[Ansteorra] Participation vs. Recruitment

[HerrDetlef]

Time for Detlef to chime in...

I didn't go to my first calendar event until I had been in the SCA about
two months. By that time, I had been to fighter practices, scribes' guild
meetings, a newcomer's revel...my first event was in April, and my second
event was in July...both in the local group where I was living. My third
event also took place in Raven's Fort--a Crown Tourney in November. My
first event outside of Raven's Fort was Hector and Rowan's Coronation in
the Stargate in January 1988. SEVERAL fighter practices, populace meetings,
dance guilds, and scribe guilds had taken place in the meantime. Only in
1990 did I begin making a point to attend one calendar event a month, and
that actually wore me out (I was still in college). After I graduated and
moved to Austin, I was looking forward to getting involved with the Barony
of Bryn Gwlad, but the demanding schedule of graduate studies put a swift
stop to that, and I wasn't even able to attend local events. For several
years after that, I only made a point to attend Defender of the Fort in
Raven's Fort every year, and even moving to Houston didn't result in my
being able to play more than that. I simply added the occasional Stargate
Yule revel to Defender in my own calendar, but more grad school made my
ability to play during the week pretty negligible. Only lately have I been
able to attend calendar events regularly, but my weekday schedule wreaks
havoc on my ability to attend local events. This schedule has also affected
my ability to hold local offices, since holding a local office requires
attendance at local events in order to make that office available to the
populace.

In the beginning, my ability to play SCA would have been seriously limited
had there been no local weekday events, and I've come around to the other
extreme and only been able to play inasmuch as I can get to weekend events.
I'm actually grateful that the Society offers me that flexibility of
involvement. Unfortunately, the numbers of who attends weekday events
doesn't get near as much press as the numbers of who attends weekend
events, so the decline in weekend attendees creates the illusion of a
decline in SCA involvement in total.

The point? Oh, good grief, I don't know if there is a point. Maybe that we
should play up attendance at weekday events as much as we play up
attendance at weekend events? I'm not sure. If anybody here can use my
experience to illustrate a point, you're more than welcome. I just wanted
you guys to see that opportunities for participation in the SCA are not
one-size-fits-all.

Detlef

On Tue, Jan 24, 2012 at 7:20 AM, Casey Weed <seoseaweed at gmail.com> wrote:

> Hosey, your position takes for granted that we share the same values but
> you don't justify why that should be other than "because I think so".  As a
> matter of fact, you unwittingly have proved a contrary case: your position
> is not the popular one.  For every 1 Kingdom level player there are 5 local
> players... who are members and who are as interested in some aspect of the
> club as you are... they just express it differently and disagree with your
> value system.  Also, your position on local play is ignorant of the data we
> have: local play *does* generate kingdom play- I consulted on the analysis
> and I encourage everyone to read the report.  Not every local player grows
> into a kingdom player... but many do.  Farming involves planting and
> watering and waiting.
>
> I also think your argument wonts for some very specific answers:
>
> How do we measure the health of the SCA?
>
> I would submit that any metric that can be linked with extending the life
> of the club and insuring it's future that is in line with it's mission and
> vision statements is a viable way to measure the SCA's health.   Things
> like:
>
> Membership- raw paid numbers
> Participation- in *any* organized activity that falls within the scope of
> the club's stated purpose
> Scholastic Advancement of Knowledge
> Public Awareness of what we do
> Fun had by participants/members
>
> Note: Number of events is NOT on this list nor is hosting big events.  Why?
>  Because those are byproducts of the more core metrics.  If events are fun
> and hold the interest of more members they will naturally participate in
> that particular type of activity.  But, if members don't hold your
> particular values (that fighting at events is the end all/be all... that
> War X is the reason we are in this club... [insert another "me and my
> personal brand of fun" answer]) then perhaps some rethinking is in order.
>  We can encourage those things, but tide of public opinion is clearly out
> on this issue: more people are into "their thing" in this club than are
> interested in "the Big Event".  So whose value system is more important,
> Hosey?  Who should be steering this ship- the one or the five?
>
> I'm not advocating lower participation at events; I'd love to see larger
> events.  (although I do subscribe to the tenet that quality is far more
> important than quantity) However, the times have changed and the sooner
> people like you and I acknowledge that we are the *minority*, the sooner we
> can start using the real data to our advantage.  I want to see more
> authentic tournaments in the SCA; it's easier to recruit local players; I
> find ways to make the latter fact facilitate the former.  For the Kingdom
> Player disdain for local play/local players is shortsighted at best;
> foolish and selfish, at worst.
>
> There are also consequences for holding on to an antiquated/unpopular value
> system... but that's food for another thread.
>
> Ritter Dieterich
>
>
>
>
>
> On Tue, Jan 24, 2012 at 4:41 AM, Cionaodh O'Hosey <
> CionaodhOHosey at verizon.net> wrote:
>
> >
> > So expecting a person to show up and play on game day is what prevents us
> > from getting people to play, because going to events is just too
> difficult.
> > I agree that going to events is difficult which is why I say the local
> > activities should be focused more on getting people to events. Part of
> > getting them to events is helping them to get there. I am not trying to
> put
> > no value on the work done on a local level, i am just saying the work
> done
> > on a local level should be focused on getting people to events. A well
> > attended fighter practice that sends no one to tourney is just a local
> > fight club claiming ties to the SCA. The measure of a successful fighter
> > practice should be not how many fighters attend it but rather how many of
> > it's fighters go to tourney or war. The measure of a successful group
> > should not be the number of people that group has at populace each month
> > but rather the number of people that group has at events that month. It
> > doesn't matter to the Kingdom when five hundred of my closest friends get
> > together in garb in my back yard, it only matters to the rest of the
> > Kingdom when they show up at an event or host an event for the rest of
> the
> > Kingdom.
> >
> > What I am trying to point out is that there is a difference between
> > "increasing our number of local players" and "increasing the number of
> > people playing locally". Increasing the number of people playing locally
> > does not lead to more people going to events if your activities are not
> > focused towards getting them to events. In fact just the opposite, if
> they
> > can play locally a lot of people will chose to stay home and play locally
> > rather than go to the expense and trouble of traveling to an event.
> Fighter
> > practice is a great example, we have i am told hundreds of authorized
> > fighters in this Kingdom, but most at most Tourneys we are lucky to have
> > thirty show up, and less than a hundred bother to show up and fight in
> one
> > tourney in a year. So all of that activity at the local level is
> producing
> > very little in the way of event attendance. At the last event held by our
> > group had all of the locals with paid memberships in our group showed up
> > there would have been no room for any one else from the Kingdom, so what
> > happened? We had plenty of room. So more people "playing locally" does
> not
> > mean more people going to events, even local events. In fact fewer local
> > activities could mean more event attendance, we all have only so much
> time
> > we can spend on SCA activities, if we spent less of our SCA time on local
> > activities it would leaves us more of our SCA time for going to events,
> but
> > if you are going to four different guild meetings a week by Saturday all
> > you want to do is get away from the SCA.
> >
> > In short, and not meaning to be cruel, our time and resources should be
> > invested in developing players who can and will go to events. That will
> be
> > more productive in the long run than trying to make the SCA available
> > locally for those who can not or will not go to events. For instance I
> have
> > only a limited amount of time to train fighters for war, should i spend
> it
> > working with people who can and will go to Gulf War or should i spend it
