US Chess (previously known as USCF) has always been a financial struggle for what they can afford to do. There are so many things they could be doing, but they only have a bare bones budget financially. If you know some philanthropists who are looking for good ways to build community activities, try to connect them to US Chess so activities such as this can be funded.
Has there been any analysis to find root causes of this? A free form of advertising going unused has a readily fleshed out list of possible causes [it is not rocket science], but finding the actual causes of this takes some work that requires a modest amount of training/skill and takes time and effort besides the knowledge and brainstorming to build that list. That would be a great volunteer effort. Paid staff tends to be already overbooked, so now is your chance to put your time and free effort where your complaints are.
Dick
First, the US Chess budget is much better than in the past. Second, the cost of what I’ve advocated is minimal, and consequently the cost-benefit is likely large. Generally the cost would be the cost of whatever travel is involved, thus probably running $400-$1,000 per trip, so perhaps at most $4K annually. Such speaking engagements might also be encouraged at US Chess Nationals, and encourage other groups to attend there as well - thus becoming a part of the experience.
Further, once a plan is in place, one could easily imagine US Chess working with local representatives to carry that mission forward. If we have a knowledgable member in the Southwest, capable of speaking well for US Chess on a topic, that time and travel cost for a national library association meeting in Phoenix might well be much less.
The COST here is less in dollars, and more in terms of making a strategic plan that works to benefit grass roots organization.
Consider these interesting threads:
viewtopic.php?p=241283#p241283
viewtopic.php?p=226257#p226257
viewtopic.php?p=164213#p164213
viewtopic.php?f=5&t=19174&p=268260&hilit=+infrastructure#p268260
I’m not sure I understand Kevin’s plan, and new ED Carol Meyer is (prudently) staying away from the Forums, so she isn’t likely to be aware of this thread or others where ideas may have been suggested.
So, anyone who has a viable idea needs to put it in writing and send it to the ED.
I had selected an item in the list and how to understand that item:
“US Chess has already GOT a program for FREE online tournament announcements, most affiliates don’t use it.”
as a list is usually best addressed by a divide and conquer problem solving strategy. I don’t see that particularly needing travel. So I will look at your response bit by bit.
“First, the US Chess budget is much better than in the past.”
I heard they had qualified for the better grade of non-profit category, and I am glad they are doing better financially as a result.
Both people and organizations who have been in a very poor to destitute state for an extended time, tend to respond to better times in one of two ways. Either they want to spend it all quickly while they can, or they are very frugal and increase their spending in a very slow studied way while they see if it is transient or more steady state condition. Requiring each new thing proposed have almost a Harvard Business Case level of justification to be compared to the cases of other new things competing for committed budgets would be a great model to follow.
Doing low budget studies on how to make more effective already existing services and to understand them much better is also a real good business practice, part of an effective cost of doing business even. I saw the one I selected as in this category.
“Second, the cost of what I’ve advocated is minimal, and consequently the cost-benefit is likely large. Generally the cost would be the cost of whatever travel is involved, thus probably running $400-$1,000 per trip, so perhaps at most $4K annually. Such speaking engagements might also be encouraged at US Chess Nationals, and encourage other groups to attend there as well - thus becoming a part of the experience.”
Clearly this is not about the list item I selected, as it would not need travel to be done effectively. So it is not discussing what you selected to respond to. That muddies the waters for both your point and mine, and does not help your cause as much as it could as a result.
An organization should always look at making existing services more effective, and that is a different topic altogether from proposing new services. They are both good topics though. I wish you good luck during the refining stages of your proposals.
Dick
It appears that you are confused because you responded to two messages - my responses are with respect to the following exchange:
In this exchange, I was discussing - and you responded to - finding locations for clubs. My additional responses which noted potential costs and travel responded to this, and the quotes provided outlined background discussions around this topic and similar topics on providing an infrastructure for volunteers.
You seem to have gotten confused and thought that this was about your second response to a statement about tournament announcements. It wasn’t.
The point Mike, is simple. I’m arguing that the national office should make more of an effort to have an externally-facing presence.
US Chess could be meeting with, working with, speaking to, etc. external groups on a regular basis to promote chess. Done well, this should be relatively low cost.
