CFC Membership Stats

[Paul Leblanc]

Re: CFC Membership Stats

The BC Chess Federation recently expanded the provincial membership fees to include all-junior events. These are the events discussed above that do not require CFC memberships and charge 50 cent rating fees. It was otherwise impossible for the BCCF to continue to help support junior chess in BC. It is possible that this will drive some organizers to rate their events only with CMA, time will tell.

[Roger Patterson]

Re: CFC Membership Stats

Membership categories - I would like to propose a question to the CFC - why have a junior membership that is cheaper than the adult membership? The juniors receive a higher level of service (more opportunities and tournaments) than adults, and parents (who are paying the junior membership) are generally accustomed to high participation fees for activities - is there a strong belief that there is high elasticity of demand for CFC membership? .

when this has come up before, it has become apparent that some people are of the opinion that charging less for juniors is some kind of moral imperative. That only some kind of morally bankrupt person would charge juniors the same amount as adults. Arguments as to the elasticity of parents willing to pay for chess over the elasticity of adults don't hold any weight in this line of thought.

But, in my view, you are correct. There is no economic justification for charging juniors less. It just leaves money on the table. [and I would think the CFC should be happy to have CMA running scholastic stufff. There is also a train of thought that the CFC must be the monopoly provider of chess and CMA is some kind of competitor from whom scholastic organizing must be made CFC]

Ditto for those who provide a junior discount for entry fees for chess tournaments.

[Bob Gillanders]

Re: CFC Membership Stats

Just a short sidebar...because I really should be doing more important stuff...the CFC use to charge more for kids but they decided at some point that they wanted to compete with the CMA...so they wiped out membership fees for kid events and dropped their rating fees to 50 cents for kid only events. Later on I got a call from the long time CFC lawyer suggesting we raise the rate to $1 a head...hmmm...isn't that called price fixing...ohhh that's right it came from a lawyer...why would I expect anything else :)

Hi Larry, well.....that was a long time before i got involved,....but I have always thought 50 cents was a ridiculously low price.

Just imagine if both CMA and CFC customers (organizers, players, parents) came the realization that $1 was a more equitable price and demanded we both raise our prices. Wouldn't that be something, but I won't hold my breath.

[Larry Bevand]

Re: CFC Membership Stats

David, you make some compelling arguments.

Startup costs - I do not agree that our membership dues are a serious barrier. I believe the vast majority of members do find the dues reasonable. IMHO, changing the rates a few dollars up or down would have very little effect on member numbers. I have no survey data or evidence to support my position, just my gut feeling. ( Of course, if we did do a survey asking “would you like lower dues?” the answer would be yes)

3 month memberships - I would like to propose that we amend the current tournament fee (good for only one tournament) to become a true 3 month membership. New members would be encouraged to try a second tournament before their 3 months was up.

Membership categories - As you say, the juniors do receive all the benefits of an adult member, so why should they pay less? At present, the CFC share of dues: adult $36, Juniors $24 (the rest is provincial dues and taxes). Maybe they should both be, say $32? ( David, please appreciate the fact that I’m going to take a lot of flack for that last statement)

FIDE - creating a new premium membership to include FIDE tournaments is very messy. Since it is the TD’s and not the players who decide to FIDE rate or not, I would prefer higher rating fees for FIDE sections. Currently we collect $2.20 Cdn and pay FIDE 1 Euro per player. This is a very low markup for the work we do compared to CFC rating fees.

Just a few thoughts, but I am going to try very hard not to get drawn into protracted public debates on these issues. I prefer to leave it to the politicians. :)

Just a short sidebar...because I really should be doing more important stuff...the CFC use to charge more for kids but they decided at some point that they wanted to compete with the CMA...so they wiped out membership fees for kid events and dropped their rating fees to 50 cents for kid only events. Later on I got a call from the long time CFC lawyer suggesting we raise the rate to $1 a head...hmmm...isn't that called price fixing...ohhh that's right it came from a lawyer...why would I expect anything else :)

[Bob Gillanders]

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.

This was debated at length a few years ago. As I recall, I argued against the idea.
Now, I'm not so sure. My arm could be twisted. Call me!

[Bob Gillanders]

Re: CFC Membership Stats

Thanks for this. I'm going to come at the problem by saying that many adults may churn (or not sign up in the first place) for one specific reason: startup cost. So, my feelings are that reducing the startup and renewal costs should help increase memberships. To that end, I have a few ideas that I'd like to put forward.

