There is a strange irony to all of this. Doesn't it seem weird to
try to find ways to reduce attendance? But that should in
principle be an easy thing to do. How about making everyone who
arrives dance the hokey pokey. Or make them do pushups. Or call
them nasty names at registration. Make them scrub all the black
gunk off the cones with a toothbrush. These all sound silly,
probably because of the inherent paradox of holding an event and
trying to get people to not show up for it.
It's a perfect example of the classic rationing problem in
economics. Demand exceeds supply. QED we are charging too little,
we need to charge more. But dollars are not the only way to
measure cost. Cost is a measure of disutility, which can be
expressed in dollars but also can be expressed in terms of time
or effort.
Why not "charge more" in the following way: either you work
additional groups, or you pay more, or some combination of the
above. For example, if you work only your required work group,
then you pay twice the admission. But for each extra group you
work, you reduce the price. If you show up in the morning and
work all day, you pay the normal price.
This way, people to whom the higher price would represent a
financial burden, can pay the same amount if they're willing to
work more. And people who choose to pay more and only work their
scheduled group, will help the SFR by increasing the budget.
Alternately, one could remove the option to pay extra and instead
simply require everyone to work multiple groups, else receive a
"DNW". Then you could regulate the level of attendance by
tweaking the additional work requirement up or down.
Do you think that would "work" ? The only downside I can imagine
is perhaps there just isn't enough work to keep everyone occupied
with additional work assignments. In that case bring your
toothbrush. . .
"Kelly, Katie" wrote:
>
> This is the best plan to reduce attendence that I've ever heard. In fact, if
> this passes, I'll be one of the first to leave.
>
> Katie
>
> > -----Original Message-----
> > From: Jerry Mouton [mailto:jerry@moutons.org]
> > Sent: Friday, September 01, 2000 1:51 PM
> > To: ba-autox@autox.team.net
> > Subject: Re: Attendance
> >
> >
> > OK, suppose we wanted to start trying out
> > the Mouton preoposal in this Slush series -- what would that
> > mean?
> >
> > - We would eliminate the Slush Series trophies for non-rookies.
> > - We would post event results for all, but there would be no points
> > standings kept for non-rookies
> > - We would make it clear that every non-rookie would
> > serve as an instructor for rookies.
> > - We would assign work positions rather than have them
> > be voluntary.
> > - We would recruit two rookie co-chairs for every event.
> > - Rookies who attended several events would be eligible to sign up
> > for the Championship series next year.
> > - I would become series coordinator
> > (if that's what people wanted)
> >
> > What would happen?
> >
> > We'd save the cost of some trophies. There would still be some
> > rookie trophies awarded.
> > Maybe some non-rookies interested in trophies would not
> > show up, or not as often.
> > Or, maybe very few non-rookies would show up, and the
> > turnout would be reduced somewhat.
> > Maybe we'd get even more first timers because of the
> > great new program for them.
> > Non-rookies who are there for the fun of running would
> > have a great time; those who love the competition
> > would feel unhappy, maybe not have so much fun.
> >
> > My prediction is that we'd lose some but not all of the
> > old timers. We would not get many more first timers,
> > just the normal number. There would be a moderate
> > reduction of turnout. We would be able to hold more
> > reasonable events as the days got shorter.
> >
> > Probably this would take a few events to get to its
> > final level as people find out they don't get trophies, must
> > instruct, etc.
> >
> > Let's do it, whaddaya say?
> >
> > Jerry
> >
> > Jerry Mouton mailto:jerry@moutons.org Laissez les bons temps
> > rouler!
> >
> > ----- Original Message -----
> > From: "Rich Urschel" <OSP13@attglobal.net>
> > To: "Kelly, Katie" <kkelly@spss.com>
> > Cc: <Smokerbros@aol.com>; <Sherry.Grantz@aspect.com>;
> > <ba-autox@autox.team.net>
> > Sent: Wednesday, August 30, 2000 3:45 PM
> > Subject: Attendance
> >
> >
> > > We have one month to figure out how we are going to
> > > manage the slush series. We have five months to figure
> > > out how we are going to manage the regular season
> > > next year. I suggest we separate the issues and focus
> > > on the more immediate one whiles reserving the right
> > > (as we always do) to do things entirely differently
> > > next year.
> > >
> > > Let's ask for registrar volunteers for slush only without
> > > obligating them to doing it for all of next year.
> > >
> > > We sold 100 memberships in four events. Assuming the
> > > 31 drivers out of 37 members ratio holds, that's 20 new
> > > drivers per event.
> > >
> > > Allowing a member to bring a non-member friend to
> > > drive would make a joke (lie) of our member only policy.
> > > We voted for members only. Let's stick to it or repeal
> > > it entirely.
> > >
> > > I agree with Charlie that not offering rookie classes
> > > will have little affect on slush attendance. It doesn't
> > > mean that all the rookies should run out and buy R
> > > tires, either. Think ease of learning on streets. Think
> > > street tire class. Think rain. Then decide.
> > >
> > > I suggest the following as an interim solution. Let's
> > > figure out how many drivers we can handle at GGF.
> > > Let's drop the rookie classes and recalculate the
> > > run groups to slightly more heavily load the
> > > morning groups. Let's close registration as usual,
> > > and determine whether we can handle any additional
> > > new members at that event, let's sign them up
> > > and evenly distribute them throughout the afternoon
> > > run groups.
> > >
> > > Dealing with rookies all at once will greatly reduce
> > > the effort required to accommodate them while making
> > > it much easier to get them whatever assistance they
> > > want/need. It sounds like we need to change the
> > > website in any case. When I asked last Sunday if any
> > > rookies were asking for help, the answer was "yes,
> > > many", but noone could tell me who they were. That's
> > > become the norm lately. At earlier events where we
> > > had sign up sheets we had rookies with multiple offers
> > > from instructors.
> > >
> > > We might also want to start thinking about no "WRG"
> > > in addition to only three runs and no fun runs unless
> > > time allows.
> > > Rich Urschel
> > >
> > >
> >
--
Michael R. Clements
mrc01@flash.net
Criminals prefer unarmed victims.
Politicians prefer unarmed peasants.
I am none of the above.
|