Jump to content


Photo

Who you gonna vote for straw poll.


  • Please log in to reply
211 replies to this topic

Poll: Who you gonna vote for? (188 member(s) have cast votes)

If you voted today, who would you vote for?

  1. Manny Bragg (8 votes [4.26%])

    Percentage of vote: 4.26%

  2. Mike Foley (133 votes [70.74%])

    Percentage of vote: 70.74%

  3. Jack Suber (42 votes [22.34%])

    Percentage of vote: 22.34%

  4. Paul Hyland (5 votes [2.66%])

    Percentage of vote: 2.66%

Vote Guests cannot vote

#21 (Sh)ItJustGotReal

(Sh)ItJustGotReal

    Advanced Member

  • Members
  • PipPipPip
  • 922 posts

Posted 27 July 2015 - 09:30 PM

So what? Surcharge them $5 or $10 / match. Let's say the same non-members shoots 4 matches every year. At $5/ match, that's $20 / year to the org. That's almost the cost of an associate membership, and there's no HQ overhead for that fee, so it's as good as a membership since I'm guessing it costs more than $5 in admin cost to renew a member.

Also, who's fault is it that whoever runs the match sucks at economics? If a match sells out in 2 hours, it's underpriced. Period. That's a strong market signal. A rational market would respond by raising costs until the match sells out with the last walk up entry, and if it makes enough money for a range, other ranges would think "shit, I want me some of that USPSA money" and start a slightly cheaper match, or offer a different schedule.

Instead, the Fudds see guys walking around with holstered guns, shooting fast, and even worse, running with loaded guns and say "fuck, that ain't worth $5 a shooter, that's dangerous cause that ain't how we used to do it hunting rats at the crick when I was growin up."

TLDR: people respond to economic incentives. Give them one to join.

 

I like the idea of charging them more if they're not a member.  Good idea.

 

I don't want to see my match fee go up any more.  It's already $20.  So yeah, you're correct again that I would probably stop going to that match if it was $30.  

 

Is charging more for a club match to make demand more in line with supply really a good growth strategy, though?



#22 ToddKS

ToddKS

    Advanced Member

  • Members
  • PipPipPip
  • 1,511 posts
  • LocationGetting killed in the streets

Posted 27 July 2015 - 11:40 PM

Depends on whether you are trying to grow revenue or participation.
  • msc likes this

#23 peterthefish

peterthefish

    Banned.

  • Members
  • PipPipPip
  • 2,999 posts

Posted 28 July 2015 - 12:07 AM

Depends on whether you are trying to grow revenue or participation.


I think it does both. Increasing match fees doesn't increase USPSA's revenue - it increases range / club revenue. Hopefully that will spur ranges currently involved to expand, and other ranges to affiliate. Both of those are key to supporting more shooters in the org.
  • Suber likes this

#24 Suber

Suber

    Advanced Member

  • Members
  • PipPipPip
  • 105 posts

Posted 28 July 2015 - 05:14 AM

I think it does both. Increasing match fees doesn't increase USPSA's revenue - it increases range / club revenue. Hopefully that will spur ranges currently involved to expand, and other ranges to affiliate. Both of those are key to supporting more shooters in the org.

 

Exactly, fees to USPSA are set.  If a club can increase fees and maintain participation, more power to them.  



#25 (Sh)ItJustGotReal

(Sh)ItJustGotReal

    Advanced Member

  • Members
  • PipPipPip
  • 922 posts

Posted 28 July 2015 - 06:02 AM

Exactly, fees to USPSA are set.  If a club can increase fees and maintain participation, more power to them.  

 

That's the kicker.  Raising fees in this example is for the purpose of decreasing participation numbers.  



#26 peterthefish

peterthefish

    Banned.

  • Members
  • PipPipPip
  • 2,999 posts

Posted 28 July 2015 - 07:33 AM

That's the kicker. Raising fees in this example is for the purpose of decreasing participation numbers.

If raising fees makes it more attractive, financially, for clubs to host USPSA matches, they might improve facilities so they can host more frequent matches without pissing off Fudd range members. It might get more ranges interested. And that would support the growth of the sport. More ranges and more frequent matches means you reach a wider audience to pull potential members from. It also means current members get a broader variety of matches to choose from - they're getting more for their money.

