CFC Membership Stats

[Steve Douglas]

Re: CFC Membership Stats

Using the EF in the CYCC as a justification that juniors pay so so much, therefore, a reduced CFC membership is justified, just doesn't hold water. There are what, 200-250 juniors at the CYCC? Compared to how many juniors active in the CFC scholastic programs? And of course there is the counter example of those adults who pay $200 for a Can. Open fee.

The CYCC fees are a separate issue from the pricing of junior memberships.

Hi Roger:

(This is not all directed at you but yours was the post I chose.)

There are a lot of different things being tossed about in this thread. They are all related, but very different.

With respect to discounts for juniors, there may be some people who feel it's a moral imperative, but I think it's more the issue that it is a cultural norm in our society that we charge less for juniors and seniors. In any case, it's up to the organizers of events to figure out what they want to charge, and for what. In the case of CFC memberships, I personally don't have a problem with a discount for junior memberships. One of the differences used to be that a junior didn't get the (then printed) magazine.

I do have problems with the $0.50 fee for rating junior-only events. This is where the CFC decided to directly compete with the CMA because they suddenly realized "there's gold in them thar kids".

It doesn't make sense to me for the CFC to be going out of its way to rate junior-only events at a huge discount, particularly since most of these juniors don't show up (and never will) in the membership statistics. It would be simpler to just have a new rating category of "scholastic" and use the CMA rating (or an adjusted CMA rating). If the revenue from these tournaments covers the cost, then that's fine. But I don't think it does.

AFAIK the CFC still charges full rating fees for any juniors in "mixed" events.

I understand David Ottosen's point about adults not liking to play juniors. I'm one of them. John Coleman (who has run a LOT of junior events) recently complained about some of those reasons and was treated quite horribly by some posters here. But on what grounds would you keep juniors out of events they qualify to play in?

Vlad is correct that organizers used junior events such as the CYCC as cash cows to siphon money to cover other expenses. Or that organizers would run high $$$ junior events but deliver a crappy product and leave a bad taste in the mouths of parents.

There are a lot of adult CFC members who do not give a rodent's derriere about junior chess and I understand that. But my observation over the past 15 years is that we've have too many governors who either care about nothing except adult chess, or governors who care about nothing except junior chess.

The CFC has done a good job of finally (finally) making the CYCC relevant after rudely and unnecessarily jerking it away from the CMA. (And now the CFC is being transparent about where the money goes). But at the same time, anybody who thinks the CFC should somehow be competing with the CMA for scholastic stuff, needs to give their head a shake.

As for adult tournaments and opportunities, that's always been in the hands of adults, hasn't it? Various revenue models have been discussed for years. There's also the issue of the portion of the membership fee that's been known to disappear into the provincial associations.

Steve

[Peter McKillop]

Re: CFC Membership Stats

I mean specifically this: "many juniors pay a membership of $225 plus the $24 so they can finance the WYCC team so their real cost is over $250." What juniors are paying over $250 in membership fee?

I will however have to argue that "if they get to pay $24 instead of $36 to the CFC it really doesn't materially change the bottom line". There are a substantial number of junior members, and each of them paying an additional $12 would have a very material impact on the CFC bottom line.

I think Vlad is referring to the fact that every year two or three hundred juniors' parents pay $x to enter their children in the CYCC. As Roger Patterson has already pointed out, it's not clear why Vlad thinks a tournament entry fee should be linked to an annual membership fee.

[Egidijus Zeromskis]

Re: CFC Membership Stats

The CFC ratings are not the only benefit. In fact, they are our most expensive benefit. We probably should be looking for ways to automate the task.

Another benefit is the relationship with FIDE and management of that relationship.

The CFC rating is a service not a benefit. Otherwise the rating fee would be round zero.
The FIDE-CFC affects probably <20% of members.

