 addison
|
Posted: 12 December 2008, 7:10 AM
Talking about Online Entries and stuff, one thing that really makes setting up a good online entry system is all our funny rules for event charges.
"If you enter the 3rd day with 5 people, then the 6th person gets day 4 free if they are under 20"... ok thats a bit over the top but man it is almost that bad.
One thing I have found really difficult in the past is that there is no difference in price between an adult doing a red and someone who is brand new to the sport and wanting to do big events, but is doing a white.
Our goal is to get people into orienteering. What better to do that than big events? Big events normally have atmosphere, good maps, good course setting and most of all recently they have had jack all people doing whites and yellows and even oranges.
Shouldn't we be doing a price scale that entices people to come along and give it a go? One that as they develop we start to reap the rewards off?
One thing I am a bit worried about is that if we tested this method, at one event, that basically no difference would be noticed. People would probably scoff at it and say it didn't work. But over time if people know that at big events its cheap for white and yellows, then they might be more likely to bring along that cousin that hasn't done it before - or that friend that is staying for the weekend.
Whites / Yellows / Oranges are all courses that are never even close to maximum loading at big events. They are by far the smallest grades, and sometimes we find ourselves setting white courses for 2 people? Worth it? Doubt it.
Lets try to make it as easy as possible for people to come out and give these development courses a go, and the easiest way for us to do that is by charging hardly anything for the luxury of that.
My preferred model would be:
- Charge per course (eg $5 white, $6 yellow, $15 red 2, $15 red 3, $20 red 1 etc)
- Scrap Junior / Senior rates
(why - well if a Junior is running M21E, as an organiser does it really matter if they are 19 or 40?)
- Investigate what is a good model for family rates. Perhaps its just that having cheap as whites, yellows and oranges take care of this automatically.
|
|
pete s
|
Posted: 12 December 2008, 4:05 PM
Hey Simon - not sure what you've been drinking down there, but it certainly seems to be getting the grey matter buzzing - some great questions!
Re charging, we have a dilemma with the white/yellow courses, because if we take TONIC as an example, the amount of work needed to produce the white and yellow courses was proportionaly much higher than any of the red (particulartly last day where the track changes and complexity was a real pain). Therefore, it begs the question, particularly when so few people enter these classes at an A grade event, should we have white/yellow at all?
I'm not suggesting this as a proposal, personally I would be against this, however the question does need asking and we do need to think how we can get better volumes of people through these courses to make the setters time worthwhile.
Is pricing the answer? Maybe it would help, but I think other drivers affect the takeup of white/yellow participants as well - talking with some new people to the sport prior to TONIC, they were a bit intimidated at the thought of entering TONIC because it looked like it was for experienced orienteers only, so maybe we have a marketing/positioning issue here. That is why you will see for the Nationals 09, it has a slogan stating it is for orienteers of all abilities and experience.
|
|
onemanfanclub
|
Posted: 14 December 2008, 12:59 AM
Michael's memory is longer than mine so I expect he can add some detail, but I'm pretty sure HV tried "course-length-value" based entry fees a while back (before your time Simon), and it flew like a tonne of bricks. Not saying it was a bad idea, but one that too many people just didn't "get". Maybe your point about the difference between trying something as a one-off or giving it an actual proper trial has relevance here.
|
|
addison
|
Posted: 14 December 2008, 1:11 AM
Thanks for the feedback.
Pete, I totally agree that White and Yellows etc are a bit of a pain and for big events they sometimes can be more hassle than their worth. However I think if we canned them, we'd look back a few years later and really see that we shot ourselves in the foot. Having the Whites/Yellows/Oranges are really important for development, even if it is just for a few people! As you say, we need to find methods to make the setters time worth while (and in saying that, we need way more controls / boxes etc to set whites and yellows than we otherwise would need - so there is a capital cost of doing them as well as we need more gear)
Pricing isn't the silver bullet, but I believe it is part of the solution. But you are totally correct in the fact that we need to really entice people to the bigger events. Its a bit funny that having a "title" on the line, eg "North Islands" turns on the 'hardcore' orienteers, but it can make people way less likely to want to attend.