Membership categories - I would like to propose a question to the CFC - why have a junior membership that is cheaper than the adult membership? The juniors receive a higher level of service (more opportunities and tournaments) than adults, and parents (who are paying the junior membership) are generally accustomed to high participation fees for activities - is there a strong belief that there is high elasticity of demand for CFC membership? Rather than having a set of memberships that are ~$50adult/$30junior, what if the CFC had a straight $40 membership per year - no new revenue would be generated to the CFC, but the long standing adult membership would see a lower renewal cost. I say this as someone who continues to believe that juniors churn out of the CFC at a high rate, and that if they are going to play from ages 8-15, those are the years that the CFC should be generating revenue from them. It also reduces the sticker shock to them when they turn 21 and suddenly their membership cost nearly doubles, which is a guaranteed churn factor.
New membership cost: $40

FIDE costs - based on those statements, about 25% of membership revenue is going straight to FIDE for rating fees/titles/etc. The ECF has dealt with this in what I think is a clever manner - there are multiple levels of membership, and if you wish to play in FIDE rated events, you require the highest level of membership. I think this is a very reasonable consideration - if you play a FIDE rated event, you should be a serious player, and willing to pay a little extra because you are getting extra services.

New membership costs (would require better analysis of the membership specifics, but I'll just randomly put numbers): NonFIDE: $30/FIDE $50

I have some other ideas, but I think you get the basic point.

I suspect if your average club/weekend/new player walked in and was told the renewal/signup cost is $30 instead of $50, there would be a nice increase in memberships and membership renewals. You're right that you are competing with online chess - the cheapest paying membership on chess.com is less than a CFC membership, and gives you 24/7 chess, along with online training tools. The CFC is going to lose that competition every time.

David, you make some compelling arguments.

Startup costs - I do not agree that our membership dues are a serious barrier. I believe the vast majority of members do find the dues reasonable. IMHO, changing the rates a few dollars up or down would have very little effect on member numbers. I have no survey data or evidence to support my position, just my gut feeling. ( Of course, if we did do a survey asking “would you like lower dues?” the answer would be yes)

3 month memberships - I would like to propose that we amend the current tournament fee (good for only one tournament) to become a true 3 month membership. New members would be encouraged to try a second tournament before their 3 months was up.

Membership categories - As you say, the juniors do receive all the benefits of an adult member, so why should they pay less? At present, the CFC share of dues: adult $36, Juniors $24 (the rest is provincial dues and taxes). Maybe they should both be, say $32? ( David, please appreciate the fact that I’m going to take a lot of flack for that last statement)

FIDE - creating a new premium membership to include FIDE tournaments is very messy. Since it is the TD’s and not the players who decide to FIDE rate or not, I would prefer higher rating fees for FIDE sections. Currently we collect $2.20 Cdn and pay FIDE 1 Euro per player. This is a very low markup for the work we do compared to CFC rating fees.

Just a few thoughts, but I am going to try very hard not to get drawn into protracted public debates on these issues. I prefer to leave it to the politicians. :)

[Tyler Longo]

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.

While I can acknowledge that it's not a simple task to just overhaul the fee structure for an organization, and there might be other factors we aren't considering (I'm sure life members make this tricky), I completely agree with Hugh/Alex. I don't think it's a hard sell as a tournament player to increase entry fees by a modest amount to scrap the whole membership model. People that play more should pay more. As an organizer, I can't tell you how many times I've had to go through the awkward process of explaining to a completely new tournament player why they have to pay this $48 fee just so they can play in a tournament, when many of them are just getting their feet wet and aren't even sure they will be playing further events.

Hart House even gives new CFC members free entry into their events... I think that's a great way to draw in new players given the current fee setup, but it strikes me as silly that they need to essentially pay new players to play.

[Alex Ferreira]

Re: CFC Membership Stats

How about eliminating the traditional CFC rating fees completely? Simply charge every player "$x" (to be included in the entry fee) for each tournament (in addition to the rating fee) to cover a membership fee. Sure - players who play in more events would be "penalized" - but it would encourage more one-or-two-tournament-a-year players to play, and not being faced with the large tournament CFC fee (or larger annual fee). It would save the TD the trouble of hassling people for memberships.

What are the totals of "player-tournaments" (i.e. the sum of the number of players in all rated events) during recent years? What is the $ value of memberships collected annually? From that - a suitable value of "$x" could be determined.

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.

[David Ottosen]

Re: CFC Membership Stats

Me bad. Posting financials on the website is on my list of "stuff to do". I haven't ventured into that area of the website yet, but hopefully soon. In the meantime, you can find them in the quarterly meetings (as Egis points out).

Thanks for this. I'm going to come at the problem by saying that many adults may churn (or not sign up in the first place) for one specific reason: startup cost. So, my feelings are that reducing the startup and renewal costs should help increase memberships. To that end, I have a few ideas that I'd like to put forward.