The real CFC membership benefit is the magazine but due to its irregularity its value goes down. (The nice article about Sarwer is spoiled with a future tense of his participation in a Millionaire tournament - something like 3 months outdated stuff)

[Roger Patterson]

Re: CFC Membership Stats

Junior chess had some serious problems when I arrived as the masters rep a few years ago. I think those problems have largely been fixed. In effect many juniors pay a membership of $225 plus the $24 so they can finance the WYCC team so their real cost is over $250. That is what it costs to run the junior programs. If the adults paid that level of fees then we would be able to do the same type of things for them that we are doing for the juniors. I don't think anyone would like that option.

.

Using the EF in the CYCC as a justification that juniors pay so so much, therefore, a reduced CFC membership is justified, just doesn't hold water. There are what, 200-250 juniors at the CYCC? Compared to how many juniors active in the CFC scholastic programs? And of course there is the counter example of those adults who pay $200 for a Can. Open fee.

The CYCC fees are a separate issue from the pricing of junior memberships.

[Vlad Drkulec]

Re: CFC Membership Stats

Hi,
I have also been suggesting this for years. Since CFC's membership main (only?) benefit is the ratings, we should scrap memberships and increase the rating fee. Instead of $3.00, make it $6.00, or whatever the value would be calculated to be. It would be a huge relief for every member and organizer not to have to deal with membership renewals.
Alex F.

The CFC ratings are not the only benefit. In fact, they are our most expensive benefit. We probably should be looking for ways to automate the task.

Another benefit is the relationship with FIDE and management of that relationship.

[Vlad Drkulec]

Re: CFC Membership Stats

Up 4.4%. Not bad. Especially in a year where there was no Canadian Open.

[David Ottosen]

Re: CFC Membership Stats

I understand that you are not arguing but juniors pay enough. Whether juniors pay $0.50 for rating fees or $3.00 or if they get to pay $24 instead of $36 to the CFC it really doesn't materially change the bottom line. The problem with junior chess 2.5 years ago was that it was just a cash cow in some people's eyes. We made a conscious decision to make sure that we returned what we collected back to the juniors. People complain less when they are getting value for their money.

I think the same approach will work for adult chess.

I mean specifically this: "many juniors pay a membership of $225 plus the $24 so they can finance the WYCC team so their real cost is over $250." What juniors are paying over $250 in membership fee?

I will however have to argue that "if they get to pay $24 instead of $36 to the CFC it really doesn't materially change the bottom line". There are a substantial number of junior members, and each of them paying an additional $12 would have a very material impact on the CFC bottom line.

[David Ottosen]

Re: CFC Membership Stats

I understand that you are not arguing but juniors pay enough. Whether juniors pay $0.50 for rating fees or $3.00 or if they get to pay $24 instead of $36 to the CFC it really doesn't materially change the bottom line. The problem with junior chess 2.5 years ago was that it was just a cash cow in some people's eyes. We made a conscious decision to make sure that we returned what we collected back to the juniors. People complain less when they are getting value for their money.

I think the same approach will work for adult chess.

I mean what are you saying when you say juniors are paying nearly $250 membership? I honestly didn't understand what you mean there.

[John Brown]

Re: CFC Membership Stats

Vlad;
How do you return what you collected back to the adults? Please elaborate.

[Vlad Drkulec]

Re: CFC Membership Stats

Would you mind explaining this in more detail (legitimate question - I'm not arguing).

I understand that you are not arguing but juniors pay enough. Whether juniors pay $0.50 for rating fees or $3.00 or if they get to pay $24 instead of $36 to the CFC it really doesn't materially change the bottom line. The problem with junior chess 2.5 years ago was that it was just a cash cow in some people's eyes. We made a conscious decision to make sure that we returned what we collected back to the juniors. People complain less when they are getting value for their money.

I think the same approach will work for adult chess.

[David Ottosen]

Re: CFC Membership Stats

In effect many juniors pay a membership of $225 plus the $24 so they can finance the WYCC team so their real cost is over $250.

Would you mind explaining this in more detail (legitimate question - I'm not arguing).

