Discussion: Proposed By-Laws Changes

At the Annual General Meeting (AGM) at the Tahoe meet, changes in the By-Laws will be voted on. These changes in membership will allow OUSA more flexibility in getting our insurance and make things easier for our member clubs and also help to grow our sport.

In short, the changes in the membership categories will give OUSA three different membership classes, regular, associate and day. Regular members will have the same benefits as they presently have. A new class of membership, Associate Membership, will be given to all members of our "member" clubs. If you join UNO, you will automatically be an associate member of OUSA. (Of course if you are a regular member of OUSA, this will not change your status as a regular member.) Associate memberships will be given at no cost to the clubs. This level of membership will not give reduction in A-Meet fees or ONA but these members can, if they choose, get the OUSA enewsletters. Having all club members "associate members" of OUSA will mean that no extra paperwork will be needed for this group of people. The third membership level is the Day Membership which, depending on the insurance policy that OUSA has, may be required of all people who are not members of OUSA or a member club.

The other By-Law change involves allowing "for profit" groups to work under the OUSA umbrella.

More information can be found on the OUSA website including a more complete discussion of why these By-Laws should be changed and also documents showing the changes that are proposed.

This sounds good. Thanks for the update!

This discussion has not been very active. Either everyone is happy with the changes or the idea of sitting down with by-law is not anyone's idea of fun so no one has looked at them. It would be best, however, if questions were asked so that the changes can be clarified before the AGM. It would be nice to know the discussion points so we don't have hours of discussion (when people would rather be doing other things).

I'd be much more likely to read through the proposed by-laws if you posted a link to them here... (Yes, I'm too lazy to go hunt for them on the OUSA website.) :-)

Thanks, Janet!

PDF Page 1, fourth paragraph: "...club members will automatically be Associate Members of OUSA so they don’t need to sign anything extra [at local meets]. If this is passed at the AGM, this would take effect immediately. The only people who would need to sign anything extra would be the non-members who come to meets."

I'm confused about the phrase "sign anything extra". Does this mean that a member of RMOC doesn't have to sign any waiver whatsoever at our local meets? (RMOC uses the OUSA waiver as our standard waiver at local meets, by the way. We don't have an attorney to draft a waiver specifically for RMOC...)

Or does it just mean that a club member wouldn't have to sign an RMOC-specific waiver (if we had one) AND the OUSA waiver?

And -- assuming the bylaws changes are approved, can we now have a year-long OUSA waiver for RMOC members / OUSA Associate members, to cut down on the paperwork at local meets? (I was previously told (by Peter) that we could not have a year-long version of the OUSA Day-member waiver.)

PDF Page 3, Section B (and also on PDF page 4, Section B):

1. Regular Individual Membership
2. Associate Membership
3. Day Membership

For consistency, I would either remove the word "Individual" from the first item OR add it to the second and third items.

PDF Page 5, Item 2: "As soon as names and local membership fees have been registered with a member club chartered by the Federation, those club members are automatically granted Associate Membership in the Federation at no additional cost to the member club."

Will local clubs need to submit member names to OUSA? That would be easy for RMOC to do on a regular monthly basis, because we have a membership database that I update all the time. But I'm not sure if it would be as easy for other clubs...?

PDF Page 5, Item 3-b: "Records of these Day Memberships must be kept by the Club for the same amount of time that waivers are kept. This includes a running total of Day Memberships given during the year, those people who are neither an Associate or a Full member."

OK, ouch, this sounds onerous. Do I need to cross-reference our results list against our membership list after every local meet to get these totals? Even though both lists are in a database, there's no clear-cut way for me to link results records to membership records without a lot of tedious and manual data entry. Especially when, say, an RMOC member runs as a team with a non-member (that would be one line item in our results table; how would I use a query to automatically extract the fact that one person in the team is an Associate member and one is a Day member? I don't think that's possible to do unless it's a manual process).

Or, when a group of non-members (aka Day Members) runs as a team with a generic name like "Team Awesome"? Yes, they have signed the paper waivers with their REAL names, but how would I know to count them as Day members in our results data in an automated fashion?

A requirement for hand-counting this data would be a deal-breaker. It's not something I'd want RMOC's limited volunteer resources to spend any time on. But maybe I'm misunderstanding this requirement?

I will answer the questions of the last post in order:

The normal liability statement will need to be signed by people according to the normal club procedures but there will be no extra verbiage associated with becoming OUSA Day members if you are a member of a club. The "sign anything extra" is related to the day membership issue. A club's previous waivers will work for regular members. The "year-long" waiver will be valid for members of clubs if that is how a club deals with their waivers in general.

It may be that the word "individual" should be removed because family members are also included. With regard to Associate Memberships, they are given to any member of a local club and because different clubs have different categories for membership (family, life, or whatever), anyone who is a member of a club is automatically an associate member.

Names of members are kept by the clubs and the OUSA charters are given (and charge) for the number of members. The assumption would be that clubs keep their records and, if needed for insurance purposes, could indicate if a particular individual is a member of the club.

Most clubs charge extra for non-members with the idea that if they pay for a membership, they will not have to pay the "extra" fees. UNO have lines on their form for the number of "members" and "non-members" which helps to explain the fees charged for participants. This number is provided to the treasurer and, therefore, is easy for UNO to tabulate. I am not sure if this occurs at other clubs but the registration process should take this into account. It would not be visible in the "results" lists. An easy solution to the day membership for "non-club members" is just to include this as part of the extra fee paid by non-members. If it is stated in the registration form, it is fine.

When a group of non-members goes out, their real names should be recorded. If their real names are recorded (not just a nick name such as "o-ing group ") the club will be covered. A "group start" is counted as one start but those whose names are included on that start are "day members". Also realize that if a group "leader" such as a scout leader or family friend is taking minors out, they can sign for the names in the group as the "responsible adult".

Thanks, Peter. All of this sounds good, except for the last bit, which still gives me serious heartburn for the following reasons:

1. The OE2003 e-punch timing software only allows 40 characters for names. We're never going to fit all actual individual names for groups / teams into OE2003 (rather than, say, "Troop 365"), and OE2003 is what we use to generate results. I can't think of any good (efficient, easy) way to link OE2003 records to a stack of paper waivers collected by an ever-changing cast of registration volunteers who have varying levels of attention to detail.


2. Your UNO process wouldn't work for us because RMOC charges per start, not per person. (That is, a team of two pays the same entry fee as an individual -- plus an additional $3 if they want an extra map for the second team member.)
   
   Also, all Juniors <21 get the same discounted entry fee whether or not they are RMOC members. (Our board decided years ago that this is easier than trying to administer group memberships for school groups, scout groups, etc.)
   
   And, we never write down individual transaction amounts at the registration table -- we just stuff the cash into an envelope and count up the total at the end. (We've tried writing down individual transaction amounts in the past, but that results in a huge line of people waiting at the registration table.)

Our registration process is already confusing enough (member vs. non-member, adult vs. Junior, non-member beginner course vs. non-member on any other course, e-punch rental or not, etc.) -- and that's after we've automated as much as possible based on our very basic online pre-registration form (name, email & course) linked to our membership database (when applicable).

We've designed our registration process to have as little hand-writing of data as possible, so we can be fast and efficient at moving people through the line.

Having to do additional manual administrative work, either at the registration table or after-the-fact when we have ~50 other unfinished, more important club projects, is NOT something I would support (even though I do support the general gist of the bylaws changes).

