$49 fee for USATT membership

AcudaDave wrote: maybe the mag can include coupons for table tennis equip with some of the companies that advertise in it. Another problem for newbies forking over all that money for the membership and event fees is the fact they can't advance in their event! I did manage to talk 1 guy into purchasing a membership to sign up for the U1250. I gave him an estimated rating of 1200 and had him signup for the U1250. There were 3 people in his 1st stage RR, he won 1 match and lost to the top player. 2 people advanced, but not him because you can't advance if you've never played in a tournament before. So he paid $76 to play 2 matches! He was a good sport about it and plans to play in another tournament in the near future, but come on. If they receive an estimated rating from an experienced player they should be able to advance. I know some players will say it's not fair...they're much better...but it's also not fair if you don't get to advance out of your group after you've paid all that money.

qpskfec wrote: $76 to play 2 matches, what a great way to encourage participation. I pointed out this problem in another thread a while back, and many people, including some who are tournament organizers, basically said "too bad". For $76, the player could have gotten a 1 hr private lesson and entry fees into 3 RR events in LA.

He could have paid just $37.  He could have entered more events and in order to receive more value for either his one time pass or his membership fee as well as the Tournament processing fee. The event organizers could offer a discount to unrated players playing in rated events.  They could have larger round robins.

I'm a TD and I started offering a discount to unrated players in rated events partially due to issues like this that were raised online.

NextLevel wrote: At Westchester, they advance players with estimated ratings all the time and they often underestimate ratings so the players end up winning events they are too high to play in.

Yeah.  So the rated player doesn't advance because someone can't estimate ratings accurately.  Is that somehow more fair?  I don't think so.  I do think discounts to unrated players are fair because their upside is limited - there is less value in the event for them.

I guess I just don't get it.  Everybody might be faced with having to play in just one tournament where they can't advance in ratings based events.  Heck, in a four person RR you only have a 25% chance of advancing anyway.  And if you advanced as an unrated player, it would probably be because somebody estimated your rating too high.  Even in our tournaments (advance two), your odds are only 50/50.  It isn't that big of a burden. 

So you deal with it once (maybe) and then, for the rest of your ENTIRE LIFE - you don't have to suffer the injustice EVER AGAIN!!!

I do like the option of giving a discount to un-rated players since they won't be able to advance. I never really thought about it, but if we could do something like that for future tournaments that would probably be a good think to do.

j-bo wrote: Think you're missing the point of having lower fees. If you have lower fees, you should attract NEW players. Once new players come in and see how much fun it is, you hope to RETAIN them for years to come. As it is now, the retainage of new USATT tournament players is probably dismally low. Why? Cost most probably. If you ask around most clubs ( I know it is for ours), the number one reason for not playing a tournament is the $49 USATT membership fee, plus the $7 processing/rating fee...and only have 2 tournaments in the area per year. Otherwise, they need to pay for travel/lodging on top of those fees. Sure..most on here don't mind it, because they are already in love with playing in tournaments or see the purpose to benefit the USATT, etc. etc. But.. TT needs NEW BLOOD! We are having the same trouble in another sport too. Getting new people to participate and retaining those that are already in it. In this day and age, cost is everything and the "cost to benefit ratio" is what people are weighing a lot more to spend their disposable income on.

No, I got the point.  My point simply is that I don't think the overall reality is quite as your example suggests.  The $49 a year USATT membership is an impediment mostly for the players who only want to play one or two times a year.  And if that's your standard situation, then yes, the membership is an impediment because  these players can't amortize the membership cost over as many events.  If your situation is typical, then you may have a point.  If not, I think that paying the yearly membership mostly impedes just the players who aren't as likely to be a "regular customer" anyway. 

And furthermore, the club needs to deal with insurance.  Many tournaments may not be able to completely enjoy the entire benefits of cutting out that cost since they would need to acquire insurance somehow.  And finally, if the USATT doesn't collect membership fees, how does it survive?

This whole thing parallels another hobby of mine, i.e. cycling.  USA cycling has $60/year license fee that is required to participate in a Road/Track/Cyclocross/Mountain Biking sanctioned event.  In addition, race promoters have to pay USA cycling fees to run a sanctioned event.  Cyclists ask all the same questions as to whether they get something in return for paying these fees.

wturber wrote: And finally, if the USATT doesn't collect membership fees, how does it survive?

