inhabiting some parallel universe where the structure of the ECF is totally different.

For example

This strategy has been developed to help ECF to improve the quality of information that is conveyed within the sport to Members (County Associations), Associated Members (Clubs) and Affiliate Members (individuals) – herein referred to as ‘Members’.

It's not just County Associations who are "Members", that term also applies to Leagues and Congresses.

Clubs are not "Associated Members" and have no direct relationship with the ECF.

Individuals are not normally described as "Affiliate Members". I suppose the concept is a way of making sure they have no say in the running of the ECF, despite providing the finance.

[Paolo Casaschi]

Individuals are not normally described as "Affiliate Members". I suppose the concept is a way of making sure they have no say in the running of the ECF, despite providing the finance.

The term "members" is inappropriate to describe individual players in respect to the ECF; the ECF should start using the term "customers" instead.

[Jonathan Bryant]

Individuals are not normally described as "Affiliate Members". I suppose the concept is a way of making sure they have no say in the running of the ECF, despite providing the finance.

The term "members" is inappropriate to describe individual players in respect to the ECF; the ECF should start using the term "customers" instead.

No. Customers have a choice of whether to buy or not to buy.

[Clive Blackburn]

"Communication Strategy" does not really describe the contents of the document.

"Obfuscation Strategy" might be a better title.

[Paolo Casaschi]

Individuals are not normally described as "Affiliate Members". I suppose the concept is a way of making sure they have no say in the running of the ECF, despite providing the finance.

The term "members" is inappropriate to describe individual players in respect to the ECF; the ECF should start using the term "customers" instead.

No. Customers have a choice of whether to buy or not to buy.

You do have a choice not to be a customer of the ECF and not to participate in organized chess activities under their remit. Nobody is forcing you to play ECF rated chess.

[Mick Norris]

The term "members" is inappropriate to describe individual players in respect to the ECF; the ECF should start using the term "customers" instead.

No. Customers have a choice of whether to buy or not to buy.

You do have a choice not to be a customer of the ECF and not to participate in organized chess activities under their remit. Nobody is forcing you to play ECF rated chess.

I think the best analogy is football - I have a choice of matches to attend, but as I support Bury, when I have a rare free Saturday in 2 days time, I'll go to Gigg Lane - they have put the prices up since last season, so it will cost me more

Do I have a choice? Yes, but not if I want to see the Shakers

Do I have to be an ECF Gold member? No, but I do if I want to play 4NCL

[Mike Truran]

There is a slight difference.

When you watch the Shakers the Shakers get your money.

When you play in the 4NCL the ECF gets your money.

[Michael Flatt]

You do have a choice not to be a customer of the ECF and not to participate in organized chess activities under their remit. Nobody is forcing you to play ECF rated chess.

Why not settle on the term "player".

The ECF have a monopoly with regards grading, unless of course you live in Yorkshire or participate in the Watford Rapidplay which no longer demands ECF membership or game fee as a condition of entry since the games are no longer submitted for grading.

English players who only participate in FIDE events are obliged to take out ECF membership.

[Michael Farthing]

I intend to stick with 'member'. the ECF is a federation of organisations of chess players who have come together to better further the opportunities for playing chess. Nowadays organinisations must have a list of 'stakeholders' -which in the case of the ECF includes organisers, arbiters, coaches, journalists, parents, sponsors and (possibly) players. This is nonsense. There is only one stakeholder: the players. Everyone else is a friend of the organisation: they deserve respect, thanks, cooperation and to be lisitened to, but at the end of the day the ECF was and should continue to be an organisation of chess players. We are not customers: we are a group that have come together and formed an organisation to help us organise ourselves. One of the very worrying features of the direction the current CEO wants to take us is that this central fact has been downgraded.

[JustinHorton]

There is a slight difference.

When you watch the Shakers the Shakers get your money.

When you play in the 4NCL the ECF gets your money.

Unless I am mistaken the Shakers will pay on some of their income to organising and representative bodies such as the Football League and the FA.

[Paolo Casaschi]

Do I have to be an ECF Gold member? No, but I do if I want to play 4NCL

But then, who is to blame in this situation? The ECF that forces you to pay a "membership" fee to play in the 4NCL? Or the 4NCL that imposes this requirement on their participants? After all the 4NCL could as well decide to run their events outside the ECF (with no grading/rating); also do not forget that the 4NCL has voting rights at the ECF council (while you are a customer of the ECF, the 4NCL is actually a voting member) therefore part of the decision process for that rule.
So you do have a choice whether to be a customer of the ECF or not... unless you think that playing graded/rated chess is a basic human right, but I would not go that far.

[LawrenceCooper]

Do I have to be an ECF Gold member? No, but I do if I want to play 4NCL

But then, who is to blame in this situation? The ECF that forces you to pay a "membership" fee to play in the 4NCL? Or the 4NCL that imposes this requirement on their participants? After all the 4NCL could as well decide to run their events outside the ECF (with no grading/rating); also do not forget that the 4NCL has voting rights at the ECF council (while you are a customer of the ECF, the 4NCL is actually a voting member) therefore part of the decision process for that rule.
So you do have a choice whether to be a customer of the ECF or not... unless you think that playing graded/rated chess is a basic human right, but I would not go that far.

4NCL without rating and norms could be problematic.

[Paolo Casaschi]

Do I have to be an ECF Gold member? No, but I do if I want to play 4NCL

But then, who is to blame in this situation? The ECF that forces you to pay a "membership" fee to play in the 4NCL? Or the 4NCL that imposes this requirement on their participants? After all the 4NCL could as well decide to run their events outside the ECF (with no grading/rating); also do not forget that the 4NCL has voting rights at the ECF council (while you are a customer of the ECF, the 4NCL is actually a voting member) therefore part of the decision process for that rule.
So you do have a choice whether to be a customer of the ECF or not... unless you think that playing graded/rated chess is a basic human right, but I would not go that far.

4NCL without rating and norms could be problematic.

I'm not disputing that. It was just an example to show how a an individual ECF member, sorry, customer has no leverage with the ECF directly but could voice their concerns through the 4NCL and similar ECF member organizations. Whether people would/should care more about grading/rating or ECF fees is a completely different story. Their choice whether to be a customer or not.

[Roger de Coverly]

4NCL without rating and norms could be problematic.

Indeed it could, but the 4NCL fully supported the BCF in its claim that it was a FIDE requirement that you had to be a BCF member in order to be allowed to play in the 4NCL. So there's a long history there.

Also the 4NCL, or perhaps just its Representative, doesn't support the notion that there should be an event based fee to enable non-ECF members to participate without having to pay an annual membership for potentially just one game.

[Roger de Coverly]

It was just an example to show how a an individual ECF member, sorry, customer has no leverage with the ECF directly but could voice their concerns through the 4NCL and similar ECF member organizations.

It was hoped that perhaps the Pearce report would point the way towards changing this. It appears not, thus placing a premium on sites and media where the ECF and its directors can freely be griped at.