What is an activity?

[andypat]

Yesterday our club put on a mini ultrasprint type event (aimed at kids/families) at a gala day in a local park. Unfortuantely the weather meant it was a bit of a wash out as crowds were 20% of previous years. But crucially those families that came
a) only experienced orienteering because we were there
b) enjoyed the format where the kids (from 4 to 14) could run round without ever being out of sight of the parent.

I'd like to put on more of these. This one was registered as an event. I think having results on the web is a good way of drawing poeple into the club - we printed a lot of info on the back of the maps.

A concern I have is that we priced this at £2 but this was higher than most of the other activities in the park - many were free. My wife took the kids round all the other activities and thought £1 would have been better.

Next year if this is registered as an event we'd be very tight to break even even with the new junior levy being £1/3. I think this actually is an activity in any sense of the word - people are trying it in the same way as they try an assault course, for example or a pony ride, and importantly we are not marketing it as an event to the wider O community. But it seems daft to me to lose the ability to provide feedback in the form of results just to avoid paying a levy.
I cant see a good definition of the difference between an event and an activity - it was discussed on here previously as part of the membership and levy thread, but as far as I can see there was only a general hunch that an activity couldnt have results (or possibly not published results). I cant be alone in thinking we need a better definition than that (and I cant find one on the BOF website) before 2013.

[SeanC]

I'm pretty sure that (in order to keep the insurance people happy) an activity must be lead by a "qualified" person, ie a qualified coach, though in very small parks and schools a teaching orienteerin qualification may suffice. There is also the new "Community Orienteering Leader" award which is just a one day course so a lot more accessible than a coaching course. It's obviously designed for club nights in schools/leisure centres etc but again might be OK for small parks/"safe" areas etc.

Email to BOF?

[Clive Coles]

i think in practice there is very little difference between an activity and a small level D event other than the publishing of formal results. Both require planning and organisation by a competent club member if the club wish to raise their profile in the local community and gain respect from the more casual participants.

Come 2013 we are going to have to get used to the concept that BOF levy has to be charged at level D events. If a £2 charge is more appropriate to the type of event, then charge £2. We will be shooting ourselves in the foot if we increase the level D event fees just to cover the new BOF levy.

It is true the BOF levy still has to be paid out of club income for all events. There is nothing in the levy scheme however that insists that fees for a particular event have to include a BOF levy charge. We still need to charge a fee appropriate to the expectations of the targer participants.

The BOF levy is effectively a tax on participation that, providing it is paid, can be financed how ever a club may choose. Clubs will put on a variety of events and activities throughout the season ~ some will make a profit and others will barely cover their costs. It's really up to the club treasurers to ensure that over the season sufficient entry fees are collected to cover both event costs and the new BOF participation tax.

Surely this is not a big challenge. Let's accept the way of financing BOF has changed and move on.

[andypat]

i think in practice there is very little difference between an activity and a small level D event other than the publishing of formal results.

I appreciate that's what you think Clive - is that the same as what BOF thinks though? I am aware this sounds pedantic, but does that mean informal results are OK? If a coach puts on a session at a school finished off with a wee competition, can there be results so long as they are not published?

To give you an example of why I feel a bit concerned about this as a definition. As a relatively experienced organiser and planner I can put on an event. I am not a coach so cannot run an activity. If an activity simply = event without results then why can I not put on an activity? There must be a better definition.

Surely this is not a big challenge. Let's accept the way of financing BOF has changed and move on.

I'm really just trying to understand the process not criticising it. I dont think its too much to ask that its properly definied given the potential amounts of money involved to clubs.

[Clive Coles]

I actually can agree with you Andypat ~ there is a fuzzyness around the definitions that could be clarified. My fear though that in trying to provide a precise definitions BOF could end up being over prescriptive. That then opens up the scope for another debate around what is fair and what is silly.

I prefer to have guidelines that allow clubs to exercise common sense and play within the spirit of the rules.

I hope clubs will not start recategorising their level D events to become activities (providing unofficial results) just to avoid levy. If by so doing they starve BOF of anticipated income we will all be the looser.

