Has the Club ever considered an associate membership level?

[Dave Harmison]

The title pretty much says it all, and this is why I ask:

My daughter has now "aged out" of our family SCCA membership. Except for going to a few races in support of me, she otherwise wouldn't be interested right now. It makes no sense for her to spend $45 on her own club membership. Only I even bother to scan through Sportscar, so the magazine isn't worth much to her.

My point: Would it be better to offer an associate level of membership, without the magazine, to people that are only on the fringe of the club? The club could charge a nominal fee ($10) and print an id card. Tack it on my membership so the club wouldn't even have to do mailing or anything, just list it as "Sponsored Associate Members" on my invoice. It would keep them at least attached to the club a little. Associate members would not be eligible for licenses.

The club is aging badly. I think we need to reach out to the younger crowd somehow.

[teamwisconsin]

I don't know if cheaper membership would bring in more members. But it might help keep members. Personally, I would opt for a "magazine-free" membership. Ever since they took fastrack updates out of the magazine, the point of that publication for me became non-existent. I don't care about several month old race reports, another article on how to build a b-spec/touring/Miata or 75 pages on all 800 solo classes at their nationals. I think cheaper membership sans-magazine would greatly improve my likelihood of renewing my membership year after year. I wonder how much cheaper the membership fee could be if they didn't have to pay for the publication?

[Lotus7]

I don't know if cheaper membership would bring in more members. But it might help keep members. Personally, I would opt for a "magazine-free" membership. Ever since they took fastrack updates out of the magazine, the point of that publication for me became non-existent. I don't care about several month old race reports, another article on how to build a b-spec/touring/Miata or 75 pages on all 800 solo classes at their nationals. I think cheaper membership sans-magazine would greatly improve my likelihood of renewing my membership year after year. I wonder how much cheaper the membership fee could be if they didn't have to pay for the publication?

Every few years I ask about a "no magazine" discount, and keep getting told it would cost more to manage the two different levels of membership than it does to send the magazine to everyone.
(To me that sounds like the magazine is not much of a cost to scca).

[Daryl DeArman]

Just the mailing, never mind the printing, would be a fairly significant chunk. The concern is revenue.

How much is the SCCA generating from advertisers in the magazine? How much would that decrease if the subscription rate was cut by 40, 60 , 80%?

As to a different level of membership, if the SCCA has the same number of members, but now 25% of them are paying a substantially reduced rate, that's another hit to revenue.

[John Nesbitt]

As to a different level of membership, if the SCCA has the same number of members, but now 25% of them are paying a substantially reduced rate, that's another hit to revenue.

Many (most? all?) members receiving a reduced membership cost do so in recognition of days worked at events. Various levels of volunteering return a discount on Club membership.

Keep in mind that many member volunteers (flaggers, for example) live in very modest circumstances. The meal on Saturday night, gas card (if any), and discounted membership have real meaning for them. This in no way is equal to the compensation offered by the marque clubs, etc.

Without flaggers and other volunteers, we could not put on our events.

Better to think of these membership discounts as “critical volunteer incentives” than as “hits to revenue”.

[rickb99]

...... Would it be better to offer an associate level of membership, without the magazine, to people that are only on the fringe of the club?.....

Hey I've got a thought How about offering your associate membership to all of the people who cannot afford to race but, they come out EVERY Weekend to be track workers so you can race!!! They really have no reason to spend $45 a year for a membership.

Ahh, just noticed John had the same idea. We were typing at the same time

[Dave Harmison]

Daryl: My point is that from 2017 on, the SCCA will get 100% of $0 as my daughter will not get her own membership.

At least if we kept them as associate members they would be Potential members some day and we could always market to them "Do you want to upgrade to full member?" If we lose them totally, we don't even have them on the club's mailing list as Potentials or to recruit to become corner workers, etc.

As to the no-magazine argument, that's part of why I'd keep them as Associate on MY membership and not a separate mailing, tracking, etc.

I think most of the dot com world is built on having large mailing lists or website hit numbers, not necessarily getting the most revenue out of each hit.

I'm not trying to start something, but it seems a little daft that we have membership drive contests, gave away memberships with Miata purchases, and yet we're pushing these people away by having them age-out of family memberships.

[Lotus7]

How much is the SCCA generating from advertisers in the magazine? How much would that decrease if the subscription rate was cut by 40, 60 , 80%?

I relate this to the occasional offers for Road & Track, etc that I get reglarily for literally $8/yr, versus the typical 50/yr offers within the magazine itself.
On the argument that no one does anything at a loss these days, the 8 bucks is clearly just a token; R&T etc are apparently fully(?) funded by advertisers (which is another reason I wouldn't pay more than 8/yr, but that's another topic).

[Daryl DeArman]

Many (most? all?) members receiving a reduced membership cost do so in recognition of days worked at events. Various levels of volunteering return a discount on Club membership.

Keep in mind that many member volunteers (flaggers, for example) live in very modest circumstances. The meal on Saturday night, gas card (if any), and discounted membership have real meaning for them. This in no way is equal to the compensation offered by the marque clubs, etc.