I get your question - how does raising fees to a profit maximizing level help the sport grow if it prices some shooters out of some matches? My answer - look around you. Profitable enterprise grow. They can invest money in infrastructure, marketing, technology. And those investments should lead to growth in distribution (more matches) and customers (members). If USPSA surcharged activity fees for non-members and clubs raised fees a bit, I bet we could see some good investment in things that would grow the org - assuming we had smart people doing the investing instead of paying their BFF to do marketing and shit.

Between gas and ammo, do match fees even factor into your cost to shoot for club matches? They don't for me, but I'm a baller and I've forgotten what it's like to be poor.

#27 GuanoLoco

GuanoLoco

    Minister of Culture

  • Members
  • PipPipPip
  • 4,245 posts
  • LocationMy Safe Space

Posted 28 July 2015 - 07:35 AM

Not for me. I find match fees appallingly low and would rather pay more and have improved facilities/targets/whatever.

An extra $5 is frankly inconsequential to me, I suspect will some, a few may actually be able to feel it - but if so, why are they wasting their food and medicine money on USPSA?
Are you now, or have you ever been a member of the Doodie Project?

You'll never find a more wretched hive of scum and villainy.

In Doodie, Veritas.

"You might be a little thin-skinned for this forum". -Scott.

#28 (Sh)ItJustGotReal

(Sh)ItJustGotReal

    Advanced Member

  • Members
  • PipPipPip
  • 922 posts

Posted 28 July 2015 - 08:31 AM

If raising fees makes it more attractive, financially, for clubs to host USPSA matches, they might improve facilities so they can host more frequent matches without pissing off Fudd range members. It might get more ranges interested. And that would support the growth of the sport. More ranges and more frequent matches means you reach a wider audience to pull potential members from. It also means current members get a broader variety of matches to choose from - they're getting more for their money. I get your question - how does raising fees to a profit maximizing level help the sport grow if it prices some shooters out of some matches? My answer - look around you. Profitable enterprise grow. They can invest money in infrastructure, marketing, technology. And those investments should lead to growth in distribution (more matches) and customers (members). If USPSA surcharged activity fees for non-members and clubs raised fees a bit, I bet we could see some good investment in things that would grow the org - assuming we had smart people doing the investing instead of paying their BFF to do marketing and shit. Between gas and ammo, do match fees even factor into your cost to shoot for club matches? They don't for me, but I'm a baller and I've forgotten what it's like to be poor.

 

I'm not poor.  Definitely not rich.  My expenditures are driven by my perceived value of said good or service.  Is an extra $10 a lot to me?  No.  Would I pay $30 for a match that I think is only worth $20?  No.

 

Your example is accounting for growth in the long run.  I get that.  The reality is that USPSA measures growth and participation by the number of individuals; not dollars.



#29 peterthefish

peterthefish

    Banned.

  • Members
  • PipPipPip
  • 2,999 posts

Posted 28 July 2015 - 09:04 AM

I'm not poor. Definitely not rich. My expenditures are driven by my perceived value of said good or service. Is an extra $10 a lot to me? No. Would I pay $30 for a match that I think is only worth $20? No.

Your example is accounting for growth in the long run. I get that. The reality is that USPSA measures growth and participation by the number of individuals; not dollars.


That may be, but if that's the sole metric it sucks. Activity fees / year is a much better metric, as every $3 represents 1 shooter-match.

You could boost active memberships if you gave regular member discounts on guns, coupons to shooter supply, etc... We'd just be the U.S. Discounted Shooting Association. But that wouldn't do shit for the sport - you know, actual people shooting actual matches. That's the metric that matters, and the way to grow that is to get more clubs and more shooters involved in shooting.

What makes a match worth $20 vs $30? If there's only one match local to you and it takes an extra hour and $5 worth of gas to get to the next closest $20 match, which one would you shoot?

And if there are three $20 matches near you and one started charging $30, I bet in short order you'd see better props, equipment, etc at the $30 match. Maybe faster matches too if fewer folks shot it. And for some folks, that would be worth the extra $10. I love to shoot, but I'd gladly pay $10 for an hour or two of my free time back. Whether you spend 4 or 6 hours at a six stage match, you're spending the same amount of time shooting.