Thanks for your detailed reply.

The way the propose By-Law are supposed to work is to have only "non-members" have to become, in some way, day members of the club or of OUSA. Our present insurance requires it and it may be that policies in the future will, too.

There needs to be some mechanism for having them become day members. This may be a stated policy by the club, it may be having that verbiage in the forms/waivers that people sign but somehow, they have to be members of OUSA to be insured. Being a day member of RMOC, for instance, would work. The names of all people going out must be included and I would suggest that if a team goes out and their names aren't recorded somewhere with someone signing the waiver for them, then the waiver is meaningless. The names must be collected and saved. Keeping track of the number of non-member starts (group or individual) can be as simple as making a mark on a piece of paper for every start. I will add that some clubs don't charge extra for members of other clubs but if the person is a member of another club, they would be an associate member.

With regard to the keeping of the names, the number of insurance claims is very small (at the moment vanishingly small) so the names can be kept in hard copy and don't need to be changed into any digital form. If needed, these can be dug out in the same way that the waivers could be dug out if needed.

With all respect to club volunteers, clubs are getting an insurance product priced well below open market. (I am aware of anecdotal evidence of open-market quotes comparable to what clubs pay Orienteering USA, and I'll believe this evidence once a club actually enters into an insurance agreement and pays the rumored amounts; my strong guess is that these quotes are not for the same level of coverage that Orienteering USA provides.) With this, Orienteering USA gets to specify the reporting and filing requirements.

I'm not disputing the need for the day memberships, or the need for all individual members of a group / team to sign a waiver. I totally get that, and RMOC already requires all members of a group / team to sign individual waivers.

My point is that, right now, EVERYONE at our local meets signs the same OUSA waiver, and there's no way to distinguish (or count) members from non-members just by looking at a signed waiver.

My beef is with the apparent new requirement to count and track the non-member waivers (which look identical to the waivers signed by members). There's not an easy way to do it within RMOC's current registration process.

Peter, it sounds like you're saying that we can just throw all the intermingled waivers into a box for the required storage period (two years?) in case they're ever needed, without any counting or reporting of totals to OUSA -- and that would be 100% fine with me.

But, this phrase in the proposed bylaws implies that a more precise tracking method will be required: "a running total of Day Memberships given during the year".

T/D, of course they get to specify the requirements, but they also asked for our input prior to finalizing the requirements.

I think this is a case where a requirement that sounds good in theory based on one club's experiences (UNO) is not realistic for other clubs that might have different processes in place and / or fewer volunteer resources handling different magnitudes of starts (20-30 starts for UNO vs. 100+ for RMOC).

Colored paper?

I might look at the by-laws if I lived in the USA but even then it'd be unlikely.

Yeah, colored paper or a check box on the form. But it's yet another step that has to be explained to the volunteers to administer correctly, and then the people in line have to be reminded / monitored in order to do it correctly, someone has to inventory two different forms before every meet to be sure we have enough of each version, etc.

And, depending on when this proposed change takes effect, it'll be the third time this year that we've changed the registration process, based on evolving OUSA requirements. None of it is impossible, it's just a pain.

It sounds easy and obvious to some of us, but you'd be amazed at how confused some people seem to be by the simplest of registration processes, and how many different ways they can find to screw it up. For example, people who check "Team" AND "Male" for Class on the registration card. (I guess that means they're a team of males?) People who select multiple courses on the same registration card where it says "choose one" (because they think they'll be able to complete Green and Red on the same day). People who ignore the phone number and car description fields (even though they're bolded and underlined). Etc.

Even the question "Are you a club member?" confounds some people. I heard this response on Saturday: "Ummm, I think so? I was a year or two ago, maybe?" Sigh. I can export and print the latest membership list from our database prior to each meet so that we can double-check for people who don't know -- but that'll be after I've already created: the pre-registration list with entry fees calculated for each person according to membership status, age, course selection, and e-punch rental; the OE2003 import file with pre-assigned SI numbers for rentals; the pre-printed start cards for people who pre-registered; the Meet Director's financial summary form; our "request for invoice" form for school groups; etc. Why not add one more thing to the Registrar's pile of work that often wraps up at around 2 am the day before a meet?

Whatever. We'll do our best even though it'll probably be imprecise.

Your UNO process wouldn't work for us because RMOC charges per start, not per person. (That is, a team of two pays the same entry fee as an individual -- plus an additional $3 if they want an extra map for the second team member.)

Making the additional map compulsory is a good idea.

I hope people can sign the same sheet for waivers (petition style) rather than one name per page. Then a Y/N option box on each line to indicate membership wouldn't be a big, big deal (with the reg slip separate, members using their regular SI should only really have to pay and sign the waiver, not fill out any other forms).

I'm impressed by people with the stomach to deal with this stuff.

Neil, the waivers cannot be signed petition-style. (That's what RMOC used to do, until the OUSA waiver verbiage quadrupled in length recently...)

Even with a smallish 10-point font, there's not room for more than one signature on the new OUSA waiver.

The mandatory map thing for teams is a separate issue that's not worth debating again within our club -- and seeing a $3 extra map fee (if that were even recorded somewhere) wouldn't tell us anything about membership status, anyway.

Having a yes / no checkbox for membership status sounds obvious and wouldn't be a big deal IF people actually knew their membership status. (Other than our hard-core regulars, many of our occasional attendees do not know their membership status.)

members using their regular SI should only really have to pay and sign the waiver, not fill out any other forms

Not necessarily. For people who pre-register for RMOC local meets, 95% of the necessary info is pre-printed on their start cards (I spend a couple hours mail-merging our start-card labels before each meet) -- but they still have to fill in their vehicle information and also sometimes their phone number (if we don't have it in our membership database because they didn't provide it on their membership form!!!).

And there are ALWAYS people who fail to pre-register for our local meets. Those people have to fill out a card to indicate their course and class for that day whether or not they have an SI stick. (We have plenty of regulars with their own SI sticks who vary their course and class from one meet to the next -- sometimes Red, sometimes Green, sometime Male / Female, sometimes a Team with their kids, etc.)

Do they get a mortgage with that? I phased out after the first sentence.

The added verbiage was only two sentences and could have been done with that statement at the top of a page where people sign on lines below it. It was generally thought that adding those sentences to any club's waiver was/is sufficient.

OUSA waiver

See #7, regarding guest memberships

Have a token that comes with membership, and have membership automatically expire if the member is not in possession of the token at the event. Charge a lot more for non-members. This should take of the "I don't know if I'm a member" problem. BAOC doesn't seem to have this problem without employing tokens.

It is a lot of unpaid work for the unpaid volunteer registrar to deal with stuff. Solutions should include redirecting as much of this work to participants as possible (preregistration: enter yourself into the database), or charging more and hiring a paid registrar. After all, the root cause of the problem seems to be large attendance, I think there wouldn't be complaints if there were only 30 people to deal with at each event. With no shortage of comers, they can pay a bit more.

Peter, yes the Day Member requirement only added two new lines. But, the standard OUSA waiver changed in other ways in the past year or so and it became much more lengthy. (I don't recall seeing an official OUSA announcement about this, BTW; I just happened to stumble upon it while I was evaluating Kent Shaw's O-Reg application.)