Without flaggers and other volunteers, we could not put on our events.

Better to think of these membership discounts as “critical volunteer incentives” than as “hits to revenue”.

Needed workers shouldn't have to buy a membership period. IMO.

[Daryl DeArman]

Daryl: My point is that from 2017 on, the SCCA will get 100% of $0 as my daughter will not get her own membership.

At least if we kept them as associate members they would be Potential members some day and we could always market to them "Do you want to upgrade to full member?" If we lose them totally, we don't even have them on the club's mailing list as Potentials or to recruit to become corner workers, etc.

I don't disagree with you Dave. I was just explaining why I believe it doesn't make business sense for the SCCA to do what you are proposing.

I am suggesting there are a ton of people paying for full-priced memberships that aren't using them, and that offering those same people discount memberships would cost the club more money than they are losing by not offering them.

[BeerBudgetRacing]

I don't disagree with you Dave. I was just explaining why I believe it doesn't make business sense for the SCCA to do what you are proposing.

I am suggesting there are a ton of people paying for full-priced memberships that aren't using them, and that offering those same people discount memberships would cost the club more money than they are losing by not offering them.

Both my kids (24 & 26) aged out and neither has paid for their own membership. Just no reason to right now.

I think they shouldn't age out at all. I think a family membership should include anyone you want to include (even grandpa). SCCA is supposed to be a family thing. Family support is important.

If an individual wants to go beyond basic membership and get a license then they would need to get their own membership.

Why? To keep in contact. They have NO contact with either of my kids and in fact they have NEVER sent them any marketing material that I've seen. Do they even have a record they exist? They both come to races....

So they let potential members just fade away and never contact them.
Mistakes all around IMO.

[problemchild]

So they let potential members just fade away and never contact them.
Mistakes all around IMO.

Once upon a time, when the club consisted mostly of club racers, decisions were made to grow membership, which would provide cashflow to make the club racing better. Unfortunately, those traditional club racers (mostly people like on this forum) have been pushed aside and are just the annoying pimples on the buttocks of the club. SCCA needs revenue to pay to administer new programs and service programs that have no connection to the traditional club racers, not to mention, bail out extensions of the club that are trying to compete in the real world.
That is the cycle of life. There is no reason to lower membership fees ...... unless you wanted to stimulate worker participation or foster continued multi-generation connections to the traditional club activity.

[Wren]

I'm not sure how old your daughter is, but I think that there is a discount membership for college students.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

[problemchild]

Regarding fading away members ..... the SCCA process has no regard for people that are leaving or left. Certainly no exit surveys. All the committees care about are the dozen or so established power players in each class who have the ears of those making decisions. We hear it all the time ..... "we don't listen to Apexspeed polls because we don't know who they are. They could be anybody." Exactly! The very reason they should be considered. And we certainly cannot base any decisions on the bottom 75% of participants who only make up 20% of the participation ..... because we would obsolete stuff the more serious racers have invested in.
No one is trying to reform or change any of these issues. Too busy just trying to keep it going the way it is.

[Diamond Level Motorsports]

They are too busy rearranging the deck chairs on the Titanic!

[provamo]

racers ARE the associate members!

SportsCar magazine almost exclusively caters to the pylon crowd

[Daryl DeArman]

racers ARE the associate members!

SportsCar magazine almost exclusively caters to the pylon crowd

Those folks are racing too, just against a clock.

I've never done Solo2, but I can appreciate just about all types of racing, except NASCAR.

[BeerBudgetRacing]

racers ARE the associate members!

SportsCar magazine almost exclusively caters to the pylon crowd

They probably make money on the magazine with the advertising - so it won't go away.
On that basis does it matter? Could be full of knitting patterns as long as the advertisers pay.

The alternative would be to bomb the main website with ads, but that would suck....

[mikey]

If you can't sell your 'aged out' family members on the benefits of joining, why do you think SCCA can do a better job trying to get them to keep memberships?

Certainly the cost of membership isn't a serious factor..

[Terry Hanushek]

Dave

My daughter has now "aged out" of our family SCCA membership. Except for going to a few races in support of me, she otherwise wouldn't be interested right now. It makes no sense for her to spend $45 on her own club membership. Only I even bother to scan through Sportscar, so the magazine isn't worth much to her.

My point: Would it be better to offer an associate level of membership, without the magazine, to people that are only on the fringe of the club? The club could charge a nominal fee ($10) and print an id card. Tack it on my membership so the club wouldn't even have to do mailing or anything, just list it as "Sponsored Associate Members" on my invoice. It would keep them at least attached to the club a little. Associate members would not be eligible for licenses.

The club is aging badly. I think we need to reach out to the younger crowd somehow.

From time to time the Club has considered tiered memberships with low service, low cost options to expand the number of members. Many individuals, particularly in the lower impact programs like Rally, Solo and Time Trials cannot justify the cost of a $65 (+regional dues) annual membership; many of these individuals participate with weekend memberships. Previous BoD have been aware of this situation and investigated multiple level memberships to encourage braoder participation in non-racing programs. These studies have suggested that a significant number of current 'full price' members would convert to a lower cost membership if given the opportunity. Thus, if a $20, no Sportscar, no license option were available, the Club would need two new members for every existing member who converted to the new tier just to maintain current income. Since membership fees are a significant part of the Club annual revenue, the BoD has not been willing to 'bet the business' on a significant surge of new members to offset the loss of current 'full price' members.