[David Ottosen]

Re: CFC Membership Stats

The whole premise of David's post is flawed, but it does help illustrate how junior chess must be protected from disgruntled players and ( sometimes ) disgruntled or easily manipulated organizers. There seems to be some idea that if adult members are somewhat miserable about chess that juniors should also be miserable by design. Active junior members are often highly skilled, attend more events then many, and without them many events would struggle or die. They bring energy and fresh interest to the events. The main value in junior members ( at any event, even an Olympiad ) is not in what might result later, be it a long term CFC member or a highly skilled master, but in what they bring to the table presently. Any futures are a nice bonus.

The post is only flawed if you believe that an increase in the price of junior memberships will make those juniors quit. I don't believe that to be true - speaking as a parent myself, chess is one of the least costly extracurricular activities a child can engage in.

And I would note - the post in question discussed issues with adult membership stats. I could just as easily argue based on my experience talking to many adult members that the "energy" brought to events by juniors turns off many adults, as does the idea of losing to players 20+ years younger (note - I don't feel this way, but I do believe there is a not insignificant number of adult members who do).

[Vlad Drkulec]

Re: CFC Membership Stats

We rejected the idea of financing memberships through rating fees a few years ago. By my reading of the NFP act we would have to wait five years before bringing up basically the same idea again. Life members could argue that we are breaching the agreement that we signed with them when we accepted their life membership. Is this idea worth dismantling the Foundation over to pay for?

Junior chess had some serious problems when I arrived as the masters rep a few years ago. I think those problems have largely been fixed. In effect many juniors pay a membership of $225 plus the $24 so they can finance the WYCC team so their real cost is over $250. That is what it costs to run the junior programs. If the adults paid that level of fees then we would be able to do the same type of things for them that we are doing for the juniors. I don't think anyone would like that option.

I fully intend to work on fixing adult chess now. We are already working to that end. We have the Canadian Open and CYCC planned out for the next year and a half. Perhaps we will be able to schedule all of our top events out two or three years fairly soon. I am hoping that the partnership we seem to be developing in Windsor with Caesars will provide a blue print for more such partnerships across Canada with other major hotels.

I and the rest of the CFC exec can't promise to bring back the glory days of the Fischer boom but if we work in a methodical way we will start back in an upward direction. We have started moving in a more positive direction. The letter from the COC was a turning point. The upcoming agreement with Premium Chess will be another leg for the table that we are standing on. We are working on other things which should also be quite exciting.

[Egidijus Zeromskis]

Re: CFC Membership Stats

The whole premise of David's post is flawed, but it does help illustrate how junior chess must be protected from disgruntled players and ( sometimes ) disgruntled or easily manipulated organizers. There seems to be some idea that if adult members are somewhat miserable about chess that juniors should also be miserable by design. Active junior members are often highly skilled, attend more events then many, and without them many events would struggle or die. They bring energy and fresh interest to the events. The main value in junior members ( at any event, even an Olympiad ) is not in what might result later, be it a long term CFC member or a highly skilled master, but in what they bring to the table presently. Any futures are a nice bonus.

I missed your opinion on junior/youth discounts - a membership or entry fees.

[Duncan Smith]

Re: CFC Membership Stats

Interesting post David, but I don't reach the same conclusions. There are numerous reasons for the drop in adult memberships. I am still optimistic than a stronger junior membership will translate into more adults, eventually.

Now that we have successfully grown the junior membership, are there other steps to take to attract adult members.

The whole premise of David's post is flawed, but it does help illustrate how junior chess must be protected from disgruntled players and ( sometimes ) disgruntled or easily manipulated organizers. There seems to be some idea that if adult members are somewhat miserable about chess that juniors should also be miserable by design. Active junior members are often highly skilled, attend more events then many, and without them many events would struggle or die. They bring energy and fresh interest to the events. The main value in junior members ( at any event, even an Olympiad ) is not in what might result later, be it a long term CFC member or a highly skilled master, but in what they bring to the table presently. Any futures are a nice bonus.