BCF MEMBERSHIP

Back to Open Forum Back to SCCU home page

24.4.00
OPEN FORUM:
ABOUT BCF MEMBERSHIP
This correspondence on BCF Membership seems to merit a page to itself. It is in reverse chronological order.

From Bryan Fewell
24.4.00
Hi Richard,
I have been following with interest the Open Forum discussion on chess membership of a national organisation. Permit me to put in my twopenny worth as the person who wrote the original marketing plan and organised the launch of the present Direct Membership Scheme in August 1990 after approval by the BCF Council.
     (1) It is good to see discussion on expanding the membership scheme which, after 10 years, certainly should be reviewed and updated, not least to take into account modern technology. However, one very important principle to bear in mind is that any changes to the membership scheme do not start on the basis of a clean sheet and consideration should be given to the impact of changes on the existing 1000 or so members. My understanding is proposals will be brought before the Annual BCF Council Meeting in September.
     (2) One way to pursue the updating process would be to carry out some limited market research by, for example, a postal questionnaire to find out what members want. This could obviously be extended to, say, participants at a selection of congresses. Market research is hard work for the organiser but well worth while. When we carried out some postal research amongst BCF members about 8 years ago there was an incredible 50% + response which showed the extent of interest. Amongst other things, analysis of the responses indicated about half the members at that time joined the scheme primarily because they wanted to support the work of the BCF whereas the other half highlighted the benefits offered as the main factor. It may be reasonable to conclude that, as the number of members increases, so the benefits become more important in persuading chess players to join the scheme.
     (3) Those of you who read this with some background in marketing will know that a new style membership scheme must be planned in detail, not as currently appears to be the case in some quarters by a "back of the envelope" process. To mention but several of the planning requirements, these should include consideration of membership categories, membership targets in each of the first 3 years, subscriptions and discounts, details of benefits to be offered, roles of Unions and Counties, promotion plans and costs, how the scheme will be administered and representation for members on the BCF governing body. Such a marketing plan is essential not only because it makes those in charge of the operation think through the issues but also because actual results can be compared with what was planned, success built on and reasons for any failure identified and lessons learned.
     (4) One element when the existing scheme was introduced was to encourage Unions and Counties to sell membership on a commission basis. This was discontinued when it became clear that the chess infrastructure had a low degree of interest in promoting the scheme.
     (5) A key benefit at the launch of the scheme was the introduction of a then new style monthly newsletter ChessMoves. As Chris Majer has said, this was intended as a vehicle to inform members and others who read the newsletter about the BCF, its policies and activities. The new style bi-monthly ChessMoves to be introduced in July under the editorship of the BCM will obviously have increased editorial resources but it remains to be seen the extent to which it will reflect BCF policies and news as compared with more general chess news. It is to be regretted that BCF members were not given adequate notice of the change to a bi-monthly newsletter and their views obtained. Having said that, one obviously wishes the relaunched ChessMoves every success.
     In summary, the relaunch of a membership scheme aimed at increasing the number of BCF members substantially is to be welcomed. It must be carefully planned, sales targets and costs identified, it must be effectively promoted - it won't sell itself, administration must be efficient. In my opinion it is a key job for the BCF's new Marketing Director.
Regards,
Bryan Fewell Bryan@maple2.demon.co.uk

From Chris Majer
16.4.00
Dear Paul
In respond to your last comments [8.4.00], keeping the same order:-
     (4) I think we had better agree to differ on this. My point about several grades per year, was that players can become ineligible for a league or county event if a new grade was applied in mid-season. Obviously, mid-season grades can be disregarded for the purposes of eligibility, but then what is the point?
     (1) The sales of BCF lists were down this year, hence my comment.
     (2) As a Direct Member I receive Chess Moves. Perhaps you are confused as to its objective. It is not intended to be a commercial chess magazine. It is intended to inform the BCF's Members as to what the BCF is actually doing and so should be compared to a Company Newsletter. In fact, changes are afoot on Chess Moves. It will be produced by BCM in future so you may see some improvement soon.
     (3) Again on this one I think we have to differ. I think it unlikely that clubs or congresses will want to do the admin of membership lists even for a reduction in the subscription.
     (5) Your reference to teletext leaves me baffled, please could you clarify. My understanding is that chess might be a demonstration sport at the Olympics (probably the one after next). However, there are no plans for the Government to change the law to recognise chess as a sport before the next election. Without such recognition, Lottery funding is not available except for schools under an educational fund.
Best wishes
Chris Majer CEMAJER@aol.com

