Item # 16 - CFC Membership Fee / Tournament Playing Fee ( = tournament membership )

[Bob Armstrong]

Item # 16 - CFC Membership Fee / Tournament Playing Fee ( = tournament membership )

Introductory Post by Aris Marghetis

1. CFC Annual Membership Fee Structure - It is proposed that the CFC membership annual fee structure be rationalized to a single amount, with no discounts of any kind. It is expected that an arithmetic analysis of will confirm a new annual CFC membership amount of less than the current $36, which most regular members will appreciate. A potential downside is that parents of juniors will likely pay more in the future than they currently do, but it should be argued that all currently available discounts are being subsidized by regular adult members, are unrealistically and unfairly low, and benefit from discrimination (i.e. age discrimination).

2. Tournament Playing Fee ( = tournament membership ) - It is suggested that the recently elevated tournament membership fee (from $10 to $20) is negatively influencing potential growth in CFC membership. This negative influence is particularly inhibiting when trying to attract FQE members from Quebec to CFC events in Ontario. The FQE tournament membership fee is still only $10. Therefore, it is proposed that either the CFC tournament membership fee be returned to the prior $10 level, or that it be eliminated completely. Whereas the latter might seem to be a harsh alternative, the $20 tournament membership fee seems to be generating a lot of ill will, as it is understandably being thought of more as gouging vs. policy. If we eliminate tournament memberships, to avoid attempts to circumvent process, we should also eliminate first-time membership discounts.

[Bob Armstrong]

Tournament Playing Fee - I’ll be first in line to support the total abolition of the tournament playing fee. But I have to say I agree with the principle that there should be some financial incentive built in for first time CFC’ers, who may balk initially at the full cost of an annual membership, in addition to the tournament registration fee ( a deep 40% discount for first time CFC’ers was one of the planks of the Grassroots’ Campaign that got withdrawn a while ago in the face of serious governor and organizer opposition ).

What do we know?

1. Chess is one of the most inexpensive hobbies around – lots of other entertainment is much more expensive.
2. Chess players are the cheapest group in the human species, and object to paying anything to play chess.
3. Newbies are already upset at the registration fee for a tournament ( even if they shouldn’t be ), and the organizers tell us that they walk away and don’t play once they hear that the cost of an annual CFC membership ( or even the tournament playing fee of $ 20 ) is on top of the registration fee.

Are all 3 of the above statements true?

If so, the only chance I see to raise the chances of newbies playing, is to offer them a discount on the first annual membership ( even though I agree that maybe we should just keep pounding out that chess is cheap at the cost – but the organizers say we are losing potential tournament players doing this ).

I see the discount as somewhat giving in to the newbies view that chess is “ expensive “, while at the same time trying to hook them in for 1 year, in hopes of a second year renewal at the full price.

I don’t know if others will be happy to see this topic back on the table again, but Aris felt it should be revisited. Is there any more support now for a first time annual membership discount, substituting for the tournament playing fee, than there was at the Spring Quarterly On-line Meeting?

[Patrick McDonald]

First of all ... We really need to call the tournament fee a "Non-Member Tournament fee" rather than a "Tournament Membership fee" ... it is not a membership.

Second, I cannot remember one instance of someone walking away from registering for a tournament because of the membership fee or non member tournament fee. (and I run my fair share of tournaments).

Having a first time membership fee discount will be VERY problematic for tournament organizers.
If this is to be offered, I believe it will have to be on memberships purchased directly from the CFC. Even with downloaded membership lists available at the tournament site, it would add much more administrative overhead to an organizer at a crucial time of the tournament, where walk-in registrations are being accepted. This is the time of the tournament where it is most prone to potential mistakes being made with lists/sections/pairings etc.

Also, what is going to stop someone from just registering under a different name (for those that don't really care about their rating too much anyway - or want a fresh start on their rating)

[Gordon Ritchie]

I agree completely with Aris that we should rationalize our fee structure to one rate.
With respect to the $20, I wonder if we should simply provide that this amount is applied against the individual's purchase of a CFC membership.
That would provide a monetary incentive to join if a player enjoys the experience.

[Stuart Brammall]

It is my strong opinion that it is not the tournament fee but rather the membership fee which should be eliminated.

