New Levy proposals

[Blanka]

For a start, why does it spend so much money producing an ever-expanding glossy magazine, when most of us subscribe to Compass Sport and could do without Focus altogether.

I disagree with you there. British Orienteering has a responsibility to communicate with its members, and cannot assume everyone will *pay for* a magazine to be made aware of internal announcements/rule changes/etc. - I know plenty of BOF members who do not get Compass Sport.

Perhaps it might be possible instead to send FOCUS out in PDF format as a trial to those who would agree to this?

[EddieH]

I agree 100% with Mike G. For those with long memories BOF nearly went bankrupt some years ago, and one of their significant economies was to slash the production costs of "The Orienteer" magazine. It became so flimsy in content at Ned Paul introduced CompassSport.
After a short period of having 2 magazines, CompassSport incorporated "The Orienteer" with BOF notices. As this was a commercial magazine BOF needed to send out brief information sheets to everyone. This became "Focus" which was fine as a cheaply produced information system.

CompassSport is a brilliant production. Many orienteers do not choose to pay for it. Why do they have to pay for a rather glossier magazine that goes to everyone, (many I am certain unread)? For you can be SURE we all ARE paying for it. A production of this quality cannot be cheap to produce - not just the glossy paper but the time involved in creating sucha high quality lay-out and finish must be very substantial.

Return "Focus" to being a cheaply produced information document toimpart both important information as well as plaudits.

Blaka's idea of a PDF version is excellent, but not in my mind of the current OTT version, merely to save money on all e postage and printing.

[gwynfryn]

With Sport Relief on Sunday my club was asked if we wanted to do something, publicity wise. I stepped up and am dusting down the display boards, have downloaded some Tierry videos to link up the projector and screen to the laptop, will set up the club tent, raise nice new sail banners. That's all well and good but I got our mapper to do a quick map the area encompassing the Sport Relief arena, and I'm going to put out about 10 controls (pin punch), so 'joe public' can have a quick go at 'O' and when they have done that give them a map of the nearest POC and some flyers about the sport. Not forgetting to get their name and email address for follow correspondence for our introductory POC series. So my question is (although I think I know the answer) should I register this very informal event ? (I think yes - but as what). It will be free so there will be no levy (hopefully) to pay. I have no idea how many people will turn up but best guess is 1000+, so I'm hoping for about 250 to have a quick go of 'O' before doing their 1 mile run.

[Mrs H]

I think the thing about Focus which concerns me is the fact that it now appears to be edited entirely by Caroline Povey - and a very good job she does of it too - but as our part time marketing manager - how much time does that leave her to market our sport to the outside world? Focus looks great these days - but to what extent is it - and the glossies detailing our elites' successes - preaching to the converted. ( and yes BOF does need some form of communication with its members and pdfs are a great idea to save printing costs - but there is also the editor's time to be paid for).

i would like to see Caroline devoting her time to marketing the sport to outsiders - perhaps by sending articles to a broader range of specialist and general interest magazines (such as the ones you get free at supermarkets or the ones aimed at parents of young children etc etc). i had assumed that Caroline was the professional who was "got in" to do it when my voluntary offer was turned down.

[graeme]

So my question is (although I think I know the answer) should I register this very informal event ? (I think yes - but as what).

ERP1. Gwynfryn doesn't sound very Scottish, but do take one of ours.

http://www.scottish-orienteering.org/index/soa/page/event-registration-forms/

How sad it is that I know this stuff

Graeme

[LostAgain]

Our club Treasurer (Past & Present) have just circulated this (Speaks for itself!):

BRITISH ORIENTEERING – NEW LEVY PROPOSAL

Most EBOR members will be aware that the Club pays a levy to British Orienteering Head Office after each event. The payment works like a “tax” on the revenue from the event, and like “real tax”, is calculated in an increasingly complicated way.
Also like “real tax”, there seems to be a continuing drive to increase revenue from this source, and a significant change (i.e. increase) is proposed at the present time.
In summary, the new proposals make very small events (less than 75 participants) levy free, and apply an intermediate charge on medium sized events (76 to 250 participants). The full charge is made for events that have more than 250 participants.
This may all seem fair enough – after all prices and costs are increasingly in our sport as well as everywhere else. EBOR’s increase amounts to 43% on the current charge (based on our 2006/7 events) – an additional £1900, that will need to be recovered in increased entry fees – about 50p for seniors and 25p for juniors.
However the new scheme heavily penalises well attended small scale events, and our popular summer score league for schools is especially badly hit.
The impact on the various types of events held by EBOR is as follows:
type Actual levy paid Total Participants Proposed future levy Difference %
District £728 1358 £1314 £586 80%
Local £0 235 0 £0 0%
Night £0 64 0 £0 0%
Regional £3,632 2432 £4286 £653 18%
Schools £87 951 £751 £663 755%
Total £4,449 5040 £6352 £1,903 43%
EBOR levy calculations on existing and proposed new schemes – based on 2006/7 events programme