From Tim Lawson
12.4.00
Hi Richard,
In response to Howard Grist, I would like to thank him for clarifying one or two points regarding the BCF membership scheme.
     It was not my intention to rubbish the membership scheme. In fact, had our club not joined, I would not now be enjoying the advantages of a copy of ChessMoves or having access to the (excellent) yearbook. Bur my main point, regarding "value for money", is in my opinion a valid one. People will tend to look for VFM. Perhaps had the Corporate pack contained some separate literature about the BCF, its aims, history, vision for the future etc, people might be more interested in raising money for them.
     Chess is probably not the easiest sport to raise money for, but perhaps a more commercial approach is necessary? Chess is certainly the cheapest hobby I have ever had, and personally, I would be quite happy to pay an annual subscription to the BCF (as long as it was modest and didn't go up at double the rate of inflation each year) in order to have my games graded/be a member of a recognised organisation. Hopefully also we will see a lot more clubs signing up.
     I appreciate the difficulties the BCF have had regarding grading. In fact, I have been one of the minority at our club that has not complained too much about it. My reason for this is that a lot of people put effort into organising chess for no reward to themselves, and often, the people that are complaining are the first ones to refuse to volunteer to help in the first place!
Tim Lawson playerofgames@btinternet.com

From Howard Grist
11.4.00
Richard,
In response to Tim Lawson on Corporate Vice-Presidents of the BCF, I have a few points to make:
     Firstly, I thought the main aim behind membership schemes of this kind is to raise money for the BCF. I appreciate that a few people are going to take a "What's in it for me?" approach, but a "value for money" approach does not strike me as quite right.
     Secondly the problems of the grading print-outs are yet another symptom of grading problems which have plagued us this season. Regarding the content of the print-out itself, as it is only a list of games that have been graded for the player in the previous season, it should be hoped that there is no new information for the player in this.
     Finally to clear up a few factual matters. Corporate Vice-Presidents do not have to pay Game Fee on any games played in their internal competitions. The most recent information I have (October 1999) is that 15 clubs have taken up this offer. Any others wanting to join them can find more information at the bottom of page 60 of the BCF Yearbook.
Howard Howard.Grist@RebusGroup.Com

From Tim Lawson
9.4.00
Hi Richard,
I have just read with interest the letters from Dupré and Majer regarding the BCF and membership.
     Readers may remember that there is a scheme (costing £75 I believe) for Club membership of the BCF. In return for this outlay, clubs get goodies such as ChessMoves, a grading list and Individual Grading Printouts. Before we all sign up, I would like to say that I have been very disappointed with the "value for money" side of this offer (which Margate Chess Club took up). I was one of the "lucky 7" to get a grading printout. Much to my amusement, not only was the grade incorrect, but the information was (seemingly) about a year out of date! - There also appeared to be missing a large chunk of the games that I had played. The printout was on about half a side of A4 and would not (had the information on it actually been up to date and correct) have contained any information that I didn't have anyway. No stats or individual grading performances for different competitions.
     The rest of the package was okay I suppose, but the items could have been purchased individually, without the grading printouts, and would have been cheaper. We are still waiting to hear which competitions we can use to get our discount from grading club competition games.¹
     I think it would be a great idea for people to have membership to the BCF, but surely we would have to expect a marked improvement in the service provided? Let's not forget the "two grading lists a year" blunder! - As for having more than one grade a year, I think it would be useful (say once every six months!) but not essential.
     Here's wishing the BCF success for the future, whichever path it takes!
Tim Lawson playerofgames@btinternet.com
Secretary, Thanet Chess League
¹ rjh: I don't understand this, and when I tried to look the rules up I couldn't find them. They aren't on the BCF site, or in the DM advertisement in the Yearbook. Last I heard, the number of Clubs in membership was in single figures.

