The State of Master Swimming.

I think I pay something like $25 for 3 years of Runner's World magazine. Certainly not unreasonable. (I just checked: $15 for one year, $24 for two, for monthly issues.) What is "reasonable?" It depends on what you are getting and its value to you. I think the current USMS annual fee -- which is almost identical to that of USAT, by the way (they don't even pay their Registrars! Or send people to Convention! What in the world do they do with all that money?) -- is pretty reasonable. But that's just me; I would certainly never spend even $5 for 5 years of Runner's World. Let's put aside the issue of replacing 75% of revenue (which I think requires a lot more than hand-waving and statements about pursuing more sponsors or charging more for events). There is a parallel in college admissions. Any university can increase its "selectivity" by simply encouraging more admissions but still admitting the same number of students. (I recently had dinner with the president of Bennington College and she told me it is trivial to increase admissions if that's what you want to do.) Increasing selectivity makes you look a little more impressive and desirable to prospective students and improves your ranking in US News & World Report...even though you have done nothing substantial to improve the education of your students. USMS would like to increase its membership and increase its retention rate (I think something like 30-35% of members do not renew their membership right now). We could "fix" both problems by giving away memberships. Swimmers would say, "why not?" and join or renew. Problem solved, right? IMO, increased membership and retention rates are not adequate goals in and of themselves. There are probably more phone books out there than copies of "War and Peace," but that doesn't mean it is a superior book. I think the underlying goal should be to increase the value of USMS membership so much that, for a great many adult swimmers, $40/year is indeed a trivial amount to pay for what you get. Bottom line: I just don't see how giving away membership would improve what USMS offers. And -- bringing in the revenue issue again -- I think there is a high probability that the quality of what we offer would actually decline.

I think I pay something like $25 for 3 years of Runner's World magazine. Certainly not unreasonable. (I just checked: $15 for one year, $24 for two, for monthly issues.) What is "reasonable?" It depends on what you are getting and its value to you. I think the current USMS annual fee -- which is almost identical to that of USAT, by the way (they don't even pay their Registrars! Or send people to Convention! What in the world do they do with all that money?) -- is pretty reasonable. But that's just me; I would certainly never spend even $5 for 5 years of Runner's World. Let's put aside the issue of replacing 75% of revenue (which I think requires a lot more than hand-waving and statements about pursuing more sponsors or charging more for events). There is a parallel in college admissions. Any university can increase its "selectivity" by simply encouraging more admissions but still admitting the same number of students. (I recently had dinner with the president of Bennington College and she told me it is trivial to increase admissions if that's what you want to do.) Increasing selectivity makes you look a little more impressive and desirable to prospective students and improves your ranking in US News & World Report...even though you have done nothing substantial to improve the education of your students. USMS would like to increase its membership and increase its retention rate (I think something like 30-35% of members do not renew their membership right now). We could "fix" both problems by giving away memberships. Swimmers would say, "why not?" and join or renew. Problem solved, right? IMO, increased membership and retention rates are not adequate goals in and of themselves. There are probably more phone books out there than copies of "War and Peace," but that doesn't mean it is a superior book. I think the underlying goal should be to increase the value of USMS membership so much that, for a great many adult swimmers, $40/year is indeed a trivial amount to pay for what you get. Bottom line: I just don't see how giving away membership would improve what USMS offers. And -- bringing in the revenue issue again -- I think there is a high probability that the quality of what we offer would actually decline.