Membership categories - I would like to propose a question to the CFC - why have a junior membership that is cheaper than the adult membership? The juniors receive a higher level of service (more opportunities and tournaments) than adults, and parents (who are paying the junior membership) are generally accustomed to high participation fees for activities - is there a strong belief that there is high elasticity of demand for CFC membership? Rather than having a set of memberships that are ~$50adult/$30junior, what if the CFC had a straight $40 membership per year - no new revenue would be generated to the CFC, but the long standing adult membership would see a lower renewal cost. I say this as someone who continues to believe that juniors churn out of the CFC at a high rate, and that if they are going to play from ages 8-15, those are the years that the CFC should be generating revenue from them. It also reduces the sticker shock to them when they turn 21 and suddenly their membership cost nearly doubles, which is a guaranteed churn factor.
New membership cost: $40

FIDE costs - based on those statements, about 25% of membership revenue is going straight to FIDE for rating fees/titles/etc. The ECF has dealt with this in what I think is a clever manner - there are multiple levels of membership, and if you wish to play in FIDE rated events, you require the highest level of membership. I think this is a very reasonable consideration - if you play a FIDE rated event, you should be a serious player, and willing to pay a little extra because you are getting extra services.

New membership costs (would require better analysis of the membership specifics, but I'll just randomly put numbers): NonFIDE: $30/FIDE $50

I have some other ideas, but I think you get the basic point.

I suspect if your average club/weekend/new player walked in and was told the renewal/signup cost is $30 instead of $50, there would be a nice increase in memberships and membership renewals. You're right that you are competing with online chess - the cheapest paying membership on chess.com is less than a CFC membership, and gives you 24/7 chess, along with online training tools. The CFC is going to lose that competition every time.

[Hugh Brodie]

Re: CFC Membership Stats

How about eliminating the traditional CFC rating fees completely? Simply charge every player "$x" (to be included in the entry fee) for each tournament (in addition to the rating fee) to cover a membership fee. Sure - players who play in more events would be "penalized" - but it would encourage more one-or-two-tournament-a-year players to play, and not being faced with the large tournament CFC fee (or larger annual fee). It would save the TD the trouble of hassling people for memberships.

What are the totals of "player-tournaments" (i.e. the sum of the number of players in all rated events) during recent years? What is the $ value of memberships collected annually? From that - a suitable value of "$x" could be determined.

[Bob Gillanders]

Re: CFC Membership Stats

Has it occurred to the CFC that the precipitous drop in membership since the 90s coincides with the massive emphasis placed by the CFC on junior programs? When I started playing in the early 90s, there was the junior (U20) and cadet (U16), with one winner, and that's it. By the late 90s, there was the CYCC, and every U# you could think of.

The idea was "we give the junior lots of opportunities, and they develop into adult members"; a more skeptical viewpoint was "we give the juniors massive opportunities, they travel the world and have great experiences, and then when they become adults and the CFC offers nothing more than weekend swisses, they quit playing".

It seems pretty clear to me which side was correct. The CFC has placed far too much emphasis on junior chess (and I say this as a former Cdn Junior coordinator) that has done nothing to bolster the full membership lists. The past (and current) focus of the CFC is actually discouraging juniors from becoming adult members, because from the time you're 10, there are regular national and provincial championships that you feel you have a chance at, with exceptional opportunities available to the winners. Once you hit 21, you are suddenly "just another player" and that steep drop off is always going to cause players to churn out.

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.

[Bob Gillanders]

Re: CFC Membership Stats

Sorry, I shouldn't have really posted that without asking if it was true; are there any more recent CFC financial statements than the 2013 ones posted on the web site?

Me bad. Posting financials on the website is on my list of "stuff to do". I haven't ventured into that area of the website yet, but hopefully soon. In the meantime, you can find them in the quarterly meetings (as Egis points out).

[Egidijus Zeromskis]

Re: CFC Membership Stats

Sorry, I shouldn't have really posted that without asking if it was true; are there any more recent CFC financial statements than the 2013 ones posted on the web site?

You should find them in the CFC forum site in meetings subforums.

[David Ottosen]

Re: CFC Membership Stats

Sorry, I shouldn't have really posted that without asking if it was true; are there any more recent CFC financial statements than the 2013 ones posted on the web site?

[Neil Frarey]

Re: CFC Membership Stats

Hi David, that's an interesting point of view. I understand your point of view too, but I think the CFC could be a lot more than simply having a 'rating' ...contrary to some CFCers I know.

The CFC could be a chess rich social structure, with a rating system as one central element of it. Instead the CFC today, is chess poor social structure ...impoverished.

Adults leave because there's simply nothing left to involve themselves in/with ...if all you are to the CFC is a 'rating value' and that value is in decline, then what's the point of sticking around???

The Chess Federation of Canada's membership numbers are ridiculously low because they don't understand what the role of 'organized chess' is within the greater scheme of the Canadian social fabric.

It's really quite that simple ...to me anyways.


...