Membership and levy proposal

[SeanC]

From the latest BO board minutes. Looks like membership fees are going up by £10.

Membership and levy proposal
This item was postponed until later in the agenda, once the strategic plan had been considered; the following minutes are a record following on from that discussion.
In the light of the discussion that have taken place during the meeting regarding finance, the future funding of British Orienteering and the Strategic Plan the Board agreed that it is imperative that British Orienteering can operate as a National Governing Body of sport and should be able to self-fund the delivery of the ‘core’ business of an NGB.

The Board agreed a longer term financial plan be agreed that would set out the way in which income can be gradually increased. MH/BD were asked to draft such a plan which should be communicated to the membership as soon as is feasible and before the AGM.
1 It was agreed that an early significant increase in income should be a part of the plan and to this end the Board agreed that:
 Membership be increased to £15 for a senior and £5.00 for a junior; it was felt that there was understanding amongst the members that the current fee of £5.00 is low and general acceptance amongst the members that this can be increased. There was much discussion about this increase leading to the agreement which should generate an additional £80,000 provided the membership remains at a similar level.
 Levy be increased by 10p to £1.35; this was also discussed in detail and should generate an additional income of £10,000 based on the participation and levy figures for 2014 and 2015.

The Board were understanding of the significance of these raises recognising the urgent need to be able to fund the ‘core’ operation of British Orienteering necessitates swift and decisive action. Currently the significant subsidising of British Orienteering by Sport England enables the organisation to function. Once this funding is removed British Orienteering needs to be able to continue to function as a governing body of sport. The changes proposed will enable a staff infrastructure to deliver these core NGB functions without the reliance on Sport England.

[nooomember]

Outrageous - there can be no justification for an increase of 200% - please vote NO

" understanding amongst the members that the current fee of £5.00 is low" - from where do they get this 'understanding'?
"general acceptance amongst the members that this can be increased" - how do they know their members accept this?

[maprun]

The reduction or withdrawal of the current Sport England Grant has been known about for sometime. I'm looking forward to the Board's explanation of the issues and suggested resolution and hopefully the choices will be made clear. £5 always did seem ridiculously cheap. The subsidised canteen appears to be coming to an end.

[Snail]

It would be nice to have a consistent long-term approach. It is only a few years since the deliberate decision was made to shift member income away from per member fees towards participation levy - in order to encourage more members. As a result it has been relatively easy to "sell" BOF membership to even a complete beginner, at £5 per annum relative to a typical £2 per event non-member surcharge. They will now have to assess whether they are likely to come back for say a further 7 events in a year before reaching the break-even point, so this logic will largely disappear. (And the "you should join if you've been to at least 3 events" message is both harder to get across and difficult to police).

Having said that, membership fees should at least cover the associated marginal costs (say Focus and part of the membership / renewal / ranking etc systems) and it isn't clear to me that £5 is sufficient for this.

If Sport England (/NI etc) grants are being reduced or withdrawn then we should be asking whether the activities funded by those grants are essential. I thought that such funding was more for development - both talent and overall participation - than for member services, so we should reassess whether we get value for money in those areas. (FWIW I have always thought that member/ participation development is best performed by clubs - and that the role of Development staff should primarily be to provide support material to enable clubs to do this, rather than get involved directly).

IF we do need another £90,000 in total (and I agree that Board needs to justify this), then an alternative to £10 on the membership fee is presumably around a further 80p on the levy (so a 90p increase in total).

[roadrunner]

Athletics charges £13 from April, so £5 is definitely cheap, though increasing it by a factor of 3 in one go seems rather excessive. I seem to recall that it used to be a lot more expensive, and was cut to £5 a few years ago, presumably in an attempt to boost membership.

If 10p on the levy raises £10k and £10 on membership £80k, there must surely be some scope to apportion things differently; for example, 50p on the levy and £5 on the membership ought to bring in the same amount, with neither increasing by more than 100%.

[King Penguin]

I seem to recall that when the Board were proposing the membership fee reduction to £5 this was part of the justification for increasing the event levy at the same time. Now the membership fee is to go back up, and levies are also to rise again.
For the committed I agree £5/year is cheap and I would personally be happy to pay more, but I am concerned about the negative effect this may have on new members, and also by levy increases. Has it now been decided that "more members" is not as desirable as previously believed ? Are we bending to a political agenda rather than doing what is best for the sport ? How far in advance of the AGM do proposals / motions have to be published ?

[andypat]

I remember arguiing vehemently agasint the increased levy on the basis that it would put off new people at the smallest events.
Now it seems we are to have neither our cake nor eating it...