Nic - very interesting. Michael can you add anything? How long did you guys try it for before pulling the pin?
|
|
Alistair
|
Posted: 14 December 2008, 1:31 AM
...sounds a little like a marketing problem. There's no reason why the same event with the same courses couldn't be marketed under two names to two different target markets. Nationals/NI champs etc at the hardcore level. And as an ordinary local event locally. The latter can offer enter on the day grades etc. even though the courses which these grades may run on may be the same as the hardcore dudes. Maybe some start-list logistics - which can't be too difficult to solve...
|
|
Michael
|
Posted: 14 December 2008, 1:38 PM
Well one club doesn't run all that many major events per year, we might have persisted with colour charging for a couple of years before bowing to constant criticism.
It's still an excellent idea - go for it. You've got a thick skin haven't you:-))
|
|
Michael
|
Posted: 14 December 2008, 1:50 PM
I remember OHV also tried abolishing the "late entry" thing - I think you either entered on time, or you turned up on the day, marked up your own map off a master, and started at the end of the others. You weren't in the championship or whatever, so you could almost say there were two events using the same courses - ie you could enter on the day deliberately as opposed to just forgot to enter on time. I think it was dropped both for low up-take and also the extra work on the day. Could be worth revisiting.
|
|
Tane Cambridge
|
Posted: 14 December 2008, 2:40 PM
I reckon there should definitely be a cut rate for students in your model there Simon!
|
|
addison
|
Posted: 15 December 2008, 8:56 AM
Would it be full time students only Tane?
|
|
Tane Cambridge
|
Posted: 15 December 2008, 10:06 AM
I dont care as long as students are looked after.
|
|
SimonB
|
Posted: 15 December 2008, 10:26 AM
YEAH!
|
|
rob.g
|
Posted: 15 December 2008, 10:31 AM
I really agree with your post, Simon, but feel that NZOF single day levies for non members is extremely offputting, and maybe should only apply to red course runners.
|
|
nick
|
Posted: 15 December 2008, 11:13 AM
raises the question though doesn't it, of the value of club membership.
|
|
addison
|
Posted: 16 December 2008, 12:22 AM
Too true Nick. Its a bit funny, I am noticing in our club two distinct groups:
1/ People that join the club, and expect to do a bit of work to ensure that the cost is low
2/ People that just want to turn up run, pay their fee (and pay for the luxury of not having to do any work) and go.
In all honesty, who would join a club these days? Its just an expectation of doing work. I look at Auckland Summer Series events, where the price difference is what.. $2? $3? Thats great for enticing new people to give it a go, but maybe not so good for getting lots of new members via a financial incentive.
Rob - I think you are onto something mate. Or could be a set fee instead of "Junior, Senior, Family" make it "$2 white, $3 yellow, $5 orange, $8 red" etc.
|
|
addison
|
Posted: 16 December 2008, 12:22 AM
Too true Nick. Its a bit funny, I am noticing in our club two distinct groups:
1/ People that join the club, and expect to do a bit of work to ensure that the cost is low
2/ People that just want to turn up run, pay their fee (and pay for the luxury of not having to do any work) and go.
In all honesty, who would join a club these days? Its just an expectation of doing work. I look at Auckland Summer Series events, where the price difference is what.. $2? $3? Thats great for enticing new people to give it a go, but maybe not so good for getting lots of new members via a financial incentive.
Rob - I think you are onto something mate. Or could be a set fee instead of "Junior, Senior, Family" make it "$2 white, $3 yellow, $5 orange, $8 red" etc.
|
|
marcusd
|
Posted: 16 December 2008, 5:57 AM
I went to a SPARC workshop a few weeks ago about the continued viability of clubs using the volunteer model. All clubs said they were struggling to stay viable in today's society with the biggest issue being volunteer burnout as it was the same people doing everything all the time. Not sure what the solutions are but clearly something has to change with the current model. Parhaps clubs joining together to take over admin functions like treasurers etc could help? Maybe partnering with professional event promoters for specifc events? As I said no right or wrong answers but worth adding the discussion.
|
|
© Ruffneck Productions