While taking registrations at Hart House events I have had a number of potential players walk out when the membership is explained to them, usually one or two per event.

As Bob argues, those paying Adult membership are currently subsidizing any discounted memberships, but I believe a more important issue is that those that play two events per year are subsidizing those who play ten.

Playing around ten events per year, I am paying $4.30 per event--- How can we justify charging a newbie who has never played an event $20 for one.

Instead I suggest we consider eliminating the membership fee, amalgamating the tournament fee and the rating fee, and setting it such that it meets the requirements of the budget.

I imagine ten dollars per tournament, per player would be sufficient.

[Fred McKim]

Wow. This has become a total free-for-all among Ontario Governors.

#1 - I am in favour of retaining a Junior Membership Fee and an Adult Membership Fee.

#2 - I am in favour of retaining the Tournament Membership.

I would suggest that those who feel likewise, speak up now, before a vocal miority take control :-)

[Michael von Keitz]

Stuart's proposal seems radical, but I like it. Maybe the dollar amount should be discussed further, though that's moot if I am the only one agreeing with him.

On a related note, I also like the thought of offering a pin, button, or badge to players in their first tournament of each calendar year. This would simply bear the CFC logo and some message along the lines of "CFC Member for 20xx."

[Mark S. Dutton, I.A.]

Wow. This has become a total free-for-all among Ontario Governors.

#1 - I am in favour of retaining a Junior Membership Fee and an Adult Membership Fee.

#2 - I am in favour of retaining the Tournament Membership.

I would suggest that those who feel likewise, speak up now, before a vocal minority take control :-)

I agree with you Fred!

We need to keep these fees in place. We need to keep the avenues open for people to enter events. The more participants the better.

We need to be inclusive not exclusive in our entry fee and membership (tournament fee) processes.

The new chess player needs a "Menu" to select from... not a membership policy that will dissuade participation.

[Christopher Field]

There are a lot of complications here.
1. Juniors:
I was the originator of the proposal for the current set-up, under which juniors in effect receive a free "tournament membership" for tournaments with no adult players. I think that this has been worthwhile in attracting a number of younger players. When they wish to enter regular tournaments, they must then buy a membership. Since the "participating" membership has been dropped, they now have only the choice of the "full" junior membership.
Many junior players must buy the membership (and tournament entry) from allowance / part-time earnings. Some will have parents who will pay; often in this case, the parent may have more than one child wishing to play. I think there is good reason to continue with some kind of junior and / or family discount.
If we go for a single fee, lower than the current adult fee (taking into account that the cost of the magazine is now a lot lower than the previous printed version), perhaps a discount for additional family members would be in order.

2. Tournament membership:
I don't think it a good move to abolish this completely. What then is the incentive for anyone to buy a membership? Reducing it to $10, in line with FQE, seems appropriate.
Would it be possible to include one-time access to the next on-line magazine? This would give the player a chance to see one of the benefits of membership. The player might then decide to purchase a full membership. If he does, why not give the first year at $10 off ? In effect, this would make the tournament membership option become a "trial membership".

[Bob Gillanders]

Here's an idea I floated last year, and it was ignored!

Replace the tournament membership fee with a short term membership, say 3 or 6 months. It would be say $10/$15/$20 and you get the newsletter. The shorter term may prompt the newbie to squeeze in a second tournament before expiry. Not to mention a few newsletters will hook him/her for sure.

Another thought for organizers faced with the walkaways, wave the CFC short term membership dues. To illustrate:

Tournament entry fee = $60
CFC 3 month membership = $15

The newbie shows up at the door, $60 in hand. He has never heard of the CFC, and wonders why he has to pay $15 more than everyone else. He gets annoyed, feels cheated, and is ready to walk. You can avoid this scenario. Here is how:

You charge him just the $60, and you pay the $15 to CFC yourself. Newbie is delighted because he is getting something for free. The tradeoff is that the newbie is not eligible for cash prizes. He wasn't expecting to win anything anyway. As an unrated player, was not eligible for class prizes anyway and chances of winning open section, rare indeed. You are effectively getting $45 towards costs.

Think about it! Looks like a win-win!