The State of Master Swimming.

Make USMS membership FREE Direct USMS staff time & resources solely into creating fee based programs (clinics at all levels & swim events) for revenue. And benefits for swimmers, coaches and clubs. Free membership will give USMS the numbers it needs to actually sell significant sponsorships and attract positive media. Those who enjoy gathering at convention each year might not like the idea. Thousands of $$ spent for something that does not produce thousands of new members - or benefit all athletes, coaches, and clubs. The convention "meeting expense" should be re-evaluated. This is not my idea but I believe in the possibilities. Anyone in sales will understand the need for bigger numbers than the near 50,000 we have had at USMS for quite a long time. Swimming is the #2 activity in the USA next to walking, but our collective USA Swimming/USMS membership numbers don't reflect this. The idea comes from one of the best businessmen in the sport of swimming. They call it the AARP Model. Big numbers of swimmers paying for programs would not only keep existing pools open, but would drive communities to approve new pools to be built. But as long as clubs show measly regular participation numbers, it isn't going to happen. I believe USMS and USA-Swimming have the tools to create great programs and benefits for members. But their strength is not signing up new members. Motivated coaches on deck and working out in their communities do it (recruiting) best locally. They have incentive. It's their career. Or it could be if they had the numbers for a substantial sized club. Make registration free. Make swimming huge. While it is worth pondering, I don't know if these are good ideas even "in theory." 1. Making USMS free. So easy to say. How to make up the shortfall in revenue? According to this: www.usms.org/.../budget_proposal.pdf at the national level, the USMS fee (and I'm not talking about the additional LMSC fee) makes up over 75% of the revenue stream. I'm sure individual LMSCs also need their revenue to offer services like newsletters, registrars (many are paid), clinics (many operate at a loss), and other services. Seriously, is the annual fee become such a barrier to entry? I swim at a privately-owned pool (the NOVA pool Jeff mentioned) and I pay more every month ($50) then I paid all year to USMS and the Virginia LMSC. Not only that, but NOVA probably loses money on us masters swimmers; they would do better financially to get rid of us and use the lanes on age-groupers, who generate more revenue for them. AARP model? I just checked, and they charge an annual fee of $16. 2. Eliminate convention: "thousands of $$ spent for something that does not produce thousands of new members - or benefit all athletes, coaches, and clubs." I've gone to convention the last few years and if I didn't go ever again I'd be fine with that. Fall is a busy enough time for me already. But I strongly disagree with the implication that USMS derives little benefit from participating in the USAS convention. If I am reading the budget report properly, at the national level convention is 3.3% of our expenses. In our LMSC, I know it is 4.4% of our budget. Not huge but not peanuts either. I would argue that the tasks of administering masters swimming, ensuring robust rules governing competitions and events, shared governance and growing grass-roots involvement, and the many other tasks that get accomplished at convention, absolutely benefit masters swimming. Conference calls are okay and are used pretty extensively throughout the year, but sometimes nothing replaces face-to-face meetings that are open to the public and allow cross-committee or spontaneous collaboration. Having a well-run organization increases its attractiveness. Could convention be more efficient and/or cost-effective? Undoubtedly. Bottom line: I've always been a little disturbed at the focus of increasing membership. I think we should concentrate on increasing the value of USMS to our membership, and that will undoubtedly make the organization more attractive to people who are currently not members and increase the numbers. (And Ahelee's statement that we've been "stuck" at 50,000 members for some time is not true. Growth was stagnant for a little while -- at the lower 40s -- but the last two years have seen pretty impressive growth. Virginia increased its membership over both of the last two years, +10% in just this last year alone.) Just my :2cents:

Make USMS membership FREE Direct USMS staff time & resources solely into creating fee based programs (clinics at all levels & swim events) for revenue. And benefits for swimmers, coaches and clubs. Free membership will give USMS the numbers it needs to actually sell significant sponsorships and attract positive media. Those who enjoy gathering at convention each year might not like the idea. Thousands of $$ spent for something that does not produce thousands of new members - or benefit all athletes, coaches, and clubs. The convention "meeting expense" should be re-evaluated. This is not my idea but I believe in the possibilities. Anyone in sales will understand the need for bigger numbers than the near 50,000 we have had at USMS for quite a long time. Swimming is the #2 activity in the USA next to walking, but our collective USA Swimming/USMS membership numbers don't reflect this. The idea comes from one of the best businessmen in the sport of swimming. They call it the AARP Model. Big numbers of swimmers paying for programs would not only keep existing pools open, but would drive communities to approve new pools to be built. But as long as clubs show measly regular participation numbers, it isn't going to happen. I believe USMS and USA-Swimming have the tools to create great programs and benefits for members. But their strength is not signing up new members. Motivated coaches on deck and working out in their communities do it (recruiting) best locally. They have incentive. It's their career. Or it could be if they had the numbers for a substantial sized club. Make registration free. Make swimming huge. While it is worth pondering, I don't know if these are good ideas even "in theory." 1. Making USMS free. So easy to say. How to make up the shortfall in revenue? According to this: www.usms.org/.../budget_proposal.pdf at the national level, the USMS fee (and I'm not talking about the additional LMSC fee) makes up over 75% of the revenue stream. I'm sure individual LMSCs also need their revenue to offer services like newsletters, registrars (many are paid), clinics (many operate at a loss), and other services. Seriously, is the annual fee become such a barrier to entry? I swim at a privately-owned pool (the NOVA pool Jeff mentioned) and I pay more every month ($50) then I paid all year to USMS and the Virginia LMSC. Not only that, but NOVA probably loses money on us masters swimmers; they would do better financially to get rid of us and use the lanes on age-groupers, who generate more revenue for them. AARP model? I just checked, and they charge an annual fee of $16. 2. Eliminate convention: "thousands of $$ spent for something that does not produce thousands of new members - or benefit all athletes, coaches, and clubs." I've gone to convention the last few years and if I didn't go ever again I'd be fine with that. Fall is a busy enough time for me already. But I strongly disagree with the implication that USMS derives little benefit from participating in the USAS convention. If I am reading the budget report properly, at the national level convention is 3.3% of our expenses. In our LMSC, I know it is 4.4% of our budget. Not huge but not peanuts either. I would argue that the tasks of administering masters swimming, ensuring robust rules governing competitions and events, shared governance and growing grass-roots involvement, and the many other tasks that get accomplished at convention, absolutely benefit masters swimming. Conference calls are okay and are used pretty extensively throughout the year, but sometimes nothing replaces face-to-face meetings that are open to the public and allow cross-committee or spontaneous collaboration. Having a well-run organization increases its attractiveness. Could convention be more efficient and/or cost-effective? Undoubtedly. Bottom line: I've always been a little disturbed at the focus of increasing membership. I think we should concentrate on increasing the value of USMS to our membership, and that will undoubtedly make the organization more attractive to people who are currently not members and increase the numbers. (And Ahelee's statement that we've been "stuck" at 50,000 members for some time is not true. Growth was stagnant for a little while -- at the lower 40s -- but the last two years have seen pretty impressive growth. Virginia increased its membership over both of the last two years, +10% in just this last year alone.) Just my :2cents: