I have seen many of the posts made here from master swimmers from all over the USA, Canada and the World.
It has me wondering about the state of master swimming.
1. Which State has the most swim meets.
2. Which State has the most master swimmers registered.
3. How many master swimmers registered are in the USA
Both USAS and USMS are great national programs with good resources, and both offer benefits to their respective groups. Both "promote" swimming at every age.
How about a "reciprocal" arrangement where if you sign up for one, you "get" the other membership for free? I still struggle with the idea that these two programs can't work this out.
I have to maintain a coaching status in one, and a swimmer status in the other. How inane is that?
Might be an issue with the fact that (I believe) the majority of USAS swimmers are less than 18 years old and any “reciprocal” trade-off would be one sided, to the USMS swimmer advantage, since far and away the majority of USMS folks competing in a USAS meet would reside in the 18+ age group.
Other than that minor deal, I certainly would see an advantage for me to be able to compete in USAS meets. :chug:
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:
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."Free Registration" is an idea to consider and certainly could not happen overnight. USMS is asking for ideas.
What is wrong with thinking outside of the box and offering an idea up?
No one is asking that the idea be 100% accepted today or ever.
I admire Rob Copeland for putting the question out for discussion.
I've heard Mel Goldstein (Club & Coach Development) tell coaches in seminars many times to advertise anywhere, even the phone book, "ADULT SWIM LESSONS" and watch the people flow in. Who has ever done this?
Coaches have to be creative about running clinics inexpensively and use them as selling tools for their own club and USMS.
Promoted well, clinics/events can be profitable (percentage to LMSC & USMS)and generate membership which is profit for the club/coach.
USMS Coaches should offer clinics/events for swimmers/triathletes. This is what we do.
How many clubs offer regular clinics to the public as well as their club members?
I'm not the financial person obviously, but why not take a serious look at the expenses of the LMSC.
Who has done that lately outside of the LMSC's Executive Committee?
Some points I wonder about:
#1 - Does an LMSC still really need to pay hundreds/thousands of dollars each year for a printed newsletter?
#2 - Does USA Triathlon pay registrars in regions all around the USA when they do all registration on-line?
#3 - What did the LMSC gain by funding each of the individual LMSC delegates to convention? Or is convention a bit of an incentive award for a year of volunteer work offered to the LMSC?
"Seriously, is the annual fee become such a barrier to entry?
AARP model? I just checked, and they charge an annual fee of $16."
Seriously? Yes.
Ask any coach who tries to recruit swimmers if this issue doesn't come up for any one of a boatload of reasons.
$16. vs. $44. is a big difference.
But I still say we should make USMS free.
The greatest asset USMS, it's clubs and coaches could have for revenue is direct leads to people who like or need to swim.
Rob Butcher is a sales guy - he knows how to sell masters swimming.
Challenge Rob to do what he does best - sell his sport.
There is a potentially great USMS Club & Coach Development Team.
Challenge this team to put a club in every possible town that has a pool. And then assist the head coach to learn how to sign up new USMS members.
And - sign them up for free with a confirmed email/address!
Even if they do not join the local club right away. A new member might be sold when they attend their first USMS Clinic.
Start bringing USMS Clinics and events at the most novice of levels to these areas - and charge $$ for them.
Make $$ by charging for clinics & events & sponsorship, not dues.
No reason these things can't start happening now. If they start generating significant and reproducible revenue then start reducing fees. Or keep the fees constant and offer better services and/or more benefits for members.
Here are membership numbers over the years broken down by LMSC:
www.usms.org/.../gto_num_of_members.pdf
Current membership total for this year is just over 54,900, or almost 25% growth in the past 3 years. Your region, South Pacific, has increased about 50% in that time.
Offer a good product, work hard to continually improve it, and let people know about it...and membership will increase. That's the "Field of Dreams" model, I suppose.
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
If we increase the numbers perhaps we could boost meet attendance? I'd certainly be happier, as a USMS member, if we had more and better attended meets (since I don't live or travel much to CA :-)).
Is a pool really that much more intimidating than a triathlon for newbies?