Compare:

Old OUSA Waiver (very short -- only four lines -- and amenable to multiple "petition-style" signatures on the same page; it's what you might remember from the old hard-copy generic A-meet entry form)

New OUSA Waiver (can only fit one per page, with or without the extra lines about Day Members)

To reiterate -- I'm not disputing the need for a longer waiver and I'm not disputing the need for one-day memberships and associate memberships. I'm pushing back on the proposed requirement that we count and track the one-day memberships after every local meet.

I have neither the time nor inclination to read the bylaws, but I am in agreement with the summary by Peter in the original post. So as long as the bylaws do what Peter says they do, I'm happy enough.

Yeah, Alex, that's how the Patriot Act got passed. ;-)

I would not think I should be involved with this, I asked the NEOC vp of admin. to follow this.
BUT I must come to Brooks's defense here. No one has answered her question!
Does a club have to count and track 1 day membships and report them to OUSA after every meet, every year ,or ever?

unlike our government, I trust Peter, but maybe I shouldn't =)

Why should you if your government doesn't?

I can see adding a single box ("check here if you are *not* a current EMPO or OUSA member") to our waiver form (which is our original waiver language plus item 7 from OUSA's). From the waivers, someone will have to tally these names. Then we can add the list of day members to our results page (maybe a paragraph at the bottom) so we can go back and count or report if requested.

I'd rather do this than have to come up with and pay for separate insurance for EMPO.

I nominate Janet to tally RMOC's waivers.

Just kidding. ;-)

Rmoc has a comment column on their results page (example). The "day member" notation can go there...

Who's going to shuffle through the stack of waivers to figure that out and type it in for each results record, Janet?

Yes, there are several ways to count and track if it's required -- but they all involve extra work, extra tedium, more administrivia, etc. Ain't nobody got time for that! (*I* certainly don't, anyway.)

And for what purpose? What's the specific reason why we have to count the number of day memberships? Is it just because it's an interesting tidbit to know?

My guess is that the different kinds of memberships should be tallied because at a point in the far or near future Orienteering USA may wish to change its insurance provider and/or the level of coverage. It was most likely thought in the past that insurance providers don't care about the kind of members an association has when estimating the risk and the premiums, but now it turns out that at least the current provider does care. Presumably the one-day members carry a higher risk. I've not been 100% in the loop, but that's the whiff I got. If the two classes of members are priced differently, Orienteering USA would then need to know how many of each kind started, so that the fees could be passed down to the clubs in a somewhat fair fashion.

Orienteering clubs have been fortunate, or unfortunate, to mostly cater to members who mostly know what they are getting into. The likelihood of being sued by one of the in-club is miniscule. As the sport expands (numbers seem to confirm an ongoing expansion in the number of local starts), you'll get participants who have a different view of the balance between safety, support, and organizer responsibility. One example of different attitudes is in the comments on articles quoted in the mudders thread. Another example is from another non-club organizer that also puts on trail runs.

After a non-life-threatening injury, this organizer was somewhat surprised by the expectations of the injured party to be given prompt medical attention, and to be evacuated from the course within a short period of time. This for a trail run—not really in the middle of nowhere, there was vehicle access to within a few hundred meters of the site of the injury, but as always driving in parks requires special permits or trained/certified drivers/vehicles, extra permit fees, and a general increase in logistic preparedness beyond what this particular organizer was prepared to offer, and certainly beyond what a typical orienteering club would be prepared to offer. I'm not sure what the outcome of the situation was and whether there was a claim against the medical portion of this event's insurance. All I know is that orienteers would typically not complain if they find themselves injured in the middle of the woods if help isn't forthcoming within say 10 minutes, and this party did complain.

I didn't read through everything, so I apologize if this has already been suggested, but if a club would rather not go through the hassle of distinguishing between day members and associate/full members, one possibility would be for the club to enroll everyone as a club member by default when they register for an event. Then you no longer have to worry about day membership.

Downsides, the second of which isn't really a downside:
1. Your charter would include more members and would therefore be more expensive (I think?).
2. If you wanted members to have some sort of exclusive benefits, you would now have to create two membership classes, e.g. "regular" and "premium". But, this isn't really any different from having "members" and "non-members", so it's just a matter of renaming things.

Potential upside:
Signing everyone up as a member can expand your marketing pool; sign them up for your email list and they'll be more likely to come back.

The reporting/accounting of day membership people can be, I believe, relatively easy. It can be just a check box on the waiver form (if one page) or next to the signature line if a club's waiver has a number of people signing the same page. An alternate way would be to check the punch cards if that is the way it is done and see what club the people claim if any.
The reason for needing to have the number of day members is because that is presently how the billing for the insurance is done. They cost more to insure than a club member or an OUSA member. At the present time, there is no rush to charge clubs differently for these starts but the numbers are important.
The waiver on the OUSA website is a "suggested" waiver and clubs can vary from that form if they desire so long as it has the same general ideas. OUSA is not dictating what the waiver says.

There are already a few clubs who essentially sign up everyone for club membership, simply as a result of having a relatively cheap membership rate and a relatively expensive single-event entry. For example, NEOC charges $10/race for non-members, or $0/race for members, at a $20 membership rate. In this sort of situation, you have a lot of members who fit the demographic profile of "day members" but who are accounted for as "associate members".

So basically, counting the "day members" already doesn't quite measure the demographic you're interested in.

If they are club members, they would be associate members according to the proposed by-law changes so they would be covered in that group. In this case, if NEOC considers them members, they are members of an Orienteering USA member club.

Can we get media release language added to the OUSA suggested waiver? The club facebook posts that generate exposure have pics.

Changing the existing waiver is another issue. Clubs can add their own parts to it as they see fit, however, and this would include a media release.

I totally agree with Brooke. I have no problem having everyone sign a waiver saying that if they are not a BOK member, then they get a special 'day' membership. But to tally members and non-members is an extreme added burden to the meet directors. We have trouble filling the meet director spots as it is. Even with day of volunteers to help with registration, we end up with long lines on nice days. When considering the time spent course designing, course setting, running registration, sure all controls are picked up, and then processing results which we have streamlined as best as possible, the added burden of tallying non-members and members is asking for way too much.

I am the person to report and pay for insurance and I sure have no intention of going through a year's worth of meets trying to figure out how many non-members went out on courses. I'm still having trouble getting all meet directors to tally total entries for their meets and I have to count from the results lists.

Also, our memberships start in September each year so someone who has been a member previously may not even realize that they are no longer members in the fall and if the meet director doesn't print off the most up to date membership list, he or she has to rely on the participant's honesty.

Pleas figure out a way to not make us report members vs non-members. As it is, the reporting gets longer and longer and the price goes up and up. We are not a large club. Maybe 6 people set courses throughout the year.

Thanks for the input, Ruth! I was starting to feel like I was just a high-maintenance whiner. Maybe I am. ;-) (And, this discussion started at a time when I was feeling particularly over-burdened with RMOC administrative work...)

Idea: get a cheap tablet (or tablets, if your club is bigger), and have an app that people can use to register, sign waivers, and check boxes for club/national memberships. Heck, you can even hook up those little card swiper thingies and have people register and pay. The app would keep track of all the stuff electronically so you don't have to. Just hire someone to write the app and have it available to all O-USA clubs.

We're either going to have to spend more in some form or another: either spend more time tallying sheets of paper, or spend more money for a smarter system or to hire meet directors. According to Outside magazine, race directors are "dream jobs" for people, so maybe it's worth looking into hiring some young energetic kids who are looking for work.