Instead there's an attitude that the cost is the cost - regardless of demand. And that rewards the folks who have the free time or flexibility to stay up until midnight to register on Practiscore instead of the folks who place the highest utility (measured in their dollars) on shooting the match. And that's a dumb way to run an enterprise you want to grow.
  • nonlinr likes this

#30 Sad Sack

Sad Sack

    Forum Tard

  • Members
  • PipPipPip
  • 1,172 posts

Posted 28 July 2015 - 09:16 AM

Foley.  Period.  Even if Noob says it's a good idea.

 

Nothing personal against Soober, but I can't think of single instance where the government did anything right, on time, and on budget.  A guy that spent his life in that system can't be expected to be any different or produce anything we need.  Besides that, we're already having problems with an out of control HQ placing politics and the needs of the few in front of what's best for the masses; that's the fucking definition of our government at this point in our history.  "Successful government employee" = "has no idea how shit is in the real world".  No, thanks.

 

Munny Breggs is right about making people join.  Besides that, forget it.

 

Hyland is dumb.


  • Miculek is a Noob likes this

No one likes me, and I don't care.


#31 (Sh)ItJustGotReal

(Sh)ItJustGotReal

    Advanced Member

  • Members
  • PipPipPip
  • 922 posts

Posted 28 July 2015 - 09:19 AM

That may be, but if that's the sole metric it sucks. Activity fees / year is a much better metric, as every $3 represents 1 shooter-match.

You could boost active memberships if you gave regular member discounts on guns, coupons to shooter supply, etc... We'd just be the U.S. Discounted Shooting Association. But that wouldn't do shit for the sport - you know, actual people shooting actual matches. That's the metric that matters, and the way to grow that is to get more clubs and more shooters involved in shooting.

What makes a match worth $20 vs $30? If there's only one match local to you and it takes an extra hour and $5 worth of gas to get to the next closest $20 match, which one would you shoot? 

 

-Stage design.

And if there are three $20 matches near you and one started charging $30, I bet in short order you'd see better props, equipment, etc at the $30 match. Maybe faster matches too if fewer folks shot it. And for some folks, that would be worth the extra $10. I love to shoot, but I'd gladly pay $10 for an hour or two of my free time back. Whether you spend 4 or 6 hours at a six stage match, you're spending the same amount of time shooting.

 

-If the stages/props got better, then it would be of more value to me.

Instead there's an attitude that the cost is the cost - regardless of demand. And that rewards the folks who have the free time or flexibility to stay up until midnight to register on Practiscore instead of the folks who place the highest utility (measured in their dollars) on shooting the match. And that's a dumb way to run an enterprise you want to grow.

 

 

There is an indoor match here that has 4 stages.  It's pretty much box to box shooting with no more than 21 rounds per stage.  This match is $20.  

 

Most of the outdoor matches around here are $20 also with 5-6 stages.  Some more elaborate than others.  

 

I would consider the 5-6 stages a better overall match and hence better value.



#32 peterthefish

peterthefish

    Banned.

  • Members
  • PipPipPip
  • 2,999 posts

Posted 28 July 2015 - 10:15 AM

There is an indoor match here that has 4 stages. It's pretty much box to box shooting with no more than 21 rounds per stage. This match is $20.

Most of the outdoor matches around here are $20 also with 5-6 stages. Some more elaborate than others.

I would consider the 5-6 stages a better overall match and hence better value.


To me cost wouldn't even factor into it unless there was a $50+ difference. One I would shoot. One I wouldn't.

#33 GuanoLoco

GuanoLoco

    Minister of Culture

  • Members
  • PipPipPip
  • 4,245 posts
  • LocationMy Safe Space

Posted 28 July 2015 - 11:29 AM

I'd pay more in a heartbeat to have more regular matches, avoid MD burnout, have more/better stages, better props, etc.  $5 x 70 shooters is more than enough to buy labor for setup and probably even teardown.

 

Another $5-10 x 70 shooters is a regular monthly investment in improving equipment and props and even bays.

 

We are so cheap we are stupid.


  • GuruOfGuns, LeadChucker and peterthefish like this
Are you now, or have you ever been a member of the Doodie Project?

You'll never find a more wretched hive of scum and villainy.

In Doodie, Veritas.

"You might be a little thin-skinned for this forum". -Scott.