But.... time will tell.

[smf]

I cant see a good definition of the difference between an event and an activity - it was discussed on here previously as part of the membership and levy thread, but as far as I can see there was only a general hunch that an activity couldnt have results (or possibly not published results). I cant be alone in thinking we need a better definition than that (and I cant find one on the BOF website) before 2013.

Activities are defined as training sessions or coaching sessions that are not competition, do not have competitive results published and are not run on courses that adhere to Event Guidelines. By comparison Events are run in accordance with specific guidelines and/or produce a set of competitive results. Activities may include coaching sessions, fitness training, learning map skills or any other activity that a club may put on as part of its weekly club night or Saturday morning activity.

Did your courses adhere to Event Guidelines? Looking at the results I would say that they didn't, therefore it should be an activity.

[andypat]

Actualy thats not a bad definition Simon. Thanks for finding it. I can live with that - although I'd need to see what the event guidelines were. We just had a short/easy (for the kids) and a long (for the adults). We did have a couple of coaches present who gave instruction. But we did publish results.
Bit of a hybrid I guess.

[frog]

For this year is there much advantage to changing an event from an event to an activity if you are thinking you'll get under 75 people?
We're having what was going to be an event at kinnoull but we're changing it to an event/ activity with contour only maps and some other sort of TD5ish training plus training for kids, plus a yellow and orange course and bbq.
At the moment I've registered it as an event.
I can't think of a reason to change it as long as I'm clear what it will involve when I get round to putting in the details.
Looks like other folk are having hybrid events too.

[andypat]

One of the things that came out of the excellent SOA club development day (but I dont need to tell you this...) was that in terms of marketing, it is vital that the message equates well to what is delivered. So in your case i dont think it makes much difference whether you call it an activity or an event. But since its registered as an event, what you need to guard against is people making a trip there and not getting what they think they are getting. So probably making sure the details are very clear what people can expect is the most important thing.

But it does sound more like an activity than an event (for the purposes of levy next year!).

[Electrocuted]

It is true the BOF levy still has to be paid out of club income for all events. There is nothing in the levy scheme however that insists that fees for a particular event have to include a BOF levy charge. We still need to charge a fee appropriate to the expectations of the targer participants.

The BOF levy is effectively a tax on participation that, providing it is paid, can be financed how ever a club may choose. Clubs will put on a variety of events and activities throughout the season ~ some will make a profit and others will barely cover their costs. It's really up to the club treasurers to ensure that over the season sufficient entry fees are collected to cover both event costs and the new BOF participation tax.

Surely this is not a big challenge. Let's accept the way of financing BOF has changed and move on.

I think the problem here is that a lot of people from large clubs don't realise the issues that the change in levy will cause small clubs. Our club has a core orienteering crowd of perhaps 30 people, with almost half of these being juniors under the age of 16. For a small club, we are very active and I think ranked 2nd in BOF's database for the number of activities being put on. However, we do get very stretched and don't really put large events on (a large event in Scotland is a misnomer anyway due to population). So, even our level C events will pay more in levies next year than this year.

Where exactly are we to get the funds to subsidise our level D events if not from the actual event.

[Clive Coles]

I too think this event frog could be registered as an activity as it is not setting out to set courses which conform to course guidelines and there is also a significant social content in the form of a BBQ.

These hybrid events will, and I believe should, grow in importance to sustain club commitment and family involvement.

I wouldn't however get to hung up over the definitions ~ just stage what you want, charge what you want, register as seems reasonable and enjoy.

One thing not covered in the definition provided by SMF is when is an activity not an activity at all. ( perhaps that is covered elsewhere in the pdf). I remember being instructed by national office three or four years ago, when the activity first became a registerable entity, to de-register certain coaching activities where the coaches were being invited into schools to run an orienteering session. Apparently such activities should be covered by the schools insurance so there is no need to have BOF insurance cover.

So there needs to be an insurable risk to be covered by the BOF insurance for it deemed necessary to be registered at all.

