The vision thing

[Gary Hua]

Re: The vision thing

You can't gain as many CFC members as possible if you don't reach more people who are potential members. Based on my experience emailing people for the membership drive my current feeling is that we have to do a better job of retaining members because once they leave they are harder to bring back as compared to the effort in obtaining a new member. This is somewhat contrary to what most of the marketing experts suggest when talking about the situation in most businesses.



The CFC can strive to convert some of them into CFC members. To do that you need to gain visibility with them. They have to know that you exist. Then you have to convince that joining the CFC and playing in OTB tournaments is a desirable option for them.



The CFC has managed only a few crumbs directed towards elite Canadian chess. This is understandable as you don't expect the starving to offer a banquet to anyone. We need to change the status quo. Ten thousand members with many of them being juniors would suggest an annual budget of about ten times what we enjoy now. At that point and at many points along the way we can start to do things to support our elite players (like paying for the Olympiad teams or lining up sponsors ahead of time so the players don't have to take out a mortgage on their house to pay for the out of pocket expenses of representing Canada).

Tennis Canada has a well developed program of community champions and resources for coaches to promote the game in local communities across the country. They give organizers a step by step approach for setting up youth training programs.

To build a tennis community you need some rather expensive facilities. To build a chess community you only need a room or a few rooms on a regular basis. They have a much more daunting task in front of them than we do when we wish to expand into an area that doesn't have much organized chess.

Hi Vlad,

As you are the President of CFC now, are we going in the right direction now with this vision thing ?

Gary

[Hugh Brodie]

Re: The vision thing

It looks like anyone could enter - as long as they communicated in French at the event. Looking at the crosstables, there appear to be lots of Anglo names - but not one of Chinese (or any Asian) origin - and few of non-French European origin.

(I remember a Montreal parent jokingly suggesting that a tournament be organized in which the kid's family name had to be longer than 4 letters - a more "politically correct" way of excluding (most) players of Chinese origin, since they were winning all the trophies).

[Vlad Drkulec]

Re: The vision thing

"Sticking with the tried and true may help us sleep better
at night, but it stifles innovation and makes it hard to make the big
bets necessary to move the needle on the serious problems we face.
A fearless approach embraces new people and unlikely partnerships,
recognizing that innovation comes from new combinations."
http://befearless.casefoundation.org...principles.pdf

[Gary Ruben]

Re: The vision thing

Could children enrolled French immersion enter? They would qualify as being fluent in French.

[Jean Hébert]

Re: The vision thing

Just curious - were there any restrictions placed on entries?

1) Could entries come from only specific regions, school boards, or schools?
2) Could a non-Francophone (or anyone) from outside Northern Ontario enter?
3) Could a Francophone from outside Northern Ontario enter? 4) Could a non-Francophone attending an English school in Northern Ontario enter?

To the best of my knowledge :

1) NO
2) It seemed to me that it was opened to students attending french schools anywhere in Ontario;
3) YES. I was told that next year the event will be held near the Quebec border, opening up the possibility of accepting Quebec players, especially from the nearby Abitibi region;
4) I think not. The idea (besides chess) is to bring the francophones together and promote the french culture. Because all these kids are bilingual, but sometimes more fluent in english, they are formally asked at the start of the event to communicate in french.

[Hugh Brodie]

Re: The vision thing

Just curious - were there any restrictions placed on entries?

1) Could entries come from only specific regions, school boards, or schools?
2) Could a non-Francophone (or anyone) from outside Northern Ontario enter?
3) Could a Francophone from outside Northern Ontario enter?
3) Could a non-Francophone attending an English school in Northern Ontario enter?

[John Coleman]

Re: The vision thing

Jean - were these kids provided with scoresheets and did they record their moves?

Short answer... yes. :)

From http://echecs.cspgno.ca/?page_id=10

• les règlements du jeu d’échecs de FIDE avec quelques adaptations pour les débutants;
• un site de formation essentiel à la formation : http://sites.rapidus.net/blanchdo/;
• le chronomètre des joueurs – il faut appuyer sur son horloge chaque fois que l’on joue, disponible au www.echecs-fen.com;
• l’écriture des parties est faite par chaque joueur tout au long de la partie – formation en ligne au http://sites.rapidus.net/blanchdo/ leçon 6, la notation algébrique abrégée.

[Jean Hébert]

Re: The vision thing

Jean Hébert wrote (a couple of weeks back):

Jean - were these kids provided with scoresheets and did they record their moves?

Yes, absolutely. That is what allowed some of them to come to me after the games to have them analysed.

[Hugh Brodie]

Re: The vision thing

Jean Hébert wrote (a couple of weeks back):

Two weeks ago in Sudbury they had their annual "tournoi d'échecs franco-ontarien" with over 250 french speaking kids (remember, this is Ontario!).

Jean - were these kids provided with scoresheets and did they record their moves?

