|
What is Terry's email address please.
----- Original Message -----
Sent: Monday, August 29, 2005 1:39
PM
Subject: Re: [Aus-soaring] A NEW APPROACH
TO GFA PROMOTION & MEMBERSHIP??
Robert Hart wrote:
> Mark Newton wrote:
>
>> Don't agree, Robert. The goals are already known;
Extensive
>> consultation with the members is going to deliver the
same outcome
>> we're already talking about here, namely that the
sport needs to be
>> grown.
>
> First of all, that is
only a part of the business plan. I grant you it's
> important, but
there's a great deal more that the GFA needs to be doing.
Wonderful. But I'm not sure that any of that justifies
roadblocking
membership building, which is something that we all agree
needs to be done.
If you want to debate the merits of the business plan
with the GFA,
be my guest. But that's not what we're talking about
here.
>> The particular ways in which it is grown aren't (or
shouldn't be)
>> important to the current members.
>
> I
disagree. If we set about trying to grow the organisation in a way
>
that is unacceptable to the existing membership in large enough numbers,
> we stand a good chance of killing the organisation.
You think
so?
We all like to fly, Robert. The overwhelming majority of us
don't
actually care about the administrative minutae of the GFA, as
long
as we get to do what we want to do.
Sure, if the GFA embarks on
a course of action which grows the sport
in a way that lots of people don't
like, then I accept that we might
lose that segment of the membership who
cares more about committees
and focus groups than they care about flying...
but the rest of us,
who just want to fly, will have a bit of a grumble
about how we don't
like it then strap ourselves back into the cockpit for
another launch.
We might say we care, but we don't really. We're just
happy to see
the job done, and we're head over heels with the fact that
it's being
done by someone who isn't us. Serious, industrial-strength
bitching
about the GFA is something we generally leave to other
people.
How many people do you seriously think would LEAVE GLIDING
because of
a disagreement over an action taken by our administrative
group? I don't
think I know anyone at all like that. How about
you? You must know
someone, because you have proposed the possibility
that (a) it's possible
for the organization to grow in a way that's
unacceptable for existing
members, and (b) enough existing members would
leave as a result of
that to kill the GFA altogether.
Both of those
points require justification. You can't just casually
throw them into
a discussion and expect anyone to swallow them as if
they were
factual. Serious question, Robert: Do you know anyone at
all
who'd give up gliding altogether over disagreement with a
marketing
campaign?
>> We all happen to fit in to
a
>> culture that says lots of time and not much money is an ok way
to
>> learn how to fly, otherwise we wouldn't be here.
>
> That is not true of all members.
True, but it's certainly the
case that almost all of the members who
have come through the system to
date *have* been like that, because
that's how the system has always worked
and if they didn't like it they
wouldn't be here. So I think my point
stands.
>> So our ideas about
>> the way to go about
this, as shaped by our personalities and
>> experiences are
automatically incompatible with the potential customer
>> base we're
talking about here.
>
> You are assuming that the membership is
incapable of thinking outside
> their own box.
Yes, Robert,
that's exactly what I'm assuming.
The reason I'm assuming that is
because there have been several thousand
of us collectively wringing our
hands about membership growth for *DECADES*
and none of us have been able
to come up with anything useful to make
an impact on it.
Despite the
fact that we've been in a state of declining membership for
over 20
YEARS(!) half of us can't even agree on what the problem is, let
alone come
up with anything realistic to fix it.
I'd love to be an optimist who
thinks that a useful outcome that benefits
the sport is able to be
generated out of the brains of the current members,
but I'm living in the
real world, and the real world features a GFA
populated by several thousand
members who have provided proof-by-demonstration
of the fact that they're
not very good at marketing.
We need outside help. Either that or
we're all seriously good at
marketing but our brains work so slowly that 20
years isn't enough time
to prove it. Which one do you think is more
likely?
>> In short, if GFA engaged in detailed consultation with
the members,
>> and the members recommended the particular direction
to take, then
>> the members would effectively sabotage the process
by recommending
>> a direction which was familiar and (for their
demographic) "tried
>> and true." The safe option is the one we
already have, because (for
>> us) it has worked.
>
>
There would, I suggest, not be any single direction - and that is the
>
aim of a consultative process in any planning exercise - to uncover as
> many ideas as possible.
We've been doing that for 20
years. Terry Cubley has been doing it
all over the bloody continent
for the last three years.
(which is another thing which annoys me about
your stance on this: GFA
is *already* performing a consultative
process, headed by Terry, and you
pretend it doesn't exist -- presumably
because you don't agree with the
way it's being conducted. It seems
to me that you'd prefer a consultative
process which talks to Robert Hart,
rather than a consultative process
which talks to GFA members
en-masse. What do you think Terry should be
doing but
isn't?)
>> Forget it. Just pay someone who really knows
what they're doing,
>> instead of relying on volunteers who *say*
they know what they're
>> doing.
>
> Consultants must
really love you - carte blanche and blank cheque time!
I'm thinking
about something more along the lines of an employee. Someone
who is a
trained professional, who knows what they're doing, and whose
continued
employment is tied to the success of steps they've implemented
to grow the
gliding community.
>> Yeah, great, if we want the whole process
to get bogged down in
>> bureaucracy for five years while half the
membership argues about whether
>> they've been consulted enough and
the other have bitches about the
>> fact that their responses to
consultation have been ignored, then
>> that might be a good
idea.
>
> Consultation is about finding out what people think.
Have you actually talked to Terry? He invites comment in every
article
he publishes in the mag, his email address is widely known, and I'm
willing
to bet he's visited your club on at least two occasions in the last
3
years. He's basically a consultative-process-on-legs. How
much easier
do you want it to be?
-
mark
--------------------------------------------------------------------
I
tried an internal
modem,
[EMAIL PROTECTED]
but it hurt when I
walked.
Mark Newton
----- Voice: +61-4-1620-2223 ------------- Fax: +61-8-82231777
-----
_______________________________________________
Aus-soaring
mailing list
[email protected]
To
check or change subscription details, visit:
http://lists.internode.on.net/mailman/listinfo/aus-soaring
|