Just hire someone

That's anathema to many/most in the organization. They are jealous of others being paid, and will try their best to derail these efforts, even at the expense of lower efficiency, lower attendance, lower exposure, and lower performance.

That's anathema to many/most in the organization.

I know, I know. We both know this. Sigh.

I would *L-O-V-E* to pay someone to do my RMOC job(s). But that's not feasible when we're charging $8-15 per person (or sometimes per GROUP). Especially if we want to have money left over for mapping. But I know I'm preaching to the choir, that's a separate discussion, etc.

WRT the smartphone card-swiper thingies -- those are cool, but we don't always have cell coverage at our more remote maps. Also, for the people who insist on getting a receipt, isn't it a kinda slow and tedious process of tapping-in their email address and other details on a tiny smartphone keyboard...? That was my experience, the one time I paid for something that way. Maybe it would be easier and faster on a (larger-format) tablet.

p.s. I seriously question the salary figures in that Outside article. I know three race directors in the Colorado trail-running scene, and they're not even close to bringing home that kind of money.

Then don't charge $15.

Yeah, no sh*t. But here's a newsflash: I can't make those kinds of unilateral executive decisions for RMOC.

I seriously question the salary figures in that Outside article.

They are probably looking at the top end, national brand stuff that they mention on that page.

Using CascadeOC as an example, if we raise prices by $1.25 per start, that would be around $5000 we could offer someone to direct a year's worth of events (~20). That might be enough for someone looking for some part time work. The local events are getting big enough here that I think that's scaring off potential event directors. At the moment, I'm scheduled to direct the next 6 local events because the volunteers aren't there.

There is no intention to have clubs report "day member" starts for 2013 so no club will have to reconstruct that information. We will be working on getting an insurance policy that provides appropriate coverage, at a low cost and will be easy for clubs to deal with in their registration process. The board cares about volunteers who are the lifeblood of orienteering in the US and we don't want to burden them with any more work.

Vlad, are you expecting a child or is this just referring to the Prince?

Beatrice has been here for two weeks. We're taking her on a map this afternoon.

Congrats!
Go Beatrice, its yer birthday!
Go Beatrice, its yer birthday!

Peter, I'm glad that there's no requirement to count the "day member" starts after all. But, in that case, the document with the proposed bylaws should not have this statement:


OR, if what you're saying is that we don't have to do it for 2013 but we will have to do it starting in 2014 (which I'm still not thrilled about), then I suggest adding an effective date to that statement in the bylaws:

Here's some interesting data for the "just raise your fees already" crowd:

2012 RMOC Local Meet @ Rainbow Falls
* Entry Fees: $8-$15 (depending on member status, age, course & e-punch rental)
* Total Starts (excluding CSOL runners): 54

2013 RMOC Local Meet @ Rainbow Falls -- part of Colorado State Games
* Entry Fees: $15-$30
* Total Pre-Registered Runners: 23 (we're not expecting many day-of registrations)

We've had the same fees at the same park and seen similar swings.

BAOC noticed this year that although attendance at its Wilderness Scramble events, which raise fees modestly by $5 to $15 for a longer event—go for up to 3 hours, is noticeably lower than at "regular" 7-course events at the same venues, the overall net income is substantially higher (highest of all events save A events), and the complexity of putting on an event is comparable, if not lower. So you go from say 160 people paying $8 (after all discounts are figured in) to 70 people paying $20, the gross is a wash, expenses are lower, volunteers are less strained, and you now have promo/marketing/ED reimbursement money (the last one doesn't apply to BAOC, just in theory). Nothing says that in the years after the change, you won't pick the attendance back while retaining happier volunteers and supporting your development programs.

Revenue isn't the point. Providing orienteering to a larger number of people is the objective. In the situation above, getting 160 participants beats getting 70 participants, hands down.

> Pleas figure out a way to not make us report members vs non-members.
Maybe a national investment in an online entry and results system such as Eventor. All memberships are paid through the system. When results are uploaded, the system identifies members using SI stick numbers, or some other identifier. ?

We're almost there: http://www.orienteeringusa.org/event-reg-setup-inf...

Indeed, providing orienteering to a larger number of people is precisely the objective. The problem is that the 160 number came down from 300, then 250, then 180, over years. The reason? Insufficient promotion, irregular scheduling for lack of volunteers who are unwilling to put in 100+ hours for free directing an event, and level of organization that is subpar compared to what most other activities are offering.

So, having 70 on an ongoing basis is definitely not what's desired, even at a higher income. The goal is to at least get back to 160, at prices that allow for sustainable growth. The current situation has organizers painted in a corner: Whatever you want to do to create growth costs money, and a good chunk of your participants are unwilling to part with the money. These cheapies largely aren't the regulars, but the next tier, uncommitted people looking for occasional entertainment at bargain-basement prices. Losing them isn't something to regret. In their place you should get people who are serious about supporting an activity they love.

One question then: How do you get a new person, someone who hasn't orienteered before transitioned from "non-orienteer" to "regular who's serious about supporting an activity they love?" Don't you have to give them time to be "uncommitted looking for occasional entertainment" first, in order to see if it's something they even like or not?

Not arguing with your numerical analysis, just curious how you envision attracting new blood into the sport. Not everyone has the time or inclination to jump in with both feet all at once, or even ever. But there seem to be a lot of folks who are interested enough to keep an eye on the schedule and get out to a meet when the weather is nice and there's nothing else pressing. If these folks have an enjoyable outing a few times per year and then tell their friends about O, isn't that a good thing?

There's a whole "science" of marketing, and orienteering isn't short of MBAs, many of whom are familiar with yield management. Free entry coupons, bring-a-friend deals, student and family discounts... many ways to sweeten the deal for newbies without cannibalizing the overall cash flow.

The problem isn't deeply discounting the events for newbies or truly infrequent attendees; the problem is that there is this second tier of somewhat regulars, who tend to volunteer little and pay little, and the all-the-way regulars have to unpaidly bust their posteriors providing bargain-basement entertainment to this demographic, who may easily account for 30% to 40% of entries.

That sounds like a template description of every sport, hobby, pastime known to man. ;-)

No it doesn't. Half-marathons are $60 trail, $80 road in the Bay Area (median family income U.S. $72k), while an orienteering course of similar duration costs $15.

Similarly, you can join a running club for free or small cost per year and run with clubmates for free during the week. It's only the races that cost, and those don't need to be *that* frequent. We need to do something similar with orienteering - charge a respectable fee for the races, which don't need to be that frequent, and offer no-frills training for cheap otherwise.

@Cristina + 1 like !!!

fyi: both bylaw changes passed

Cristina makes a good point. In my mind, the club races are similar to her "run with club mates for free" and A-meets correspond to the expensive races.

I note that race fees for club races in Norway are similar to here in the US (about $10 per start) and that the races are run with minimal (unpaid?) staff. The difference is that in Norway you have multiple local races per week. I used to run twice a week when I was in college. I think this is what we should strive for and raising the fee to $60 per race will not facilitate this goal.

The fallacy has been beaten to death. There is enormous reliance on government-provided infrastructure in Europe, none of it in North America. The culture was brought to North America verbatim, but without taking into account the lack of government support. We ended up with admonishing very busy people to contribute more, more, more, at no pay.