[Vlad Drkulec]

Re: The vision thing

I don't see direct mail as being an option as a recruiting tool for the CFC. The response rate is too low and even if you had a wildly successful campaign you would be extremely lucky to recoup the cost of the mailing with increased membership fees. If you managed to get a relatively high 2% success rate by mailing 500 households, that would be 10 memberships or $360.

I would be shocked if you could do the mailing for much less than $1 per piece so you would be looking at a net negative cash flow in the first year of about $140 under a relatively high conversion rate of 2% and very simplified assumptions. Of course this would be offset somewhat by the fact that the person might renew so in two years you might recoup your up front investment IF you got a relatively good 2% conversion rate. Also if my understanding is correct of something posted by Fred McKim on the CFC website there would be some increased costs associated with increased memberships under the contract the CFC uses to run the office. I can't remember if the figure was $13 or $15 per member used in the thread where you were asking about giving free membership to certain juniors. If you give a 33% non renewal rate then it becomes questionable as to the profitability of a cold call email campaign under even fairly optimistic scenarios. The campaign would have a negative cash flow associated with it at least into year three.

Most CFC memberships get sold when there is a tournament that requires CFC membership. Putting ads on kijiji or distributing fliers at events or in clubs where chessplayers congregate would seem to me to be a more cost effective way to troll for chessplayers who might join the CFC. Choose your headline carefully and know your unique sales proposition before you even attempt to distribute a flyer or place an ad.

I prepared a flyer for chess lessons the night before the Windsor Chess Challenge playoffs where about 180 kids were playing. I left about 40 of them on the tables where the parents were sitting and eventually got 5 individual and three or four students for the various classes I am involved with as a result though one was for only two lessons to prepare for OYCC and two were for students who were already part of classes that I taught. I also got back 20 of the flyers that hadn't been picked up.

I described my ideal student (someone who loves chess) and that is exactly who I got as students as a result of my flyer, which was a very pleasant surprise.

[Kevin Pacey]

Re: The vision thing

I wish the CFC had a budget for advertising for this year that was significantly greater than nil. That would have allowed us to advertise to the general public, rather than just emailing ex-CFC members. As a necessary experiment, this didn't seem to regain nearly as many ex-CFC members as we might have hoped for, but now we know almost for certain that emailing (or other ways of contacting?) a large number of ex-CFC members (2100+) is not so promising. In past years much smaller numbers of ex-CFC members have been contacted, with results that apparently didn't prove that much.

As far as hoping to retain more CFC members in future, traditionally there has been a 33 or 50% turnover rate [edit: annually, in terms of members not renewing], depending on who you talk to. Some feedback suggested to one past president that members who didn't renew, at least quite a few years back, did so not because of anything the CFC did wrong in their eyes, but rather because they had moved on to other activities. Such a high turnover rate is apparently par for the course for an organization like the CFC, such as the USCF, or the ACBL (for Bridge), for example. As for retaining juniors who reach their adult years (i.e. beginning studies, jobs, families), I imagine the rate of retaining them as CFC members is depressingly low, as I think is common knowledge/sense. This is worrisome if the plan is for the CFC to have a high proportion of juniors in future years.

I had once proposed years ago, then without being a Governor, that we try mailing 500 households randomly, at a cost of roughly $300, but the idea wasn't taken seriously. For one thing, we'd need a volunteer(s) or a staff member with time to do the mailing, and we'd want to use official CFC envelopes and letters ideally.

Other than requesting and being granted a loan(s) from the Foundation, or having a sudden increase in revenue due to possibly risky measures such as substantially lowering membership fees, at the moment I am short of ideas for funding a proper membership drive (i.e. advertising to the general public), which is one reason I'm curious/eager to see the Long-term planning committee's report at the AGM.

All in all, I think my previous post suggests a flexible (though incomplete) set of guidelines for rewriting the CFC's objectives that are quite compatible with your second last post [edit: post #67] , Vlad. Part of what did the CFC in during the 2004-2007 approximately one thousand member decline in CFC memberships was simply that a number of key organizers in Canada dropped out, I'm told, and I hope attention is paid to the idea of trying to improve the number of organizers, nationally and locally. If it was CFC policies or actions back then that caused the decline in their number, this might be reversible in a reasonable time frame.

[Vlad Drkulec]

Re: The vision thing

"The 'Tennis Pathway' consists of four components on a continuum: Try, Learn, Play and Compete. Each of these components can be put into action through various programs and activities depending upon community needs. For example, a Try activity might be a tennis demonstration area as part of a larger community event where children and adults can come and try the game in a fun environment. A Learn activity might be a series of lessons interspersed with opportunities to play the game. Moving participants from one level of programming to the next along the continuum is important to ensuring that participants stay involved."
http://www.lovemeansnothing.ca/all-a...is-communities

Currently the CFC only targets those at the end of the continuum in the Compete category and perhaps less so the Play category. We need to put more effort into the Try and Learn end of the spectrum in order to get more players in the Play or Compete groups.

From the same link:
BUILDING TENNIS COMMUNITIES: MODEL DESCRIPTION

The model being used to guide the implementation of this Strategy is grounded in three key components: Community Champions, Community Partners and the Tennis Pathway.