Is a pool really that much more intimidating than a triathlon for newbies?
I think so, and the reason, paradoxically, is that pool races are so short. You do them to race, not just to finish and say you did it. On the other hand, even at sprint triathlons and 5K runs a lot of people are in fact there just to finish and say they did it. A lot of my teammates who swim competently but slowly or who say they are not "competitive" do OW swims and triathlons but not pool meets.
Current membership total for this year is just over 54,900, or almost 25% growth in the past 3 years.
In the 90s, I sold advertising and sponsorships for SWIMMER Magazine and partner events when it was owned by Rodale Press.
We used readership (50,000+) and circulation numbers that were well below 50,000.
It was pathetically low then and it is still considering the numbers of lap swimmers, triathletes, competitive and various water fitness enthusiasts.
But gee whiz - why would I bring up another expense like printing Swimmer Magazine?
Oh yeah...
Give or take 10-15,000 in USMS membership, the numbers in the eyes of sponsors and advertisers, are nearly the same after all these years!
We can do better.
1. Does an LMSC still really need to pay hundreds/thousands of dollars each year for a printed newsletter?
That's up to the individual LMSC. I can only answer for Virginia.
Communications -- both top-down and bottom-up and specialized forms (eg among coaches, or within a team) -- is critical in my opinion. You want the word to get out about events, you want feedback from members, you want to get the members more engaged, etc etc.
In Virginia we offer both electronic and paper newsletters. I was worried about going electronic-only because I heard concern from a number of sources (officers in other LMSCs and from our own members) that a sizeable fraction of people will not read an electronic-only newsletter, and that the membership will become less engaged.
So we have a monthly email plus a monthly newsletter, and the email includes a link to an electronic version of the printed newsletter. Members have the ability to "opt out" of receiving the paper newsletter if they wish to keep LMSC fees low and be green.
Some statistics: 30-35% of LMSC members who receive the email actually open it. And just under 11% of our membership have chosen to "opt out" of the paper newsletter at this time. So yes, in Virginia we think it is worth it. It may be different in other LMSCs, of course.
2. Does USA Triathlon pay registrars in regions all around the USA when they do all registration on-line?
I don't know what USAT does and don't much care, either. Though their annual fee is comparable to USMS's, if I recall correctly. Do you really want to ape the USAT model, charging hundreds of dollars for the opportunity to compete?
For a long time in our LMSC, the Registrar was an unpaid position. It is a lot of work, though, and our last Registrar up and quit one January. As you might imagine, that's not an ideal time. Much chaos and bedlam ensued, including many swimmers who wanted to swim in a meet but couldn't get registered.
As Top Ten recorder, I also need to work with the Registrar and really appreciate timely responses to inquiries. I didn't always get that with the other (unpaid) Registrar.
So we now pay our Registrar and she does a fantastic job. I guess online registration may make her job a little easier, but I think about one-third of our membership chooses to register by mail. We also offer a reduced fee for swimmers in the 18-24 age group and there is no way to implement this online at present. Plus there are one-event registrations, which must be done by mail.
So yes, it is worth it to us. Other LMSCs may have a different answer.
3. What did the LMSC gain by funding each of the individual LMSC delegates to convention? Or is convention a bit of an incentive award for a year of volunteer work offered to the LMSC?
No, it isn't a perk. For me, at least, it is quite a hassle to take time off from work and family to go to Convention. (Of course at this point I'm going on USMS' tab as a committee chair.)
Many of our LMSC officers are active at the national level, and they bring their knowledge and expertise to our LMSC. Lots of ideas are also gained by talking to delegates from other LMSCs, as well as the various workshops. If we didn't think it was worth it -- in addition to representing the interests of the LMSC in voting matters -- then we wouldn't fund them. And if the individuals didn't think they gained something from it, they wouldn't go.
If we increase the numbers perhaps we could boost meet attendance?
Maybe. But if we offer free membership and get an additional 50,000 members, how many of them will actually compete? My opinion: almost none of them, since $40 annually is apparently a deal-breaker.
