Increasing Non-member Fees: $5 --> $8

[bruce_brakel]

I'm just curious what other TDs think about the increase in non-member fees from $5 to $8 in 2006.

[wheresdave]

or even 10 dollars

[LouMoreno]

Is the intent to increase PDGA revenues, increase PDGA membership, or discourage non-member participation?

[rhett]

I'm just curious what other TDs think about the increase in non-member fees from $5 to $8 in 2006.

Has that been announced?

[sandalman]

just off the top of my head, $8 is starting to get up there. its a significant percentage of most lower division fees. i feel it is at the upper upper end of what would fly. and i would bet that at least a few non-members would not do it twice.

[slo]

If the local DGRZ didn't know, then I'm curious... proposed increase, or what?

[underparmike]

why not take a bad idea and make it worse? the PDGA's greed is relentless.

[cbdiscpimp]

Just another way to force you to buy a membership

Oh wait I mean just another reason to be a member......ummm well you know what I mean

[slo]

It might be an incentive to join, for some. Are membership 'dues' set-to increase?

[ck34]

These are not member fees but NON-member fees. I believe in several sports only members can enter. So, relative to joining the org for $40 or not playing, I wouldn't think $8 is an unreasonable option, especially when you can also get a 3-month trial membership for $10 instead.

[slo]

Youse aboves Two must think the organization will just waste the $$, despite being Pro-PDGA, methinks...[?]

[wheresdave]

how about a twenty dollar a year fee for posting on the thread for non memberand raise the non-member entry fee to 6 dollars Grunion would love that [img]/msgboard/images/graemlins/smirk.gif[/img]

[gnduke]

3 month trial membership for $10 ?

Isn't that $5 now ?

[dave_marchant]

If the non-member rates are increased and membership dues for first-time joiners was cut in half, I think that might be the best of all worlds for increasing membership, covering operating costs, and growing event attendance.

IMO, $8 is only pocket change more than $5, but it "feels" like a much steeper price to pay just for the privilege of participating in a PDGA event. Not sure that the semi-casual golfer will feel the value proposition of $8 on top of the entry fee will be worth it. Many struggle with justifying the $5 adder today.

[cbdiscpimp]

I will prolly be a member for the rest of my life. I like watching my stats and rating improve and I will continue to pay for that untill I see a great reason otherwise.

Just because I dont agree with the PDGA doesnt mean I dont think the membership is worth it.

Heck I would prolly pay 50 or 75 a year if I had to.

[neonnoodle]

There is no $5 or $8 non-member fee, only a $5 or $8 member discount.

Why you guys always got to be player hatin'?

[gnduke]

If it's a $5-$8 discount, our payout calculations are way off.

[cbdiscpimp]

There is no $5 or $8 non-member fee, only a $5 or $8 member discount.

Why you guys always got to be player hatin'?

What are you talking about???

[dave_marchant]

I think he is poking fun at the semantics game that TD's play with advertising late registration fees. Instead of the penalty for slackers (feels negative and punative), they word it as a savings for the people who take initiative and pre-register (sounds positive and rewarding).

Positive marketing spin versus negative. reward versus punishment. Same effect though.

[slo]

There is no $5 or $8 non-member fee, only a $5 or $8 member discount.

It sure seems like a fee to a Director, if you have to pass that $$ collected, on to the PDGA. But it's considered a discount for which the non-member player is not eligible...right?

[neonnoodle]

If it is going up I hope the $3 difference goes to the the local club.

[rhett]

There is no $5 or $8 non-member fee, only a $5 or $8 member discount.

Currently, it is neither. Only PDGA members are allowed to play in PDGA sanctioned events, and the $5 non-member fee is technically a temporary and restricted membership that lasts for the duration of that tourney.

[slo]

If the non-member rates are increased and membership dues for first-time joiners was cut in half, I think that might be the best of all worlds for increasing membership, covering operating costs, and growing event attendance.

I'm for those last 3 goals as well, but will half-price cover the one-time gifts, and the Magazine subscription? That's one slick publication; it's a selling point, too.

[slo]

If JoeDiscGolfer has to pay $16 for a temp membership for 'just' two tourneys, $20 for a six-month window sounds pretty inviting. Sent 'em two DGWNs to seal-the-deal and I see a renewal.

...give 1st-Time Renewals the regular gifts.

[bruce_brakel]

I don't know if it has been "announced." It has been voted on and passed unanimously by our Board and published in their minutes. I guess I'm announcing it.

I'm still not sure what to think of this. For the non-member does it make joining more attractive, or does it make playing unsanctioned tournaments more attractive?

[rhett]

I don't know if it has been "announced." It has been voted on and passed unanimously by our Board and published in their minutes. I guess I'm announcing it.

Is this a nugget from the magazine that I don't have yet, or am I missing a link to web-published minutes.

[sandalman]

For the non-member does it make joining more attractive, or does it make playing unsanctioned tournaments more attractive?

the reason for your confusion is that it does neither.

what it does for the non-member is make playing sanctioned events less attractive.

[bruce_brakel]

Thank you. That clarifies everything.

At our last tournament we filled to fivesomes on the Rec-Int day and half were non-members.

[slo]

What happens next season, though; any guess? Will fewer play?

[sandalman]

i'm not sure if you are agreeing or not.

question: did you charge the $8 fee?

this is a classic marginal rate of substitution case. the only thing certain from the data given (that the price of one component of a basket of goods, ie sanctioned event price is going up) is that the affordability of the sanctioned event will go down. assuming that players are already behaving rationally in economic terms, their only choice is to substitute non-sanctioned events for the newly more expensive sanctioned events.

they COULD mitigate the change by sacrificing events and subtituting with a PDGA membership... but to pull that off would require an outreach to the non-member that convinces them that their satisfaction level will be maintained or increased by playing less events until their membership is paid for.

i could draw out all the graphs i spose.

so much depends on what the pdga is trying to accomplish with this change. economics indicates that increased event participation is not the objective. increased membership COULD be the objective, but success would require a marketing campaign focused on non-members who turn up at sanctioned events. the absence of such a campaign would indicate that the decision is more of a spaghetti on the wall exercise and not a serious business decision.

other factors that COULD come into play include:
availability of events within a player's willing-to-travel range;
willingness of a player to accept less of some other non-disc related activity in order to maintain the same level of disc golf participation;
non-members as a group experience an increase in their income and allocate a portion of their increase to disc golf