From Paul Dupré
8.4.00
Dear Chris,
I would like to answer your points in a different order if I may;
     (4) I don't agree at all. It works in the USA where everything is bigger. Members get a magazine monthly with their new grade attached. They may not have so much League Chess in America, but I've found some match Captains here don't care about grades anyway. They just put players in the order they think they should be.
     (1) Have the BCF commented on overall sales of grading lists being down. If so, this wouldn't affect me anyway because I have bought the list on disc before, and am prepared to do so again. I just find it more convenient, even though there was a delay.
     (2) You're probably right about £5, but Chess is cheap at the ground level. Take tennis for instance, to play you need a racket. What's that £80. Tennis shoes etc. need I go on. I would say Chess is very cheap. Going back to my reply to point 4. if players received more for their money they would feel better about it. Chess Moves monthly is not exactly the best magazine in the world. Get hold of an American magazine and see for yourself.
     (3) Commission is the basis for all sales. Say 10% on all new members to Tournament organisers and Leagues.
     (5) Chess IS a sport. Haven't you been reading Teletext.
Regards
Paul Dupré paul.dupre@breathemail.net

From Chris Majer
8.4.00
Dear Richard
I was very interested to read Paul's comments [next letter down] on alternative Membership schemes. The idea of a general membership scheme is being thought about by the BCF Management Board. I would like to make the following comments:
     (1) I am sure that providing the CD-ROM version of the grading list is a better service. Unfortunately it means that everyone copies it, rather than buying grading lists reducing the revenue of the BCF and Unions. That was certainly a view that I was expressing at the meeting.
     (2) Currently the average club player probably pays much less than £20 to the BCF (more like £5 I guess). In order to get him to shell out £20 some improvement in the service is needed. I don't think grading CD-ROMs are the answer.
     (3) Clubs and tournaments are unlikely to collect membership fees for the BCF - why should they? This means that the membership scheme will need to be run by the BCF Office which means an increase in the central administration and increased costs to raise the BCF revenue.
     (4) I remain unconvinced that adult players want more than one grading a year. It raises all sorts of contentious issues such as grading limited club/county competitions. In addition, at a local level there would be much more admin, which local graders probably wouldn't want.
     (5) The chance of lottery funding is nil until there is a change in the law to make chess a sport.
     (6) Having made all these negative points I will say that I think that membership is the right long term solution for the BCF. However, in order to get there the short term issues need to be resolved, such as how much typical club members will pay, what to do about the Direct Membership Scheme. If we attempt to move too quickly the BCF may lose one revenue method without sorting out a new one properly (remember the poll tax).
Chris Majer CEMAJER@aol.com

From Paul Dupré
5.4.00
Dear Richard,
Could you interpret your comment [see SCCU News: Executive 10.3.00 item 2] that "The BCF's decision to give everyone a CD had, perhaps, been a mistake". I was overjoyed to have all this additional information. What was the consensus regarding CD being offered to certain people only. [rjh: reply below]
     My suggestion to replace game fee would be BCF affiliation/membership of £20 from every player wishing to play chess. These membership fees could be collected directly by the BCF, at Tournaments or by the Chess Clubs themselves. I believe using high technology it should be possible to insist that every player provides a photograph for the initial set up. And then once every 5 years, possibly less for juniors. Then the BCF could produce a credit card size membership card with bar code (of grading ref.), scanned photo, nationality (maybe a flag), name, details of grades etc. By using this method, cards could be created and sent out quarterly once up and running. This annual fee would then cover 4 quarters of the grading system. With deductions of £5 for every quarter completed.
     All tournament organisers could update their databases over the internet before each tournament. And send results via the internet to the BCF. Players would have to carry their cards with them to prove identity. Especially at tournaments where the draws could be done using copy bar codes stuck onto pairing cards. This way all results could be entered round by round and ready to submit by the day after the event.
     Each league could provide their own web site capable of accepting results entered from both captains (password protected). So that league tables could be produced on a weekly basis. And games submitted for grading weekly. Of course we would had to get rid of adjudications and adjournments.
     I know the cost would be astronomical to set up, but, it's certainly possible and maybe lottery money could help. What do you think??
Regards
Paul Dupré paul.dupre@breathemail.net
     rjh: answers to questions in first paragraph. (a) What I meant was that the Executive thought the CDs were reducing the market for Union (and County) lists. (b) I don't think any views were expressed on who ought to get CDs if everyone doesn't, but graders would be an obvious answer. Possibly also tournament organisers.
     I'm still thinking about the question in the last paragraph.