Where, oh where is BOF's PR Department?

[schnitzer]

Yes Mharky that is also a good point but maybe the usual selective seriousness applies to Graeme's first paragraph.

In any case when these objectives were made...

- Local events are more enjoyable when there are more people to run against.

- If more people take part in local events you might not need to travel as often to get decent competition.

...I think the contributor had much more ordinary events in mind.

1. Last TVOC level B had 20 Black victims, 10 were M21.
2. Last AIRE level B had 14 Black victims, 9 were M21.
3. Last BOK level B had 7 Black victims, 3 were M21.

It is worth pointing out that the Blue course at the BOKTROT had 70 people on it, now that could be described as "decent competition". However it seems the black course on ordinary level B events in England could be described as "not worth the petrol", if the above objectives are important.

I could be more harsh...

- If more people take part in local events then there might be an event somewhere worth travelling to.

And what's to say the "new" competitors won't turn into "decent competitors"?

That's the big gamble isn't it? The following objective is possible, you've proved it...

Better-attended local events mean more event income hence clubs can create/update maps without relying on external funding or having to stage a major event to recoup costs.

But as for the others, just gambling. Maybe it is worth putting some effort into working out why the born & bred orienteers are leaving/quitting and stopping it from happening. If only we could give all of the current UK orienteering couples just the right incentives to be like the Halletts or the Hardings and then make them all have 10 children each.

[SeanC]

I don't get your problem. Surely not doing any marketing is the biggest gamble? Focusing on retention alone only reduces the rate of decline, and creates an unbalanced demographic towards older competitors, which is pretty much what we have now.

I'm sure Mike and others here could tell you that marketing is only one part of a growth strategy.

Re local events most of the new orienteers appearing at level A/B/C events from Kent started at local Kent Night Cup or Kent Orienteering league events. It probably helps that we go to the pub after the KNC's, experienced orienteers promote the bigger events accidently by word of mouth.

I think we can get more to the bigger events by improving our "internal marketing". Promotion for the level C+ can sometimes be drab and assume you're a regular. Things also put our newer members off in unexpected ways for example, one of our newer members asked on Facebook tonight about the JK "Can you just go for a day or two?"

[graeme]

the usual selective seriousness applies to Graeme's first paragraph.

Yes, you talked about "people running M21L" and I talked about "entries on M21" and mharky introduced "100 M21s". It's true that in the events I mentioned the M21s were spread across "elite" and "open". But the point is that there's nothing much wrong with the product (be it urban, sprint or classic) - it's the marketing that determines who comes.

So by contrast, the November Classic had only 30 on Black/M21/M21L (whatever its called this week) DESPITE having a larger overall entry than the races I mentioned.
The various BOC's have an even lower ratio of "people on the top course" to others.

I don't know whether the alienation of the M21s from these events is deliberate, but its certainly effective.

[Scott]

So by contrast, the November Classic had only 30 on Black/M21/M21L (whatever its called this week) DESPITE having a larger overall entry than the races I mentioned.

With that in mind, I think it would probably be instructive to compare the online - and particularly social media - marketing that RtC received with the A4 text-based PDF that serves as a flyer for most Level B events.

And note that, while 21 entries at RtC were indeed boosted by Proper Elites doing WOC2015 preparation, there were plenty of people like me there as well, especially when compared with a "normal Level B".

[schnitzer]

Sorry Scott, I should say that regardless of my pecimism I am convinced that marketing UK events is worthwhile, from what I have read on this thread. Of course it should be done and taken to as high a technical level as possible, as well as making things fantastic for the current members.

Graeme - I should have been more clear that I was taking about normal events that don't have extra pulling power. The London City race is in well, the City of London and is basically THE urban event of the year. RTC was special in many ways, not least because of you and all of your various efforts but also the WOC2015 effect as Scott points out plus looking at the web site it had events both Sat and Sun. It was also in Scotland which certainly would have tempted me more to travel if I actually lived in the UK, even in my hometown of Bournemouth.

Actually, if I didn't have a newborn I probably would have flown back for RTC, missing out on some of the Stockholm Autumn season in the process. For those of you that don't completely understand what I would have been missing then - 1. free entries (but my annual SOF/Ravinen membership is £130), 2. travelling time less than an hour the whole season, 3. arguably best forest terrain in the world mostly mapped to perfection, 4. regular decent competition (sometimes Gustav, sometimes even Thierry) and 5. showers at every event.

Maybe this can shed some light on why it can be a bit depressing to read my Nope posts. Anyway, the best of British luck to you all...

[awk]

So by contrast, the November Classic had only 30 on Black/M21/M21L (whatever its called this week) DESPITE having a larger overall entry than the races I mentioned.
The various BOC's have an even lower ratio of "people on the top course" to others.
I don't know whether the alienation of the M21s from these events is deliberate, but its certainly effective.

Could this be because not all M21s want to run the super long tough courses - but that's what is the competitive course for them when they go to many events?

I don't know, just wondering.

[mharky]

Events like Race the Castles show that if the product is right, then the existing membership base will come.

The London City Race shows that with targeted marketing, a new membership can be targeted.

Slightly off topic, but what has happened to Red courses?

[SeanC]

Red is now called 'Long Orange'

[schnitzer]

I wouldn't be that bothered about the Nov Classic, even if I did still live in Bournemouth. I can't speak for other potential M21/black course entrants but for me the terrain is simply not interesting enough - way too many controls on stream bends. I'd rather do the London City Race.

Red courses were a nice idea but urban events are surely better for attracting runners to orienteering.

