| Home |
| Search |
| Today's Posts |
|
|
|
#2
May 8th 05, 10:45 PM
|
|||
|
|||
wrote:
From: on Tues,May 3 2005 12:04 pm ARRL budgetarily exists on SALES OF PUBLICATIONS, not the annual dues. Figuring $30 x 170 thousand members (allowing for all the "Life" memberships done once) yields only a %5.1 million per year. Figuring $30 would be wrong. The cost of membership is $39 per year for those to age 64. Those 65 and older pay $36. For a two-year membership, those under 65 pay $38 per year and those 65 and older pay $35. For a three-year membership, those under 65 pay $37 and those 65 and older pay $34.34 No need to "allow" for those life memberships as that money was invested. The League got my money up front. In a couple of years, I'll have been a Life Member for thirty years. That's about the cost to produce (and stay afloat) QST, the "membership magazine," to pay the printers, the fullfillment enablers, QST staff, all the magazine ancilliary costs - provided - they ALSO have revenue from advertising sales. Without that advertising sales income, QST will dry up and become just a newsletter printed on newsprint. No kidding? I have little doubt that the ARRL will continue to sell advertising so that QST won't take the form of a newsletter and be printed on newsprint. The IRS forms (available on another website) show that the ARRL monetary income for 2002 was about $12.5 million. Even if all members paid $40/year dues, the total dues income would be only $6.8 million. The rest of that income came from PUBLICATIONS and RESALE of other goods...all pushed on the ARRL website. Some of that income comes from publications sales. Some of it comes from investments. The League should go out into the trenches in volume and, for openers, start asking all the Techs who are not ARRL members why they aren't members and what the League needs to do to pry the forty bucks a year out of them. Then properly analyze the results of the surveys and make the appropriate changes in their product line. Shuffling SM's duties around and talking up ham radio to the town burghers, etc., etc. as "potential solutions" would drive a real marketeer to tears of laughter. Quite so. :-) But that CANNOT be explained to the entrenched, we-know-what-is-best-for-everybody, old- school thinking of the "leaders" at the ARRL. Sorry, old boy, I'll have to see some proof of your statement. They seem to want to run a little clubhouse of the BoD and Hq staff, keeping things nice and cozy for themselves. I'd like to see proof of that one too. Nobody from the Board actually spends a lot of time at League HQ. The Board meets in Newington periodically. The psychological term is "conditioned thinking" by the League. The leadership seems stuck in the way things were done a half century ago...plus the rah-rah self-promotion of the "ideals" of their elders of that long-ago period. Their conditioning is almost absolute. I'm sure you have similar views on the VFW, American Legion and similar membership organizations. What proof have you of your claims? They just don't seem to understand that their cozy existance-in-the-clubhouse is NOT what the newcomers want to preserve. The Board of Directors doesn't live and work in Newington, Len. The Directors come from all over the country. Do the directors of the VFW live in a clubhouse? Newcomers, already exposed to the wonders of worldwide webbing (no ionospheric propagation problems), aren't interested in being the epitome of morsemen as they were in the 1930s. The World Wide Web is not amateur radio and you have little way to know what amateur radio newcomers want or don't want. Yes, the ARRL plays to "high-technology" on things such as satellite communications and "talking with astronauts on the International Space Station" (all three of them sometimes) and has a lot of books (shipping cost extra if mail-ordered, no shipping cost if purchased at ham stores) on a few things which are state-of-the-art, sort-of. Lots of style, plenty of gloss, little substance in general. Please substantiate your claim of "little substance". The vast majority of ARRL concentration in publications is on the HF ham bands...where no-code test Technicians are still forbidden - by law - to operate. VHF and above is still treated "different" something to be shunned by "real" hams...now as it was a half century ago. Please demonstrate that the ARRL treats VHF operation as something to be shunned by anyone. Too many oldsters are still conditioned to that time and to "working DX with CW on HF," collecting "wallpaper" (QSL cards) to show their "prowess" as "radio operators." OK, that was FB in the 1950s when all the League "leaders" were young. Times have changed, the "leadership" hasn't. The leadership of the ARRL has changed quite a number of times in the time I've been licensed. The working of DX is still enjoyable. Collecting QSL cards is still enjoyable. "Marketing" research by the League? Don't bet on it. The "leadership" is still inclined to have their "burghers" their way...emphasizing, of course, "CW" skills as the epitome of all "real" radio amateurs. It worked for them when they were young, and, by T.O.M., it MUST apply to newcomers of today! :-) Again, I'd like you to flesh out your empty claims with some substantiation. Dave K8MN |
| Reply |
| Thread Tools | Search this Thread |
| Display Modes | |
|
|
Similar Threads
|
||||
| Thread | Forum | |||
| Amateur Radio Newslin(tm) Report 1385 – February 27, 2004 | Broadcasting | |||
| Amateur Radio Newsline™ Report 1362– September 19 2003 | General | |||
| Amateur Radio Newsline™ Report 1362– September 19 2003 | General | |||
| Amateur Radio Newsline™ Report 1362– September 19 2003 | Dx | |||
| Amateur Radio Newsline™ Report 1362– September 19 2003 | Dx | |||
Hybrid Mode