[greywolf]

It seems economically naive to assume that demand for something will remain the same if you triple the price...

[RJ]

I despair that we don't appear to have a solid long term strategy for income generation. The current proposal has a strong semblance to a 'knee jerk' reaction.

My feeling is, and always has been, that it is a question of numbers..... the size of the membership. We have spent years and years allowing the membership to decline without seriously tackling recruitment collectively. We are too busy designing 'big, high profile' events which use all of our intellectual energy and are increasingly attracting fewer and fewer people (with the exception of events in high quality areas).

Membership will continue to decline and clubs will continue to fold. With the exception of, perhaps ten clubs around the country, no one is attracting the new, replacement, membership that is needed. We tackle this problem head on or we wither as a sport, and die.

The sport has always done things (event production) from within the club. Events are put on by groups of people within clubs. Time for those people to spend a lot more of their time advertising, promoting and designing an entry level structure for these 'new' orienteers who will eventually provide the financial stability for our sport.

Simples. If only!!!

[Spookster]

It would be nice to have a consistent long-term approach. It is only a few years since the deliberate decision was made to shift member income away from per member fees towards participation levy - in order to encourage more members. As a result it has been relatively easy to "sell" BOF membership to even a complete beginner, at £5 per annum relative to a typical £2 per event non-member surcharge.

Yes, it was the 2012 AGM at which it was agreed to substantially reduce membership fees in order to try to significantly increase membership. It didn't happen, and membership levels have been broadly static. The membership fees in 2011 were (for National members) £21.50 for Seniors and £4.65 for Juniors.

Having said that, membership fees should at least cover the associated marginal costs (say Focus and part of the membership / renewal / ranking etc systems) and it isn't clear to me that £5 is sufficient for this.

It isn't sufficient. Currently the core functions of the National Governing Body are partly subsidised by Sport England. That subsidy will disappear, so we need to replace it with self-generated funds.

If Sport England (/NI etc) grants are being reduced or withdrawn then we should be asking whether the activities funded by those grants are essential. I thought that such funding was more for development - both talent and overall participation - than for member services, so we should reassess whether we get value for money in those areas. (FWIW I have always thought that member/ participation development is best performed by clubs - and that the role of Development staff should primarily be to provide support material to enable clubs to do this, rather than get involved directly).

Yes, most SE funding is targeted at specific posts or programmes, but not all of it.

IF we do need another £90,000 in total (and I agree that Board needs to justify this), then an alternative to £10 on the membership fee is presumably around a further 80p on the levy (so a 90p increase in total).

Yes, but we felt that a more balanced approach would be a significant increase in membership fees (back towards pre 2012 levels), and a moderate increase in levy.

The senior membership fee for the BMC is £31 (of £15 if you pay by DD), and the senior membership fee for British Cycling is between £21 and £72, to take a couple of other sports as examples. At £5 per Senior we have been charging well below the average cost of membership of a National Governing Body.

[greywolf]

Yes, it was the 2012 AGM at which it was agreed to substantially reduce membership fees in order to try to significantly increase membership. It didn't happen, and membership levels have been broadly static.

So it halted a long term decline. Some clubs put a lot of effort in and have substantially increased their membership, but i expect a price hike will knock that down again - plenty around here are local, and occasional, orienteers, and membership simply won't be value for money, especially as they will be paying for two governing bodies...

[maprun]

Without other alternatives, raising the £90k target in a ratio of 80:10 weighted on the membership increase seems a riskier option than raising a larger amount on the event levy. After all losing members may be a double loss, no membership fee and lower event levies for those that leave the sport due to the fee increase. 60p on the levy and a few pounds on the subscription might be less risky.

[mykind]

The senior membership fee for the BMC is £31 (of £15 if you pay by DD), and the senior membership fee for British Cycling is between £21 and £72, to take a couple of other sports as examples. At £5 per Senior we have been charging well below the average cost of membership of a National Governing Body.

Just to join in the numbers game. The Fell Runners Association is £16 per year which includes three copies of the excellent "Fell Runner" which is streets better than "Focus". Of course Fell running is run entirely by volunteer fell runners (indeed it is a requirement of committee membership to have completed 2 A standard races). perhaps we should be asking why it tales so many professional employees to administer a sport with relatively few members. Maybe cutting costs would be easier than raising revenue?

[SeanC]

For the benefit of this debate, can someone define what is meant in the minutes by "the core business of the NGB" (ie British Orienteering) that the price increase intends to fund?

[denbydale]

How much does it cost to send out hard copies of 'Focus'?

Surely it could be published electronically for those who want to read it