Think there isn't government support? Let's start with 6-week vacations. You can happily help your O-club during the 4 paid weeks you get off, compared to your North American counterparts. Then take subsidized/free clubhouses, stipends to youth coaches, generous attitude of colleges to students who spend their time training and putting on events... all of these are indirect contributions, little or no money exchanged, but it is precisely these things that are lacking in North America.

The culture of cheap has to go away. You pay for what you get. If you don't want to pay, then your friends will continue to treat you to the fruits of their labor for a while, but then their numbers will dwindle and those who are left will face overwhelming amounts of work. Precisely the situation there is now: more events, fewer people who are silly enough to put them on.

If all you care about is having local events, you don't need a clubhouse or youth coaches. And you don't need to bust your ass. You need to:

1. Call about a permit/submit permit application. (1hr, requires thinking ahead)
2. Get a copy of purple pen and design a course. (1hr)
3. Hang a few controls in the right place in the woods. Exercise judgement as to what kind of crap people enjoy running through. (<4hr vetting, 2hr day of)
4. Find a decent printer and print some maps. Fedex or Staples will do. (1hr)
5. Hang out while people are in the woods. Define a narrow start window and max course time if you don't want this to be all day (4hr).
6. Be friendly and ask for help picking up controls. (1hr)

True, I didn't mention marketing, electronic timing and results, refreshments, owning a clubhouse, hiring a coach, recruiting a legion of college students, etc. But really, do we need to do all that every time we want to practice orienteering? There is no way anyone should be spending 100+ hours organizing a local orienteering event. If that's how long it takes you, you're doing something wrong/different, and I suggest you open your mind to the possibility that you are just a little bit crazy.

Personally, I think that the problem with attracting people in many areas is that there simply are too few events on the calendar for people to experience continuity. If you bump that up a notch, so that new people will have retained something from the last event when they come to the next event, they will enjoy it more and they'll keep coming back. Orienteering is not like trail racing - it has a really steep learning curve. You need to practice it.

Coming from a background of playing league soccer as a kid, I think such a model makes a lot of sense for orienteering. You have a game each week, and you have a practice each week. The cost ends up being $10-20/game. True, orienteering has more setup overhead, but that can be minimized, as above.

I guess if you pay $80 to run on a trail then it makes sense to pay... $80? to orienteer. But I don't do that, and as far as I can tell there's no reason I should. I certainly don't have the money to do that a couple of times a week.

Here's what a $10 event should look like...

• Absolutely no new survey or cartography
• Two or three courses, one of them beginner/intermediate
• At most 3 km² area
• The longest course is Green/Red
• No remote anything
• Onsite registration or preregistration
• SPORTident
• No beginners' clinics
• No childcare
• No portable toilets, use an existing facility
• No indoor event center unless winter
• No snacks beyond water
• Absolutely no extras
• A template website, reused many times
• Promotion through established channels
• Prompt results onsite and online

And here's what you get at least in this area for $10...

• Always a map update from the course setter, often a revised map, sometimes a brand new map
• At least seven courses
• As much map as fits on a 8.5"×14"
• A Blue course or longer
• Often, remote starts
• Onsite registration only
• SPORTident
• Beginners' clinics
• No childcare here, but I hear some other clubs offer it at local events
• Almost always, portable toilets
• Sometimes, an indoor event center
• Ample snacks
• Infrequently, prizes
• Each event director has to come up with unique event info for the web
• Infrequently, a promo effort
• Prompt results onsite and online

The watershed moment I recall in the history of the local club was a member survey done about 6 years ago, in which members gave solid approval to 7-course events, and clear disapproval to every possible alternative event format. (Not the same people disliked, say, Sprint and rogaine, but the end result was disapproval for everything that wasn't a 7-course A- or B-event). Ceraintly if the membership is accustomed to getting filet mignon every time, and only paying for a dollar menu special, an honest $6 hamburger will seem like a ripoff. Every darn time.

Well, your proposed $10 event sounds good to me. If I ever move to the Bay Area I'd be happy to put one on. The 7-course format with new map... not so much.

The 100 hours I mentioned is a cumulative manpower estimate for all people involved in putting on a 7-course event in the Bay Area, without omissions or neglecting externalities. This estimate is on the low side. Usually it is closer to 200 hours. An ED can certainly delegate away all work and spend a very small amount of hours—or do just about everything him/herself. There's still 100+ hours of work that needs to be done.

First, the map has to come from somewhere. In this terrain, that's a week per km² survey and as much drafting. Amortize over 10 years, that's at least 20 hours for each event, usually more. A permit in an hour? you must be kidding. For some locations, nothing less than a 15-page event plan will do. An hour is just the face time with the ranger, in the absolute best case. And I haven't mentioned the insurance.

Next, there are usually at least a dozen picker-uppers, each spending about an hour; assuming reciprocity, there's 10 to 15 hours in the woods to place, preceded by a few hours to plan. Then several evenings for map corrections, because even the 80 hour/km² mapper isn't perfect, and the customers are never forgiving.

Then, four hours on the day of the event? every single ED I've encountered spends at least 6 am to 10 pm on the event day. There is, you know, a pile of stuff that needs to converge from multiple locations in an area sprawled over several hundred square miles, and then make it back, and someone, mind you, also has to organize and clean all the stuff for the next person.

And on top of that, there's massaging the results (because there is always an e-punch problem, user error or otherwise), doing all the accounting, website writing, and promotion. Then add the time of the e-punch person, the beginners clinic coach, the registration people, people who put up the tents and set up the streamers, the starts minders, the finish minders... dedicated people in the club who spend a few hours here and there for each event, like the treasurer...

I wonder how many clubs have their ED manual along the lines of the "you must be crazy if you spend more than 10 hours". Usually it's something like this.

A permit in an hour? You must be kidding.

Yeah, that one made me laugh, too. ;-)

Even with a minimalist approach, many of bshields' time estimates are grossly understated. What T/D is describing is more like what I've personally experienced.

There's probably a happy medium -- especially if you're lucky enough to have board members (like RMOC's) who are flexible and open-minded about alternative approaches. (But it sounds like T/D hasn't always been that lucky, unfortunately...)

I think a major flaw here is allowing formats for events to be set by demand or by organisational fiat. Formats should be set first by the volunteer supply. If someone only wants to organise 3 courses, then let them organise 3 courses. The biggest burnout problems I see are when a group without a mandate make a delivery commitment for everyone else in the sport without consultation. I resent other people making commitments based on an assumption about my willingness to provide voluntary labour. But even more I hate then relaying the same pressure onto others, so end up doing too much myself.
And I still stand by the spirit of my comment about every voluntary organisation. A minority do the work. This reflects the enthusiasm distribution. Not everyone values the activity as much as the heavy volunteers.

Actually no, Brendan's time estimates are right on. For a different product from what most club members want, or are by now used to, and in no way a sustainable one. Pushing off most of the really labor-intensive stuff to externalities, which is OK if say (i) the maps are already there, and (ii) the customers are already there. Otherwise you are eating your young by not investing in maps nor in customers.

I would gladly consume Brendan's product every other week, and a full-service product on alternating weekends, at $70 if need be. Right now I am only consuming full-service trail runs at $70 because the $10 O-club product is not really being offered because there aren't that many people willing to put it on.

Lastly: That clubhouse and those youth coaches to make fun of? That's how it happens that they have a thousand customers at an event in Europe, so they can get away with charging $10 per head. The state made these customers happen, by investing in development (and there's not much need in promotion, since the customers are captive). Here, at least half of revenue should be directed in development and promotion if the customer base were to actually stop shrinking and grow.

