[Ansteorra] pay and play

[Lady Littlefox]

I tend to agree with this view as well... it seems pointless to me... Well
to charge non members $3 extra just for not being members.... IE for no
other reason than they're there, the charge isn't covering anything other
than annoyance tax for the SCA.

Now if it was an extra 5 to 7 and it covered your insurance on site and such
forth and basically gave you a 'temporary' sort of membership like your
usage charge I could perfectly understand.

I guess what I'm saying is that while the $3 charge is encouraging people to
get a membership it's not really doing anything but saying 'we're not going
to cover you /and/ we're still going to charge you more for coming, but
you're still going to pay because we're such a great group.'  Make it a bit
more, give the SCA a bit more money and expand the insurance.

Oh well I'll stop babbling now ;)

Littlefox

-----Original Message-----
From: ansteorra-admin at ansteorra.org
[mailto:ansteorra-admin at ansteorra.org]On Behalf Of Cleek, James M.
Sent: Thursday, July 25, 2002 10:50 AM
To: 'ansteorra at ansteorra.org'
Subject: RE: [Ansteorra] pay and play


When I was heavily involved in an organized waterski team. We had similar
issues in that to recruite people we wanted to get them on the water but you
could not put them on an approved and sanctioned site with out USA WS
membership and the insurance it provided. What they did have though, and
this worked quite well, is daily insurance. You would pay your $5.00 and be
allowed to ski with the team at a sanctioned practice or in a competition
for the event. The best part is that the payments would apply to your
membership so if you came to 7 practices or contests your $35.00 membership
would be paid and you would soon get a membership card and the quarterly
magazine in the mail.
This worked out very well for those who had a tighter budget yet still
wanted to participate. Yes their initial cost per event was higher but if
they enjoyed it and continued to play soon they would be members with all
the rights associated with membership.
Yes it was a bit of a pain to collect the money and send it in and track the
number of payments etc. but our local membership grew because of it and the
national membership grew. Everybody wins.
Iames


-----Original Message-----
From: Nancy Wederstrandt [mailto:nweders at mail.utexas.edu]
Sent: Thursday, July 25, 2002 10:00 AM
To: ansteorra at ansteorra.org
Subject: [Ansteorra] pay and play


Well, I have to say that the pay and play 3.00 surcharge is not surprising
since it is the easy way out.  The Board doesn't have to stretch it's legs
and go look for an alternative way of getting money.  It's far easier to
tax it's participants than it is to go find grants and awards for groups.

Having taken several classes in grant writing for my mundane job as well as
having a number of friends who work at various schools and museums, I am
astonished at the amount of grants and loans that the SCA could solicit and
perhaps achieve.  But the Board would rather do the "easy" thing and
penalize people who for one reason or another are not members but are often
times some of our hardest workers.

At a time when a weekend event costs 10 to sometimes 15. dollars and having
an additional 3.00 tacked on it might make new people more hesitate about
joining or seeing if they would like the group.  Perhaps the Board is
looking to reduce membership and make a more elitist SCA for people who can
afford it.


Clare who is quite jaded at the SCA at the moment.

_______________________________________________
Ansteorra mailing list
Ansteorra at ansteorra.org
http://www.ansteorra.org/mailman/listinfo/ansteorra
_______________________________________________
Ansteorra mailing list
Ansteorra at ansteorra.org
http://www.ansteorra.org/mailman/listinfo/ansteorra