I find this table a little depressing, as it is clear that the new charges hit hardest at the lower grades of event – so newcomers at small events will get the biggest impact.
There seems little doubt that we will have to look at increasing entry fees at all events and especially at Summer Score events – probably raising the junior entry fee above the £1 threshold. On the other hand, the keen regular orienteers are least effected – regional events being impacted the least!
Is this really what British Orienteering had in mind? They claim that the new rules are designed to generate an increase of 3% on current income levels. This seems hard to believe based on our statistics. Even if the disproportionate impact of our Schools League is discounted, we still get a 28% increase.

[SeanC]

Having publically stated that I agree with the principle of levies at local events I hope I wont annoy too many people by publically continuing to defend it.

I sympathise with clubs such as EBOR, SO, WCOC who's local event fees will be affected, but a few things are obvious.

- Financially we get a good deal from BOF. Levies and membership fees of 206K are only a fraction of BOF's total revenue (£859K)
- Membership of approx 10,000 and income from levies of 122K = approx £12 per year per person. Since we are to have this tax based on consumption, why should the experienced orienteer who goes to 10 regional/district events subsidise the experienced orienteer who goes to 20 local events? BOF benefits all events.
- Reducing expenditure is easier said than done, could easily cost more in the long run (by reduced membership) and would lead us more dependant on grants and changes in government policy.
- £12 per year is a fraction of most orienteers total spend on the sport - even those that stay local.

As I havent got any evidence to suggest otherwise, I trust that those at BOF have got the balence between income and expenditure right - including on Focus, though given the history maybe some would want the cost of Focus in the annual report?

I sympathise with the EBOR treasurer in several ways. Firstly it would be preferrable if newcomers paid either reduced or no levy. Some on this forum have suggested making beginners courses levy free - it would be nice if there was a workable way of doing this. This would also reduce the impact on juniors and schools. Secondly those used to low fees on their local courses may need some time to get used to increased fees - so maybe clubs without sufficient reserves could have some form of parachute payment to avoid a big percentage increase in the first year?

The way I would see it is that local orienteers are being asked to give money to BOF to invest in more local orienteering. I think it's a reasonable request and we should view this positively.

[Wayward-O]

SeanC, I understand your arguements, but think that the result of the proposals on events could be drastic. For a start, clubs will not organise unprofitable events. If an event is profitable with, say, 150 competitors but unprofitable with 250, then I can see clubs taking steps to limit attendance by only printing 150 maps or only advertising an event within the club. If schools' leagues are not profitable, then some clubs will stop organising them. The impact of these actions could also reduce the number/quality of events organised and reduce the recruitment of new orienteers. A result of such actions could see clubs losing ClubMark status or stopping the progression towards achieving it.

This may be viewed as very pessimistic, but the cost impact of the changes on some types of event is draconian.

[SJC]

Whilst it is evident that the total levy payable on some introductory events will increase, it also appears that the levy on many of the Regional Events will go down.

Clubs already subsidise one type of event from another. If they didn't then why is there such a marked difference in cost between a National Event at £11.00, Regional Event at £9.00, District Event at £5.00 and Local event at £2.00 when you now get pretty much the same in terms of pre-marked maps, electronic punching, etc. at each ?
(and the current levy structure doesn't account for anywhere near all of the difference).

With the new levy structure clubs will have to decide for themselves if they want to carry on subsidising their introductory events, or actually make all their events more closely reflect the real cost of staging them.

[Adventure Racer]

The impact of these actions could also reduce the number/quality of events organised and reduce the recruitment of new orienteers.

Well there is a comment in the justification for the changes that they may result in changing the number / type of events being organised, so they do obviously appreciate that point

I can only assume given LostAgain's figures and the statement about it only resulting in an overall increase of 3% that some (many?) clubs will see a decrease in the amount of levy they pay - presumably because they currently organise high status events with poor attendance. Question has to be whether they should be encouraged to run such events (as will be the case with the change in levys) whilst other clubs will be discouraged from holding lower level events which are well attended.

[graeme]

Question has to be ...

Why do you assume increased levy on low-quality events will kill participation, while reduced levy on
high-quality events wont help?

Similiarly, why assume that clubs are motivated by a desire to maximise income? The biggest "cost"
of staging an event is the time of the organising club - a glance at any professional-run event shows
thats worth £10-20 per participant. Clubs will continue to run the events their members WANT to put on,
because volunteer willingness, not levy cost, is the limiting factor.