So if a $10 event should look like T/D's first set of stuff, why doesn't it? Why doesn't the market supply it?

For one, the fixed costs are so high that it doesn't really make a difference if you cut the corners he describes. It doesn't work out as "cheaply" as you might like to pretend. The so-called "externalities" get you in the end.

The market doesn't correctly price the skills/labor required to put on an orienteering event, no matter how much you want to skimp on the cookies. (Or maybe it does, and the product just isn't that appetizing.)

Re $10 events, I suspect there is a chicken and egg issue here. Scale of enterprise. Our local club runs $8 (for member events). They happen every week in the season from March to October. Between 50 and 100 entrants depending on weather and other event competition. Here's how we go against the checklist.
• Absolutely no new survey or cartography. re-used maps. Vary in age from 1 year to 15 years.
• Two or three courses, one of them beginner/intermediate - Five courses.
• At most 3 km² area - A4 map, whatever the scale.
• The longest course is Green/Red - The longest course last week was 8.6k. I have no idea what colour that is.
• No remote anything - Assembly/start/finish co-located. Max of 30 controls out and generally there is good vehicle access to much of the map.
• Onsite registration or preregistration - on site registration.
• SPORTident -Yes
• No beginners' clinics - Actually, yes we do, but that is dependent on the passions of a couple of members. You couldn't stop them.
• No childcare - No. Regulations would preclude it even if we wished to.
• No portable toilets, use an existing facility - No toilets. Negotiated that with main land managers.
• No indoor event center unless winter. - No event centre.
• No snacks beyond water. Water only.
• Absolutely no extras - Just company at the assembly area.
• A template website, reused many times. Yes
• Promotion through established channels - I think word of mouth is the best in our experience.
• Prompt results onsite and online - Generally. SIME extraction is a bit of a blocker at times.

The current fees seem financially sustainable. The club maps (30+) are being gradually updated through commercial arrangements. Having a local mapper or two helps there. The system doesn't seem to cannabalise the club members. There is generally little problem in filling the organiser roster for most events. The burn-out issues I talk about relate to bigger events at the state and national level.

The chicken and egg - If we organised an event once a month, we wouldn't have the revenue to sustain ourselves. Our base of 30 plus maps means we can run a weekly program. But how do you build a base of 30 maps without a weekly program. How do you build a weekly program without 30 maps?

The market

I'm no economist, but there's no market. I see admonishments to people to volunteer, and a lot of people who do, mostly because they have steady jobs that tolerate them volunteering. That's a legacy exception in 21st century America; no wonder all of these people are well over 40. The youngfolk just can't do it, on the scale required by the list.

The current fees seem financially sustainable

If there were a sudden epiphany and half of your customers were to suddenly mudder off, or some other unlikely but possible perturbation, would you recover? I strongly suspect not. The loss of revenue would starve the already almost non-existent development/recruitment. Unless the federal and provincial governments cultivate you a steady stream of customers, which they do in Europe, the $8 fees are not sustainable by my definition of sustainable.

This reminds me of the standard tale of the rise and fall of a civilization. You have the silver age of Rome, and things are pretty good. But, human progress and the course of civilization is not monotonically improving. In the old days, when you had civilization and an organized society, you could have newly surveyed maps, seven courses, dialysis, running water, Concordes. In a future state of the world you have maps which are 20 years old, three courses, dysentery, rafts.

In my little corner of civilization (DVOA), I will fight back the entropy. I know it will get me in the end, but why give in?

Because it is unsustainable, I expect is the retort. But, I'd rather hold on to the vestiges of Virgil than settle for the brayings of Bieber, thank you very much.

Careful in the Concorde though, sometimes they come to a fiery end.

Dear Vlad. I share your concerns over volunteer burden. The club I speak of has doubled its attendance in the past three years. There was a small grant to help with that growth in the first year. But much of the recent growth has been through word of mouth. Only time will tell if this is sustainable. I am probably in a better position than you to make that judgement. What concerns me now is the risk of further growth. I believe we are at the point where we need to think about the diseconomies of further growth (parking, permits, toilets etc).
As to why our recent growth may have been easier than a club in the US, well... we do not share some of the constraints you may face.
1. Thankfully in Australia we don't have the obnoxious extremes of selective market liberalism* that seem to afflict the US political culture, although some of our politicians would love to get there. In 2007 those politicians lost an election on that issue, to the extent of having the sitting Prime Minister lose his seat. They are a little more careful now.
2. We have many maps within a very short drive of the centre of our small city. Think 10-20 minutes.
3. We don't have the expectations inherent in that intimidating list you linked to. Getting away from that is the secret... so maybe we agree. More regular, but much simpler events.

* selective as in one rule for the average worker and a different rule for large corporations

I think we agree up to a point. I don't see how you can sustain the model financially if you don't have a say $30, but better $70, event every one to two months, on top of basic and frequent events.

Re: permits

For most of our venues it is literally, call up the ranger or send an email, have a 5min chat, acknowledge whatever constraints may exist, and you're good to go. Some of our venues are becoming more involved (i.e. course design has to be approved by the ranger, etc.) but given the availability of friendlier venues, the result is just that we'll go with the friendlier venues.

I guess I've just been lucky.

Regarding growing the numbers while keeping fees low, the other local club here has a flat rate $20 membership fee that covers your entry fees for the year. Their membership, attendance, and quality of events have increased considerably since instituting this policy, and they are keeping it in place for the time being. So it is possible, at least in this corner of the US.

$10 basic event seems fine, is it not happening because some powers only release club maps to MDs putting on the seven-course events with remote starts and porta-potties? Mapping has become somewhat cheaper these days, no?

Not sure I care about the long run sustainability, have no clue how to get younger athletes to participate. In the short run, the number of motivated skilled course setters is what I want to maximize or maintain at some decent level.

Also, in the long run in non-flyover states I would imagine the incoming migration of European-born orienteers should be enough to sustain the sport, so it is not all bad. So what if they are not so young maybe they'll bring their kids.

I have my doubts as to whether $10 orienteering events and $30 (or $70) events held by the same organisation can successfully coexist if the latter are to be held every 1 to 2 months - assuming the $10 events are acceptable no-frills affairs, how colossal an effort will it take to make the full-service events 3 (or 7) times better, which will presumably be required to convince to overwhelming majority of potential participants not to simply stick to the no-frills events? Perhaps this particular circle is squarable with sufficient, Mudder-style application of well paid staff, awesome marketing and post-race partying, or by some other way of making the more expensive events attractive/prestigious but my initial reaction is to think the end result would be similar to the current situation Vlad complains about in which competition from cheap, volunteer-staffed events undercuts his efforts to hold events meeting his standard of sustainability.

I think the key is that the no-frill events should not be "events" at all. Just people gathered at the same time to go run in the woods, maybe with some controls or streamers, maybe not. Super cheap/free with membership. Frequent. Have the 7-course, vetted, permitted $30 events less frequently.

Also, in the long run in non-flyover states I would imagine the incoming migration of European-born orienteers should be enough to sustain the sport, so it is not all bad. So what if they are not so young maybe they'll bring their kids.