[MIE]

Red courses were a nice idea but urban events are surely better for attracting runners to orienteering.

But for those who want to go out into the wilds after being "hooked" by Urban-O
(TD3, 6 -7km) having the choice of Orange (TD3, 3 to 3.5km) or Blue (TD5, 6 to 7km)
usually results in them doing Blue, taking 2+ hours and being lost most of the time. So
putting on Long Orange (TD3, 5 to 7km) is more likely to get them coming back to the
forest for more instead of just sticking to Urban-O.

[MikeShires]

Wish Nope had a 'like' button - as I want to like several posts above!!

And what's to say the "new" competitors won't turn into "decent competitors"?

That's the big gamble isn't it?

But like I said before, replacing older competitors with new ones (without wishing to make competitors sounding too much like commodities!) is natural evolution for any sport, or any activity for that matter. It's inevitable that people leave a sport. Yes, a focus can be had on working out why and trying to retain people better, but this should be IN ADDITION TO recruiting new participants - not instead of.

At the risk of sounding repetitive, the Sport England segmentation data helps enormously here. Once you have analysed your local area (target market) and worked out what sort of people live there, the data will set out the most common factors that prevent these types of people taking part in more sport. This is from hundreds of interviews that Sport England have undertaken in each area. For example, in TVOC's area, there are marked differences (Oxford being different to rest of Oxfordshire and Bucks for example). Cost is not an issue for most people in our catchment area, so I deliberately don't bother to promote our events as being cheap (even though they are!) - and also to avoid making a cheap event sound like it's not worth going to (sometimes people think the higher the cost the better experience they are getting, although that probably provokes another debate for another day...). Instead, I concentrate on the selling points that are important to our target market, as shown by the Sport England research. However, cost IS more important and more of an influencing factor to people living in Oxford according to the Sport England data, so I emphasise the cheap nature of the sport more on flyers and Facebook ads when it comes to our Oxford-based events. Considering we had between 60 and 97 newcomers at each of our last Oxford events, it seems to work.

In contrast to the Oxford area, the rest of our catchment area's main barriers to taking part in sport are (1) time commitments and (2) family commitments. So, these need taking into account when designing publicity material - i.e. emphasising the opportunities for family members to run different courses to suit their ability/interest; if it's childcare being an issue, then promoting the opportunity for children to do a string or white course, while mum or dad has a run on a longer course, and facilitating split starts for parents; and the ease of taking part - just turning up and running when it suits them rather than having to be there at a specific time.

Marketing does not therefore need to be a gamble - and it shouldn't be. It should be based on sound research, knowing who your target market(s) is/are, and using the proven techniques to reach those people. Yes, if it's not based on those principles, then it is a gamble.

Better-attended local events mean more event income hence clubs can create/update maps without relying on external funding or having to stage a major event to recoup costs.

But as for the others, just gambling. Maybe it is worth putting some effort into working out why the born & bred orienteers are leaving/quitting and stopping it from happening.

I don't really agree it's gambling, for the reasons set out above. To me, gambling is where there is a risk of losing as well as winning. There is no risk of losing by undertaking marketing, unless you mean financially. As Sean says above, if we just concentrate on retaining everyone, the average age of orienteers will get older and they'll be no new blood to replace them (now, that is gambling with the sport!). In any event, are all good orienteers really leaving the sport? Not something I was really that conscious of and I see little evidence of that down here - sounds a bit doom and gloom to me! However, the important point is that whether or not marketing concentrates on retaining existing competitors (and yes, it can do), it still needs to concentrate on recruiting new ones as well. And yes, I do believe that new competitors can turn into "decent" ones - some of our newcomers from the last few years are now running very decent times on Blue upwards.

Sorry Scott, I should say that regardless of my pessimism I am convinced that marketing UK events is worthwhile, from what I have read on this thread. Of course it should be done and taken to as high a technical level as possible, as well as making things fantastic for the current members.

Although, having said all the above - I do agree with you here! Those two things would definitely see a big growth in the sport.

Now I'm off to ask myself why all my posts are so long and why I can't write a short succinct post on here... (luckily, the marketing material I put together is a bit more succinct!!)

[MikeShires]

PS I was thinking of setting up a Facebook group for publicity people (or anyone involved in clubs development), so we can share resources, ideas etc - and I can put a few links to the resources that have helped me too. Not sure there is really any such group at present? I wouldn't want to tread on anyone's toes if that is conflicting with BOF Development group (or whatever it's called)? Is anyone interested in that idea, if I was to set one up?

Mike

[SeanC]

That's a great idea Mike.

What's the BOF development group? Is that a Facebook group?

[MIE]

That's a great idea Mike.

What's the BOF development group? Is that a Facebook group?

Just in case the comment isn't tongue-in-check try
http://www.britishorienteering.org.uk/p ... pment_team

[SeanC]

This time I wasn't Mike (Mike MIE) I was wondering if someone at BOF had set up a development facebook group to discuss development ideas.

Mike (Shires) - I wouldn't worry about the BOF development committee, which was disbanded a couple of years ago. It's replacement, which I see is called the BOF development steering group, hasn't met, ever.

The BOF development committee once had a discussion about the best ways of encouraging publicity in clubs. Mike (Hamilton) was very supportive of the ideas, but not much happened . One of the ideas I think was a mailing group or forum for publicity people to swap ideas and support each other, now Facebook is more commonly used by orienteers, it makes more sense for this to be a Facebook group.

So basically, I think everyone will be right behind this idea.