Where does the sport need recruits? Looking at the 5 M21s (2 long 3 short) and 3 W21s (2/1) at SOL1
(the only pre-JK/BOC regional in Scotland, with about 300 total) I think the answer is clear...

[RJ]

Having publically stated that I agree with the principle of levies at local events I hope I wont annoy too many people by publically continuing to defend it.

SeanC, you are stating the status quo.... there is already levy on the informal events, it is 25p/£1.10. We pay levy on our informal events, and with the present fee structure we make a small surplus, which helps to buy new SI equipment etc. Increasing to £1.50/£1.50 will stifle the economics of the events. Now.... the obvious answer is to increase the entry fee structure. This will undermine the ability of the club to sell the sport to the general public. It is most important that 'introductory' O is as cheap as we can keep it, after all it will take more than five events (and probably more) before you can expect the newcomers to join the sport and enter the mainstream.

Graeme, you are quite right that the highest cost of the event is in the 'input' from the volunteers. But with our series of events, you plan one event and you get another seventeen to attend. Your arguement is a nonsequitor to the question of levies.

The current system is perfectly adequate and generates levy as it should. The informal event does not have high BOF input. Probably just insurance. Courses are often planned to guidelines generated by the club, on maps that may not have been through the registration process, and are not slotted into any convoluted fixture structure; and are the breeding ground for the next generation of organiser/planner and controller, providing free tuition.

The informal event is the base of the pyramid in so many respects. If you want a well populated top end, a healthy elite squad, good JK's and BOC's then you must nurture those entering the sport at the bottom. Now, if you think that involves taxing them then you are quite mistaken. A strong influx of newcomers at the base of the pyramid creates new membership (income) and new competitors for the C4/C3/C2 events (income).

[distracted]

It is most important that 'introductory' O is as cheap as we can keep it, after all it will take more than five events (and probably more) before you can expect the newcomers to join the sport and enter the mainstream.

Apologies in advance for going a bit off topic...

Is the first part of the above statement true for everyone? I can see it being true for juniors/families, but not for everyone. For example, to encourage potential participants in one dwindling class - M/W21 - some might argue that the low fees are suggestive of a "low quality" or "inferior" event, after all what else can you get for 2 or 3 quid nowadays? We have to ask why adventure racing, triathlon etc have many young adults/professionals doing these events and willing to pay the entry fees that are charged. Look at the success of the "Orientator" run at Hawley & Hornley not so long ago - I think we need more of this sort of event to attract a different crowd into the sport in the 21/35/40 age groups that wouldn't necessarily be attracted otherwise. And judging by the comments given after the Orientator, for some it may only take one event...

[RJ]

....... to encourage potential participants in one dwindling class - M/W21 - some might argue that the low fees are suggestive of a "low quality" or "inferior" event, after all what else can you get for 2 or 3 quid nowadays? We have to ask why adventure racing, triathlon etc have many young adults/professionals doing these events and willing to pay the entry fees that are charged. Look at the success of the "Orientator" run at Hawley & Hornley not so long ago - I think we need more of this sort of event to attract a different crowd into the sport in the 21/35/40 age groups that wouldn't necessarily be attracted otherwise. And judging by the comments given after the Orientator, for some it may only take one event...

Look at the photo of the start of the Rat Race in CompassSport magazine, page 46 in the Mountain Marathon Review..... that's why they pay £60 or whatever. Adventure racing etc are all, virtually, one off races. You train and prepare for it.... bit like a marathon itself. Orienteering isn't like that.

One part of O that does attract M21s is Night-O. A special challenge. We've certainly found an increase in participation.

[awk]

Quite a lot of the discussion seems to focus on the regional event levy going down, and discussing the relative merits of high/low quality events and their levy. All these are using the current event structure as the basis for their discussion. If the new event structure goes ahead, then these points are pretty much pointless.

For starters, the regional event in its current form won't exist, so their levy can't go down. The new level 2 will incorporate most of those events which would have been regional, but also many events that would have been larger district events. They will be levied based on event size. Many of what were previously small regional events probably shouldn't have been regional events: as a result they were probably over-levied from what they should have been. Now they are being levied on their size, the levy is probably more appropriate, and hopefully (!) event fees will reflect that (unless clubs try to use them to subsidise other events).

Equally, the levy has no relationship to the quality of event, either now or in the future, not least because the regional/district distinction doesn't either.

I think the main area of concern is that the new levy structure implies that the bigger the event, the more expensive the entry fee can be, equating size with quality/cost?? That doesn't allow for larger events that are, for whatever the club's reason, aimed at being low cost. Given that the Ebor is not alone in facing 40%+ rises in levy fees (mine does too), it does look as if some rebalancing may be needed, otherwise there is a danger that what appears a fair enough principle is given a very rough ride when it comes to AGMs.