Things must look different from Ann Arbor. From DC, my first reaction is to think this is wishful thinking absent Soviet communism for European-born orienteers to flee. Absent that... maybe a disaster in the Nordic countries sufficient to create large refugee flows to North America would do the trick.

Not to say European-born club members aren't valuable here in and around DC - just that there aren't enough of them to keep things going without lots of home-grown assistance. And many of them will be going back to Europe sooner or later.

Right, by migration I really meant trickle. So there will always be a couple left to get together to organize streamer no-frills events.

What's the orienteering landscape in North America going to look like 10 years from now?

Looking back.... 10 years ago we barely had LIDAR and GPS. Now everyone has a GPS-enabled navigation system in their pockets. Now we've got cheap HD cameras and YouTube.

10 years ago, we didn't have many races in the city, and had significantly fewer off-trail restrictions. 10 years ago trail running and orienteering had similar internet footprints. 10 years ago, mud runs didn't even exist. 10 years ago, the demographic at orienteering A-Meets was about 10 years younger.

The sporting, entertainment, and technology worlds are always changing. I hope we're not still arguing about $10 orienteering events in 2023.

You know, a lot of us do this because we enjoy running around in the woods with a map. Not because we like watching other people on youtube or following along on our iphone or getting drunk and muddy with a bunch of fun-loving twentysomethings. So, are you telling me that I should be putting on $50 events because that's the only way I can add all those exciting frills to my nice, quiet run through the woods? Because that's really what your argument sounds like.

I just don't really get the assertions that it's impossible to do XYZ without charging ~$50 entry when it's apparently totally possible to attract growing crowds at $10 entry, and it's entirely unclear why we want to do a good chunk of XYZ. I mean, we're talking about local events here. Y'know, Saturday morning kind of thing. It doesn't have to turn into a big production.

IMHO, golf and orienteering are similar. The problem is golf is much more fun for people who suck at it than orienteering is, for a whole host of reasons.

If there are some other outdoor activities you are envying that are successful, they aren't orienteering. Do you really think that "orienteering" can justify the same economics as the outdoor activity du jour?

Maybe you're right. Let's see more of the $50 events. Maybe you'll get some naïve first-timers. But, if it is still orienteering, you'll soon run out of naïve first-timers and be left with nothing.

But, this is not my principle complaint. It is rather that there is some notion that you can have some sort of stripped down version of orienteering that is commensurate with $10 of revenue and <$10 of cost, and therefore "profitable".

I've put on more events than most people on this thread, and I just don't understand.

There are golf courses you can play for 10 bucks, there are golf courses you can play for 50 bucks, there are golf courses that will run you 250 bucks (or a lot more). There's a reason for that. The expensive courses are a whole lot better.

I haven't seen any evidence that O' events organized by profit-minded folks in this country(professionals?) are any better than those organized by volunteers. When/if that happens, then they will have a business model (based on significantly higher revenue per head) that might be sustainable. Until then, talk is cheap. And laying the blame on the volunteer clubs seems to be just a way to avoid addressing your own shortcomings.

PG, while I applaud your skill at misdirection, note that I never mentioned profit. Profit and reimbursement for services are different things. The example that I am getting tired of bringing up is colleges; all of you professorfolk are paid, while the colleges are 501(c)3s, isn't it so? My argument about having to generate stuff for better karma in excess of the current zero-sum game apply to any organization that produces events, nonprofits included.

PG, your lack of evidence seeing better O events by profit-minded folks, or any O events by profit-minded folks, may have something to do with the de-facto ban on any non-501-c-3 organization joining Orienteering USA that existed until last Saturday. But this is beside the point, as the argument isn't about profit. It is about cheapness of orienteers and their lack of willingness to contribute decently to their nonprofit clubs, or anyone else who wishes to put on events, so that clubs or the someone else may fund programs that would sustain them in the future. Like stipends to event directors, junior programs, publicity and promotion, or whatever idea your club may have.

Let's see more of the $50 events.

I wholeheartedly agree! They are sometimes—usually—called A events. I would love to see one nearby every other week. There are at least two dozen maps around here that can support these, and these maps get used, and the product is only different from an A event in name and in price. All the thrills are there, because that's what the membership expects.

laying the blame on the volunteer clubs seems to be just a way to avoid addressing your own shortcomings

And last I checked, what gave rise to the trailing part of this thread was club volunteers complaining that they can't afford to file paper forms in separate folders because they were overburdened. Whose shortcomings, again?

For most of our venues it is literally, call up the ranger or send an email, have a 5min chat, acknowledge whatever constraints may exist, and you're good to go. Some of our venues are becoming more involved (i.e. course design has to be approved by the ranger, etc.) but given the availability of friendlier venues, the result is just that we'll go with the friendlier venues.

The cheapness of the culture doesn't simply transpire in orienteers' lack of desire to spend money on long-term things; it also, as evident from multiple postings above, implies lack of willingness to invest time. One item that it seems so not crazy to invest time in is park relations. So, I hope you never run out ot friendly venues.

Regarding volunteering, capitalism and orienteering:

1) I didn't notice a shortage of people who volunteer when in the US. A substantial number, however, were volunteering for the provision of essential services (food, education, healthcare etc) which are provided by decent societies. This may lead to a fewer volunteers for sports-related activities, though the preponderance of soccer moms and the like seems to belie this.

2) It is entirely possible that a substantial proportion of the overworked people earning 100k/year do not wish to spend their time volunteering. These are the people who can afford to pay 50$/event.

3) If one supposes that volunteers are more likely to come from the population earning < 80k/year, then you cannot charge 50$/event and expect them to come.

There are plenty of ways around this. Charge hefty entry/membership fees unless one volunteers a certain number of hours per year (as feet has often proposed). Have various membership classes. Use the Cristina method, free frequent training for members, expensive competitions. Clubs can subsidise their members' entry fees. Et cetera, et cetera.

----
Our club in Helsinki charges 6 euros for its weekly afterwork event, free for its 1000 members. It has a huge number of volunteers, very little (if any?) state support (besides access) afaik, doesn't have a clubhouse...

At the afterwork event, btw, everyone gets a master map with all controls together with descriptions for each of the courses. This makes printing enough maps (400-1200) easier.

At trail runs here (sorry about beating this to death, but does seem like the closest example of a related outdoor activity with similar logistics), I see plenty of people who do one just about every weekend. I also see at least half of these people volunteering on the weekend that they don't do one. If you volunteer two weekends and run two weekends, all of your running is free. I got a free season from one of the outfits for making most of their new-course maps (one run per month or so).

The cheapness of the culture

I don't think the culture (at least in the US), is cheap. For example, it is willing to, collectively, spend about 100K/yr for no material change in the quality of the experience (in fact, a decline based on personal anecdotal experience and other reported experience), no material change in either the number or geographical diversity of high level events (in fact, another decline based on my last check), and so on. But, that train has left the station, and ain't coming back, so I guess it is water under the bridge. But, don't use the word "cheap". A different word is most certainly appropriate.

As someone who pays $80+ to do trail races, and used to pay <$10 to do orienteering races, I'll provide some free market research on why I find the former a better deal. Hopefully it will be on topic. Even more hopefully, it will help anyone who cares (but of course it won't, cause its coming from me). I know its nothing I haven't said before, but a particular poster in this thread has said the same thing over and over and over and over since 1998 (and much more frequently and vociferously than myself), and nothing has changed, so why can't I?