> > with people who can not or will not go to Gulf War?  The answer is
> obvious,
> > if a little cold hearted.
> >
> > Cionaodh O'Hosey
> >
> >
> >
> > On Jan 24, 2012, at 12:21 AM, Jeffrey Clark wrote:
> >
> >  This forms the crux of my original point. The focus on THE ONE EVENT is
> >> counter to our ability to get new people into the SCA. With modern
> >> schedules the way they are, in these economic times -- and especially
> >> speaking of younger people (under 35?) -- you MUST understand that even
> >> four events a year can be difficult.
> >>
> >> Lord O'Hosey, I'm a junior in college -- I sit in class in Fridays until
> >> four in the afternoons, I also work for a church -- which means that I
> have
> >> to be at work awake and alert (not tired, drunk, or hung over) at 7am
> every
> >> Sunday morning. I will do well to make three events this year, I
> probably
> >> won't realistically make more than two -- I have neither the time nor
> the
> >> money to travel that much; nor do most of my friends. Should I just not
> >> participate at all in the SCA since I'm not willing to lead others by
> >> attending more events? Should I stop trying to get some of my friends to
> >> join since I can't (sorry, won't) go to more events? Shod my friends not
> >> bother joining because they can't make that many events either?
> >>
> >> I agree with Lord Casey's response that increasing our number of local
> >> players will cause more people to attend events, and I restate my
> assertion
> >> that we need more activities on the baronial, canton, and shire level.
> We
> >> need to be more social in our own baronies and get to know each other
> >> locally beyond the guys you see at fighter practice and the weaving
> guild.
> >> We need to get together in garb (or garb optional) and just hold
> >> mini-revels, no classes or fighting. That will give us a good place to
> >> bring newcomers that isn't overwhelming and allows them to talk to
> people
> >> and get a sense of what's going on. It also gives the more veteran
> members
> >> a chance to wheel and deal and for intrigue to happen across the
> >> established groups and guilds. It allows networking and helps
> like-minded
> >> people find each other where they otherwise wouldn't.
> >>
> >> Stronger local groups would make for a stronger kingdom by providing
> >> members with more opportunities to get involved and re reasons and
> support
> >> to make it to the big events; as well as motivation and reason to keep
> >> playing in the downtime between the events they can go to -- whether
> those
> >> events are weeks, months, or years apart.
> >>
> >> -- Alessandro Zorzi
> >>
> >> On Jan 23, 2012, at 16:36, Cionaodh O'Hosey <CionaodhOHosey at verizon.net
> >
> >> wrote:
> >>
> >>  There is a lot of discussion about recruitment on this list, i hope
> this
> >>> is because we want more people to participate in our events. We can
> also
> >>> increase the participation at our events if we all participate more
> often
> >>> ourselves. For example lets say we have 48 events a year, and our goal
> is
> >>> 200 active players people at each event then the following things are
> true:
> >>> If we all go to every event then we only need 200 people total to meet
> our
> >>> goal. If we all go to two events a month then we need 400 active
> players.
> >>> If we all go to an event just once a month then the we need 800 active
> >>> players. If we all go to just three events every four months, that's
> just
> >>> nine events a year, then we need 1066 people, that is also the minimum
> >>> number of events a person needs to attend to save enough on non-member
> >>> event fees to break even on a sustaining membership. If we all only
> show up
> >>> once every two months, six times a year, we need 1600 active players.
> If we
> >>> all go to an event once every
> >>>
> >>  quarter, four times a year, then we need 2400 active players. If we all
> >> go to an event twice a year then we need 4800 active players. Lastly if
> we
> >> all go to an event once a year then we need 9600 active players.
> >>
> >>>
> >>> It becomes immediately apparent that the fewer events we all go to the
> >>> more people we need to successfully recruit to meet our goal. But lets
> also
> >>> be honest, the fewer events you go to the harder time you are going to
> have
> >>> getting new people to go to more events. If it is not worth your time
> to go
> >>> to an event why would a new person, who looks up to you as an
> experienced
> >>> player, want to go to that event? It is a simple matter of leadership,
> you
> >>> cannot recruit people to do what you don't do.
> >>>
> >>> Cionaodh O'Hosey
> >>> ______________________________**_________________
> >>> Ansteorra mailing list
> >>> Ansteorra at lists.ansteorra.org
> >>> In order to make changes and manage your account please go to:
> >>> http://lists.ansteorra.org/**listinfo.cgi/ansteorra-**ansteorra.org<
> http://lists.ansteorra.org/listinfo.cgi/ansteorra-ansteorra.org>
> >>>
> >> ______________________________**_________________
> >> Ansteorra mailing list
> >> Ansteorra at lists.ansteorra.org
> >> In order to make changes and manage your account please go to:
> >> http://lists.ansteorra.org/**listinfo.cgi/ansteorra-**ansteorra.org<
> http://lists.ansteorra.org/listinfo.cgi/ansteorra-ansteorra.org>
> >>
> >
> > ______________________________**_________________
> > Ansteorra mailing list
> > Ansteorra at lists.ansteorra.org
> > In order to make changes and manage your account please go to:
> > http://lists.ansteorra.org/**listinfo.cgi/ansteorra-**ansteorra.org<
> http://lists.ansteorra.org/listinfo.cgi/ansteorra-ansteorra.org>
> >
> _______________________________________________
> Ansteorra mailing list
> Ansteorra at lists.ansteorra.org
> In order to make changes and manage your account please go to:
> http://lists.ansteorra.org/listinfo.cgi/ansteorra-ansteorra.org
>



-- 
Hwæt! We Gardena         in geardagum,
þeodcyninga,         þrym gefrunon,
hu ða æþelingas         ellen fremedon.
Oft Scyld Scefing         sceaþena þreatum,
monegum mægþum,         meodosetla ofteah,
egsode eorlas.         Syððan ærest wearð
feasceaft funden,         he þæs frofre gebad,
weox under wolcnum,         weorðmyndum þah,
oðþæt him æghwylc         þara ymbsittendra
ofer hronrade         hyran scolde,
gomban gyldan.         þæt wæs god cyning!