A 'Community Champion' is a person or group who are passionate about tennis and well connected to other community leaders (e.g. youth group leaders, town/city counselors, health professionals, police, local businesspeople etc.) in his/her city or town. Community Champions might be retired persons, teachers, entrepreneurs or tennis coaches or volunteers...anyone with the time, interest and a general understanding of community needs. It is essential that the Champion live in the community.

The role of this individual is to ensure that strong partnerships with community leaders are established such that those community leaders clearly understand the role that tennis can play in contributing to the reduction or elimination of some community problems (e.g. overweight kids, delinquency, etc.) and to increasing community spirit (via community-based events, etc.).

'Community Partners' are community leaders that have been identified by the Community Champion as people who are important to maintaining the health of tennis in the community. Community Champions are encouraged to establish partnerships with education, tennis and parks and recreation leaders as a starting point and are encouraged to consider partnerships with others in the community such as: local businesses, media, politicians, doctors, police, etc. It is suggested that the Community Champion, with the assistance of his/her Provincial Association contact, host a 'community tennis rally' where community leaders are brought together to discuss the benefits that tennis brings to the community and to agree on an action plan that meets community needs.

[Vlad Drkulec]

Re: The vision thing

I still feel that the CFC's prime directive in future should be furthering the spread of organized, CFC rated chess (i.e. for the CFC to gain as many CFC members as possible). This reflects the reality as it has been for ages, to a large extent.

You can't gain as many CFC members as possible if you don't reach more people who are potential members. Based on my experience emailing people for the membership drive my current feeling is that we have to do a better job of retaining members because once they leave they are harder to bring back as compared to the effort in obtaining a new member. This is somewhat contrary to what most of the marketing experts suggest when talking about the situation in most businesses.

Otherwise, what is there for the CFC to strive for, if millions of Canadians already play a casual game of chess at home or elsewhere on at least an occasional basis (i.e. they are involved in unorganized chess), as I seem to recall a 1979 Gallup poll paid for by the CFC established.

The CFC can strive to convert some of them into CFC members. To do that you need to gain visibility with them. They have to know that you exist. Then you have to convince that joining the CFC and playing in OTB tournaments is a desirable option for them.

This prime directive could be stated as the CFC's primary objective, but that doesn't mean that the CFC neglects, say, assisting in the growth of grassroots (organized, but not CFC rated) chess, such as chess in the schools, as much as it might have in the past. In any long term plan, there can be resources devoted to such, as affordable, just as resources have been devoted judiciously to elite Canadian chess.

An important sub-goal of this prime directive could be to (proactively) recruit or retain enough organizers to help reach any targets for membership levels (whether adult or junior).

The CFC has managed only a few crumbs directed towards elite Canadian chess. This is understandable as you don't expect the starving to offer a banquet to anyone. We need to change the status quo. Ten thousand members with many of them being juniors would suggest an annual budget of about ten times what we enjoy now. At that point and at many points along the way we can start to do things to support our elite players (like paying for the Olympiad teams or lining up sponsors ahead of time so the players don't have to take out a mortgage on their house to pay for the out of pocket expenses of representing Canada).

Tennis Canada has a well developed program of community champions and resources for coaches to promote the game in local communities across the country. They give organizers a step by step approach for setting up youth training programs.

To build a tennis community you need some rather expensive facilities. To build a chess community you only need a room or a few rooms on a regular basis. They have a much more daunting task in front of them than we do when we wish to expand into an area that doesn't have much organized chess.

[Kevin Pacey]

Re: The vision thing

I still feel that the CFC's prime directive in future should be furthering the spread of organized, CFC rated chess (i.e. for the CFC to gain as many CFC members as possible). This reflects the reality as it has been for ages, to a large extent.

Otherwise, what is there for the CFC to strive for, if millions of Canadians already play a casual game of chess at home or elsewhere on at least an occasional basis (i.e. they are involved in unorganized chess), as I seem to recall a 1979 Gallup poll paid for by the CFC established.

This prime directive could be stated as the CFC's primary objective, but that doesn't mean that the CFC neglects, say, assisting in the growth of grassroots (organized, but not CFC rated) chess, such as chess in the schools, as much as it might have in the past. In any long term plan, there can be resources devoted to such, as affordable, just as resources have been devoted judiciously to elite Canadian chess.

An important sub-goal of this prime directive could be to (proactively) recruit or retain enough organizers to help reach any targets for membership levels (whether adult or junior).

[Kevin Pacey]

Re: The vision thing

The CFC's objectives (or mission statement, if one prefers) as given in the CFC Handbook were fairly standard for a chess federation such as the USCF back then, or for the ACBL (American Contract Bridge League) for that matter (I think). I was told this by one past CFC president, who doubted updating or quibbling over such things would result in any real progress for Canadian chess.

I had been speaking with him at one time, and suggested that we confine certain of our stated aims to furthering the spread of just organized, CFC rated chess (i.e. to gain as many CFC members as possible), and that was his reaction, fwiw.