We could be speaking to library associations, park district associations, school associations, college associations, civic groups, and helping our state associations to do something similar on a state level.
We should be inviting such organizations to participate in “forums” at various national events, thus making them part of the chess experience.
The point is to inform and education these groups about chess, the benefits of chess, the benefits of having a chess club as part of their group, the needs of such clubs, etc.
A simple example would be to make presentations to college, university, etc. groups to tell them how they can work well with chess clubs. For example, involving the local community with a college chess club should have the impact of enriching the typical college chess club, which would often have its student body population wax and wane, and which may not have the expertise to keep the club thriving and vibrant. The local community would provide resources - tournament directors, experienced players, chess education, etc. to keep the club consistently viable as a service to the college students. In return the local community would receive a consistent and viable site for a chess club and chess tournaments. And such a structure, while important to a college, would be even more important at a community college where student turnover occurs even more rapidly.
Another example is to talk to park district groups to educate them about chess clubs and why that is good for them, but also to learn from such groups as to how to better approach them in this evolving world to have a chess club.
In other words, we need to have a presence with other national groups. We need to interact with them. We need to learn from them and have them learn from us.
To the extent that understanding is increased, the ability to find locations for a chess club should be enhanced.
As an aside - I find nothing prudent in the ED ignoring member forums. In fact, it seems completely counterintuitive and a significant negative to my mind.
National and local civic groups do not want to be “educated” by an outside national organization who knows what is best for them. They especially will not listen to an organization that is driven to sell memberships as its core focus. Local chess leaders can find appropriate places for chess clubs if they get off their duffs and spend the time doing it. Research, schmoozing, and pounding the pavement take time and create more future contacts for local chess people than having the national organization make a one time presentation that is soon forgotten, with its brochures buried in files or thrown away. Continuous personal contact and reinforcement of relationships are more effective in the long run.
The USCF or US Chess has always promoted tournament chess and memberships. Despite the alleged culture change, what we in the hinterlands see is the USCF crying poor, pushing membership growth, and how it is budgeting. Chess promotion, social aspects of chess, chess education, etc. are all being done by other groups all over the country. If the USCF were to dissolve tomorrow, the folks in St. Louis, New York, and a lot of other places would get along just fine. They are promoting themselves and working hard in the vineyards to reinvigorate the game in ways the USCF has never dreamed of doing. Ideas have been given to the USCF before, more times than anyone can count. It doesn’t do much about them unless it can sell memberships because of the ideas. It is unproductive to think the USCF can generate ideas or solve local problems. Locals have to do it themselves and they usually do it better.
That’s why it depends on the committees and volunteers to create content.
Memberships are in fact the major way that US Chess finances operations. One does not bet the farm on a radical change if one is a prudent steward/trustee/fiduciary of an organization.
National organizations routinely exchange speakers, and are always looking for outside speakers to educate them about alternative ideas. I’m curious when you last attended meetings for any national organization, or worked with any national organization obtaining external speakers, or perhaps spoke at a meeting of a national organization? Do you have expertise in this area?
One works to create trends and information on a national level. People will tend to follow what they see nationally.
Check out the “Chess Outreach” committee. They have in the past connected and worked with other groups to promote chess. Is Kevin suggesting the office take over the duties and responsibilities of this committee??
Larry S. Cohen
Checking the 2017 and 2016 delegates calls, I saw no outreach to major organizations like the American Library Association, Association of College Unions-International, the Community College Association, National Recreation and Park Association, etc. If this is the goals of the Outreach Committee, then it isn’t clear from what they’ve been doing.
Oh, please. Give us a break. Everything said in the post before yours is spot on.
A suggestion: Why don’t you ask whatever committee would be tasked with cutting a deal for discounted club banners to contact a couple of national suppliers like Build A Sign buildasign.com/ about cutting a deal for all US Chess affiliated clubs to be given a discount on having club banners made for promotional purposes? Note: that does not mean subsidizing the club purchases. It might simply be enough for US Chess to highlight the deal on our web page.
And no, I’m not going to take on that task when there must be a US Chess committee that can be tasked with negotiating a deal and getting it approved by the EB.
Not holding my breath waiting for US Chess to actually help local clubs…