Who said not to collect membership fee's?

If $49 is a deterrent to A LOT of the gen. pop.......then lower the price.

The object is to build a bigger base of TT memberships.

The more members in your base, the more possibilities they will play in multiple tournaments, thus making up for the slight reduction in initial membership fee. However, it is also MORE LIKELY that they will return as a member year after year, thus retaining memberships.

Anyway...it is what it is. FWIW, I hope they don't do the stupid thing and raise membership fee's trying to recoup those fees they lose by those that leave each year.

You don't mind the fee's...but joe the club player obviously does, as does a lot of people who join for a year or maybe 2. They are not being retained. It doesn't matter to those that have TT in their blood.

Numbers?

Can only go by the ratings page:

Over the last year, there were 7147 players.

Of that, the current number of players are 5341.

Over the past 2 years, there were 10592 players.

Of that, the current number of players is 6006.

Over 5 year period, there were 20036 players.

Current number of players over this period is 6645.

Obviously.. something is wrong with the system. Lowering fee's could be a step in the right direction to retain those players that aren't rejoining.

Get sponsors to donate a coupon every month to members. $10% off, $10 off, $25 off of product or something in that realm would go a long way IMO.

Magazine..make it online only. That eliminates the cost of printing and mailing.

There really needs to be a grass roots USATT committee to get schools to institute table tennis programs. What I see the best bet, is to start at the middle school level and high schools. The costs of startup are not that astronomical, and once the tables are purchased (maybe can get companies to cut great discount rates too) the cost to keep the program are minimal in the grand scheme of things. This will get more people involved in TT, which will increase membership into USATT.

I'm sure there are others who have better suggestions to improve USATT membership.

AcudaDave said:  "This clearly shows that something needs to change. I also agree that the magazine should just be totally online. There is no need to send out an issue anymore. "

As someone who just joined USATT this past weekend in order to play local tournament, here is my perspective.

jt99sf wrote: Back in the day there used to be TT exhibitions by TT Clubs (ie  Jeff Mason - Sac TT Club) in shopping malls and trade shows.   Too bad those days are long gone.

Edited by skip3119 - 11/19/2013 at 2:07pm

I have updated my earlier post.

jt99sf wrote: skip3119 wrote: I have updated my earlier post. ========================= If on average, USATT can gain one new member from each exhibition, then USATT will only lose $1 ($50-$49=$1). If on average, USATT can gain more than one new member, let's say 1.1 new members, then USATT will be ahead financially. In the shopping Mall with a Sporting Goods Store, you can setup and use/promote their equipment.   This can be done w/o USATT's help.

Edited by skip3119 - 11/19/2013 at 2:54pm

j-bo wrote: If $49 is a deterrent to A LOT of the gen. pop.......then lower the price. The object is to build a bigger base of TT memberships. The more members in your base, the more possibilities they will play in multiple tournaments, thus making up for the slight reduction in initial membership fee. However, it is also MORE LIKELY that they will return as a member year after year, thus retaining memberships. Anyway...it is what it is. FWIW, I hope they don't do the stupid thing and raise membership fee's trying to recoup those fees they lose by those that leave each year.

The fees were raised a few years back in order to increase revenue.  If that had resulted in lower revenues, they'd surely have lowered them back to the previous level ... right?

skip3119 wrote: jt99sf wrote: Back in the day there used to be TT exhibitions by TT Clubs (ie  Jeff Mason - Sac TT Club) in shopping malls and trade shows.   Too bad those days are long gone. ================================== To promote TT, USATT can encourage this by subsidizing some cost.  Let's say, USATT can state that USATT will give your club $50, if your club will do a mall exhibition with onlookers of 50 or more.  (Have to have proof by taking pictures and certified by the attendees of USATT members.) Limiting each club can do this twice a year.  If the club does it the 3rd time, no subside for the 3rd time and onward.  Only USATT affiliated clubs are qualified for the subsidy. This way then USATT spends the money to promote the sport, the membership fee ($49) can get a return on the investment (ROI).  USATT will likely gain far more members to offset the cost. What do you guys think about this?  Good idea or bad idea?

Why would a club go to that much trouble for a mere $50?  Talk about a poor ROI.