Terry

[mmi16]

racers ARE the associate members!

SportsCar magazine almost exclusively caters to the pylon crowd

SportsCar has a number of constituencies to supply coverage to, to deny coverage doesn't do any constituent any good. I am a racer, but over 1000 participants were competing at the Solo Nationals. The Club and SportsCar respond to the competitive preference that you check on your membership renewal.

[Terry Hanushek]

Daryl said: As to a different level of membership, if the SCCA has the same number of members, but now 25% of them are paying a substantially reduced rate, that's another hit to revenue.

John replied: Many (most? all?) members receiving a reduced membership cost do so in recognition of days worked at events. Various levels of volunteering return a discount on Club membership.

SCCA has a Volunteer Incentive Program (VIP) to provide membership dues credits to volunteers at Club Racing and Time Trials events. Credits up to $45 are available to volunteers based on days worked. This program is run at no cost to SCCA. The VIP program is funded with a $5 - $6 assessment on all Club Racing and Time trial entries; it essentially is funded by the competitors.

The VIP program is currently being examined to determine if it can be expanded beyond racing.

I personally would like see the VIP program fund the entire membership bill of our active volunteers.

Terry

[problemchild]

Terry says "Since membership fees are a significant part of the Club annual revenue, the BoD has not been willing to 'bet the business' on a significant surge of new members to offset the loss of current 'full price' members."

Scott says "They are too busy rearranging the deck chairs on the Titanic!"

Same conclusion. Different spin.

[Terry Hanushek]

Same conclusion. Different spin.

Pretty much agree

T

[Todd Butler]

As an ex-BoD member who overlapped with Terry (also an ex-BoD member now), this has been brought up several times, as ideas and with some proposals behind the ideas. BoD has been afraid to bet the business, but to be fair there are a sh*tload of variables and options to consider. There is a lot that has to go into something like this. Would we rather have 60K members, 50% of whom are full price, the rest are weekend and VIP funded, or 1st Gear etc or would we rather have say 5-10K full price and 100-150K “associate members” at lower membership fees?

What sets of services do you offer for full vs reduced membership fees? Think something like a Gold/Silver/Bronze levels, 12 months of SportsCar vs SportsCar quarterly vs digital only. What level G/S/B do you need to participate in the various Club events, Solo, TT, Club Racing, Rally, etc? Do we cover you with insurance if you are an associate or only if you are full price? Membership today is also tied to a Region and Region dues are separate. Should we could we offer a “national SCCA” membership only with no region affiliation? That has financial impacts to the Regions because region dues collected today by Topeka are straight pass-thru back to the Regions. What does the timing and degree of cannibalization of full price to associate vs hoped for/planned incoming ground swell of new associate members do for us? If we had 150K members (full + associate) how much more could we get from our sponsors and how much more would add pages in SC sell for to potentially offset membership dues or heavens actually be a revenue increase?

If BoD bet the business and decided to use reserves to cover cannibalization losses of membership fees until that hoped for/planned groundswell of new membership came in, and that groundswell of new members does not happen or happen soon enough, then we’ve spent a chunk of our reserve funds and have to figure out how to reclaim that lost membership revenue.

Bottom line, BoD has not seen a business proposal yet around a lower cost associate membership that lowers the risk enough to put the effort into going for it.

[Dave Harmison]

Thanks to all for a good discussion. Especially the ex BOD members. It's good to know these things are being discussed.

[Hardingfv32]

Ex-board members:

Why is there a reluctance to discuss the factors that go into some of the complicated decisions the Board makes? Say in one of the SportsCar editorial sections.

For many of us it would make some of the Boards decisions easier to swallow.

Brian

[Todd Butler]

Ex-board members:

Why is there a reluctance to discuss the factors that go into some of the complicated decisions the Board makes? Say in one of the SportsCar editorial sections.

For many of us it would make some of the Boards decisions easier to swallow.

Brian

Not really a reluctance, it’s just hard to capture and get things out there for better transparency! I was BoD Secretary for my 6 years. I was taking notes (admittedly “Cliff Notes”) and trying to capture some of the dialog and logic behind some of the decisions, not just the votes on motions but BoD notes only go so far presenting the why of what happened. What sometimes happens, maybe not enough, is an article by the BoD Chair or CRB chair or ad hoc BoD members to explain a specific direction or decision. I will agree that overall communication is a weak point, there are multiple ways for members to communicate to BoD (forums, letters, calling your Area rep, showing up at Convention, etc) but BoD level back out to members definitely leaves room for improvement and that’s why you see some of us (current and ex) cautiously posting on some of the forums as well. It’s not because BoD (or National Staff) are trying to hid things, it’s really easy to get swamped explaining the ins and outs of decisions.