BOF also advised at around the same time that it was unnecessary to register a proposed punt-O event on the River Cam . Now there was probably a hight risk of death (by drowning) than at a Classic distance Championship. I think BOF thought that as the activity could turn into a pub crawl it should be disregarded as a serious navigational orienteering challenge. Fair enough.

These hybrid events certainy make the drafting of definitions difficult ~ the boundaries are continually changing. But I would not reconstitute the rules group just to sort this out.

[Red Adder]

I'm very much with electrocuted in believing that BOF have really not thought of the impact on small clubs of nexts years levy regime. I have no problem whatsoever with the concept of contributing more the more events you attend, but I do have a big issue that the levy is the same for Cat D events thru to Cat A - and the only justification I've heard from BOF is that clubs will fiddle event categories to reduce levy paid. Nice to know how much they trust us.

[andypat]

I'm very much with electrocuted in believing that BOF have really not thought of the impact on small clubs of nexts years levy regime. I have no problem whatsoever with the concept of contributing more the more events you attend, but I do have a big issue that the levy is the same for Cat D events thru to Cat A - and the only justification I've heard from BOF is that clubs will fiddle event categories to reduce levy paid. Nice to know how much they trust us.

I think there's an expectation that clubs will treat the levy in a similar way to Clive's suggestion:

It is true the BOF levy still has to be paid out of club income for all events. There is nothing in the levy scheme however that insists that fees for a particular event have to include a BOF levy charge. We still need to charge a fee appropriate to the expectations of the targer participants.

The BOF levy is effectively a tax on participation that, providing it is paid, can be financed how ever a club may choose. Clubs will put on a variety of events and activities throughout the season ~ some will make a profit and others will barely cover their costs. It's really up to the club treasurers to ensure that over the season sufficient entry fees are collected to cover both event costs and the new BOF participation tax.

but I am not sure that small clubs in particular have enough cash flow to put on "loss-leading" level D events and recoup at the end of the year with a big event. Whatever reassurances we have from BOF, this is still a concern. I dont think it would have been impossible to offer a levy waiver for the first 10-15 particpants even, which is all it might take to break even on smaller events.

[mappingmum]

For example, I investigated organising a maize-o in 2010. However, the fee requested by our local farm was a lot. The knock-on effect was that I'd need a lot of participants or a high entry fee to break even. The event didn't happen because I felt it was highly likely to run at a loss.

Organisers are just responsible for the event - to suggest they look at the big picture with respect to event accounts is potentially a risky approach. As others have already advised, it's difficult for small clubs with limited manpower.

[Clive Coles]

I hope electrocuted you don't believe I am a big club person ~ I am actually a member of the same small club as Red Adder. We share common concerns over the viability of event financing though, as with all clubs, we offer differing shades of opinion over what the effect of any change might be.

I also would have preferred it had BOF recommended a sliding scale of levy depending on the level of event, but they didn't offer this option when the motion was put to the last AGM. So we are stuck with the poposal that was tabled and adopted by an adequate majority of the members who voted. Like it or not we now have to make the new financing system work for the club where we are members.

Unlike mappingmum's club we in fact determine event fees in committee rather than as it appears leaving the decision solely in the hands of the event organiser. Our event organiser may well estimate costs and will advise the club committee on likely expenditure but it will be the club committee which fixes the actual entry fee. So that is how we manage the margins ~ our level C events have tended to be those where we make a small profit; for level D we have just tried to cover costs.. Perhaps the margins on level C events might have to increase next year if the club committee decided to hold fees for our level D's at 2012 levels. But that's not my decision ~ the committe will decide Being a small club we rarely stage level B events and have never in my memory staged a level A. We don't therefore have the option to make a bigger profit from a big event.

So clubs in the future will need to adopt solutions based on the mix of events that they stage.

Clubs are best placed to determine what works best for them. We don't all have to adopt the same solution. We already have very different financing mechanisms operating in Scotland and other areas of the UK in regard to club membership and regional assosiation membership fees. Some orienteers pay fees for club, regional and BOF memberships; other orienteers either have free club or free regional membership. The membership fee structure is determined by where you live and what club you join.

There will be regional differences: I'm frankly rather glad BOF are not trying to tell us how to manage our club finances.