#34 Suber

Suber

    Advanced Member

  • Members
  • PipPipPip
  • 105 posts

Posted 28 July 2015 - 12:54 PM

Foley.  Period.  Even if Noob says it's a good idea.

 

Nothing personal against Soober, but I can't think of single instance where the government did anything right, on time, and on budget.  A guy that spent his life in that system can't be expected to be any different or produce anything we need.  Besides that, we're already having problems with an out of control HQ placing politics and the needs of the few in front of what's best for the masses; that's the fucking definition of our government at this point in our history.  "Successful government employee" = "has no idea how shit is in the real world".  No, thanks.

 

Munny Breggs is right about making people join.  Besides that, forget it.

 

Hyland is dumb.

 

Hmm. The government may not be able to run a budget on time, but can and have.  May I point out that I have  started and financed a business that has allowed me to retire comfortably at 48 years old.  

 

Back when I announced my intent to run for president, I was told by a pro-shooter "not to waste my time because I was an unknown....nobody knows me."  So, I approached the campaign like no one has before.  I created a marketing plan that included establishing website, FB page, and social media marketing (all of which no one had done before).  I invested in marketing and promotion of my campaign (which no one had done before).   Others reacted and followed my lead.  For a government employee, I think it has worked out rather well?

 

So, I think I my grasp of the real world is a little better than an average government employee.  


  • (Sh)ItJustGotReal likes this

#35 (Sh)ItJustGotReal

(Sh)ItJustGotReal

    Advanced Member

  • Members
  • PipPipPip
  • 922 posts

Posted 28 July 2015 - 05:31 PM

Hmm. The government may not be able to run a budget on time, but can and have.  May I point out that I have  started and financed a business that has allowed me to retire comfortably at 48 years old.  

 

Back when I announced my intent to run for president, I was told by a pro-shooter "not to waste my time because I was an unknown....nobody knows me."  So, I approached the campaign like no one has before.  I created a marketing plan that included establishing website, FB page, and social media marketing (all of which no one had done before).  I invested in marketing and promotion of my campaign (which no one had done before).   Others reacted and followed my lead.  For a government employee, I think it has worked out rather well?

 

So, I think I my grasp of the real world is a little better than an average government employee.  

 

Was that pro shooter Manny?



#36 Suber

Suber

    Advanced Member

  • Members
  • PipPipPip
  • 105 posts

Posted 28 July 2015 - 05:54 PM

Nah. Not Manny.

#37 ron169

ron169

    Advanced Member

  • Members
  • PipPipPip
  • 623 posts
  • LocationSouth Georgia

Posted 28 July 2015 - 08:45 PM

Ben, I'd like to see all three of the guys on the podcast. But any podcast, not just presidential election ones. Social guest like Keith mink etc

#38 Ben

Ben

    MFCEO

  • Administrators
  • 2,269 posts

Posted 28 July 2015 - 09:31 PM

Ben, I'd like to see all three of the guys on the podcast. But any podcast, not just presidential election ones. Social guest like Keith mink etc

just recorded one tonight



#39 A6troll

A6troll

    Advanced Member

  • Members
  • PipPipPip
  • 40 posts

Posted 29 July 2015 - 05:49 AM

Hmm. The government may not be able to run a budget on time, but can and have.  May I point out that I have  started and financed a business that has allowed me to retire comfortably at 48 years old.  

 

Back when I announced my intent to run for president, I was told by a pro-shooter "not to waste my time because I was an unknown....nobody knows me."  So, I approached the campaign like no one has before.  I created a marketing plan that included establishing website, FB page, and social media marketing (all of which no one had done before).  I invested in marketing and promotion of my campaign (which no one had done before).   Others reacted and followed my lead.  For a government employee, I think it has worked out rather well?

 

So, I think I my grasp of the real world is a little better than an average government employee.  

so you approached this like a politician would, say anything and do anything to get elected?

are you going to continue to run that business and be a consultant to businesses within the firearm industry if elected?



#40 Suber

Suber

    Advanced Member

  • Members
  • PipPipPip
  • 105 posts

Posted 29 July 2015 - 06:30 AM

Nope, Eric. I made this clear in my interviews, Front Sight, etc.




0 user(s) are reading this topic

0 members, 0 guests, 0 anonymous users