[Ansteorra] Participation vs. Recruitment

HerrDetlef herrdetlef at gmail.com
Tue Jan 24 11:27:00 PST 2012


Not so much analysis as raw data. Draw whatever conclusions you can.

Participation is indeed based on memberships. The problem is that only
officers and weekend SCA'ers (who go to calendar events outside of their
local groups) benefit from subscribing memberships. Exactly how do we
encourage weekday SCA'ers who are not officers (who go almost exclusively
only to events within their local groups) to subscribe? We can't exactly
tack a non-member surcharge to weekday events, because the vast majority of
them do not involve a site fee.

When I first subscribed as a member of the SCA, the sustaining membership
included a subscription to *Tournaments Illuminated*. That quarterly was
worth the price of membership itself. Without that subscription, a
sustaining membership is little more than a qualification to hold office
and a way to dodge a non-member surcharge. The information presented in a
kingdom newsletter like *Black Star* benefits weekend SCA'ers and officers
far more than it does weekday SCA'ers. There is not much incentive for a
weekday SCA'er to become a subscribing member.

The price of a sustaining membership in the SCA--including the recent
increases--is still far lower than the price of membership in most
professional and academic organizations, but I doubt that many younger
newcomers to the SCA can appreciate that fact. If we are able to encourage
weekday SCA'ers to become subscribing members, local groups would be able
to maintain their required membership numbers, and the generated revenue
would allow increases in the price of membership to be lower than they have
been in the recent past.

Again--how do we do that? Do we make subscribing memberships more
beneficial to weekday SCA'ers, or do we find some means other than
membership numbers alone to measure participation?

I'm only asking questions. I really don't have any answers. I wish I did.

Detlef

On Tue, Jan 24, 2012 at 10:11 AM, Sir Lyonel <sirlyonel at hotmail.com> wrote:

> Salut cozyns,
>
> Based on my experiences as a former landed baron, Principality, and
> Kingdom officer (none in Ansteorra), Herr Detlef's analysis--while
> fascinating--I somewhat erroneous. Participation in the SCA is based on
> memberships. My barony, which was spread across Idaho Falls, Pocatello,
> Rexburg, and Blackfoot, used to see sixty total attendees at the three
> weekly fighter practices, a hundred people at casual revels and small,
> unadvertised (accept to the barony) local events, and massive turnouts
> (from three hundred to over a thousand) at larger events. Yet our
> membership dipped as low as thirty-five at one point in my baronial tenure.
> Despite our holding the largest annual event in Artemisia ( Uprising), my
> predecessor nearly lost baronial status due to slipping membership numbers.
>
> What I've seen over the years is that we have three concurrent SCAs: the
> members (some of whom are inactive for years at a time), the active local
> players (some of whom rarely miss fighter practice and unofficial revels
> but hardly ever show at an event or buy a membership), and the active
> players (some of whom rarely make fighter practice and may let their
> memberships lapse). All three groups, to some degree, feed the others. The
> most active, effective (in their ability to grow, learn, and make money)
> groups manage to synchronize these three groups more than most.
>
> My barony was one of those effective groups, which we managed by
> maintaining a simple set of priorities that some find distasteful:
>
> (1) The group recruits constantly. That means every newcomer is treated
> like royalty, and every immigrant from another group is treated like a
> valuable resource.
>
> (2) The stewards must be money conscious. I insisted that each event be
> planned to make money--not necessarily a lot--just more than break-even.
> (Caveat: that's for planning. If the plan occasionally fails--which it
> will--the revenue from other events will cover the losses).
>
> (3) Events have to be worth attending (yes, fun is a priority). This means
> struggling to balance originality against tradition and often means
> competition with other groups, but this priority bolsters priorities (1)
> and (2).
>
> (4) Education and authenticity aren't just for Medievalist geeks. So, yes,
> you should make an effort in this direction. Always.
>
> En Lyonel
>
> Sent from my iPhone
>
> On Jan 24, 2012, at 9:00 AM, HerrDetlef <herrdetlef at gmail.com> wrote:
>
> > 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!
> > _______________________________________________
> > 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
> >
> _______________________________________________
> 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!



More information about the Ansteorra mailing list