Its simple. Trail running is a better product. And, the reasons for this are simple. Trail running has mass starts while O has interval starts, and trail running (in general) has reasonable length races, while O races (in general) are too short to make the bother of the travel worth it. Its that simple. But, these product deficiencies can be fixed! But they won't be. (As an aside, few newbies who are used to training 35-50 miles/wk and running 10K to 43K (or more) on race day are going to be interested in running 2K on race day when showing up for their first O meet. But, that was my newbie experience, and, likely the experience of many other newbies even to this day, and likely will be 10 years from now.).

But, I think that is ok. It is clear that the incumbent population enjoys the current product as currently constituted. That's fantastic! Enjoyment in this life can be hard to find, and you need to take it where you can get it. The mistake is trying to proselytize these foibles into a demonstrably non-receptive market (and its been demonstrably non-receptive, at least, since 1998; the 100K/yr effort notwithstanding.). My advise: be content, produce and consume your product as you like, and enjoy yourself. And get over it. There are no "great unwashed masses" who "don't get" orienteering. The Occam's Razor answer is that it has been beaten in the marketplace by better product, and unless the president or a high profile celebrity takes it up (or some other random exogenous event occurs), that is where it will live in the market, the 100K/yr effort not withstanding.

(And BTW, to counter the "government subsidy argument", which I saw promulgated earlier in this thread, trail running has no such subsidy in the US either, and is quite popular. Same for more recreational outdoor activities such as geochaching and letterboxing. So the emperor promulgating that argument would appear to have no clothes).

Be content. Why do you need more bodies anyway? Oh, I know, cause, as it was told to me when I was an "insider", its cause you need more free "volunteer" labor. That's exactly how it was said to me by a high level club official when I asked the question. It ain't happening, I'm afraid; those of us outside the clique aren't ever gonna be in the clique, and if we do have excess volunteer time or dollars, it goes to the truly needy (the claims of being a "stingy curmudgeon", as suggested by a standing USOF board member in front of my peers notwithstanding), not to affluent individuals running thru the woods in pajamas who can clearly pay considerably more to make O in the US run as smoothy and as everywhere as they want (witness, back in the day, the shelling out of huge dollars in strange locations to build park O maps which happened to be at the site of the USOF convention, which were used once and never used again, for example).

But, we haven't even talked about actual costs yet. Forgetting product quality (and I've never been to a trail race with product quality issues, but have been to way too many O races with same), what does $80 at the trail race buy you that $10 doesn't.

Well, one thing is on staff EMS. That costs something, and that is a real thing you can reach out and touch, but hopefully you won't have to, and has been at every trail race I've paid $80+ for. Never seen it at a $10 race. Even seen it at less that 50% of A meets, where the cost is in the $80 range. What is the value? Anyone can impute the probability of necessity times the value of necessity, if they want to, but that is not the point. When people make these comparisons, they are comparing apples to oranges, cause, they are different products.

I like mass starts. I like long runs in the woods. I like EMS on site in case something bad happens. And, I'm willing to pay for this product. Free market research. Take it FWIW. There's more, including my son's comments on why soccer is a better game than orienteering, but no one ever wants opinions from the ex-clique and their progeny, only from sycophants (and the reasons he states are material and could improve the product -- or at least suggest to its faithful that it will always remain a niche product, and just be content with that).

But, there's more. Another big difference in the cost, is, in, the $80 race, you pay your $80, you race, you finish (hopefully), the race director says congratz and points you to the food tent and/or the hardware tent, and everyone goes home happy. In the $10 race, you finish (hopefully), there generally isn't a food or hardware tent (which quite ok by me, tho at this point you really have to say you are comparing to a $70 race), but the race director (or his/her club), either on that day, on a website, via e-mail, or on some newsletter is then forever in your face to volunteer. I haven't raced at a club race in years and I still get these e-mails. In fact, got one last month. Its even worse when your are active. I don't mind volunteering for causes I believe are socially worthy (and believe me, I do my share, and have even done my share for orienteering, but when my life was in the toilet, not one one person I ever volunteered for could give a f***, but they can take the time to call me names when I don't give more).

(Of course, its been suggested that in some $80 trail races, there is volunteer labor, but it has also been suggested in the same circumstance that volunteers race for free (an $80 value * the number of races). When bringing up the same suggestion years ago to a member of the clique, such a concept was anathema; the answer being "you should want to volunteer for orienteering". Why? Its your cult, not mine; I'm just a rational consumer in the market).

But anyway, the point is, this incessant drumbeat to volunteer is a cost to the consumer not in the clique (where, of course, volunteering is a benefit, not a cost, when in the clique, something the clique, despite its economist(s), don't seem to grasp, or don't let on when they do), and the market (apparently), forgetting all the product deficiency comparisons, would prefer to pay this cost in hard dollars; suggesting this putative volunteer cost is in excess of the spread between the $80 race and the $10 race, when factoring out the other tangibles and intangibles (e.g. EMS) in that spread.

HTH, but, of course, it won't. A post similar to mine and most others in this thread will be coming around for years and years. A better idea is to just be content.

Yeah, just another way too long quack post. At least the spelling checker claims most of the big words were spelled right. But, until you are beyond where you were a few years ago, the evidence is on my side. Reiterating -- either be content with your current product, charging the affluent more if you have to to remain content, or change the product to make it appeal to more than a handful of people. And that suggestion didn't cost 100K a year.

I had to write this to be number 100 on the thread. Something about your by-laws I vaguely remember. Wonderful hijack by whoever started it.

to counter the "government subsidy argument", which I saw promulgated earlier in this thread, trail running has no such subsidy in the US either, and is quite popular. Same for more recreational outdoor activities such as geochaching and letterboxing.

I pointed out that government subsidies keep the cost low, not that they make the product popular. In some Euro countries the product is as obscure as it is in North America, yet there is still enough government support for 10€ events to be somewhat sustainable.

A better idea is to just be content

Perhaps, but the walrus has spoken. The local club here has run hard out of local event directors. Curiously, there is no shortage of volunteers for A events despite none of the $40 minus $10 entry fee difference filtering to them; I guess the excitement of creating quality events on new maps is still captivating enough to not beg for compensation. But time will come for that, too.

I'm glad Randy also brought up trail runs. Since I don't think he's been in that scene as long as others, here's what happened in California (and we'd like to think California is at the forefront of many things, as it is with, say, running out of local O-event EDs). In the 1990s, trail runs were very much like local O events, low fees, incessant drumbeat to volunteer, patchy quality. Around the turn of the century, pro companies came along and offered a frequent product at a higher, but still low, price (early half-marathons by the pro orgs were about $30, not $70 like they are now). A curious thing happened very quickly: People started to flock to the pro orgs' events, while attendance at the nonprofits' events stayed about the same. The nonprofits then quickly raised prices and started to pay their EDs. Most of the legacy nonprofit runs are still around and are well attended, just no new ones since 2000 and not much growth compared with the pros' attendance.

The total attendance in 2013 for trail runs in the Bay Area is at least 4× what it was in 2000, the number of events is 5× to 6×, with 4 large pro orgs (2k/year to 20k/year attendance) and about as many smaller ones. Fees crept up, since people keep coming and leaving happy, and there is still parking capacity to keep growing.

What does this mean for O? I'd only say one thing: I fully agree with Randy that one must be crazy to try to transfer the trail orgs' model to regular 7-course O-events. The existing cheapie public won't buy it, and the emperor indeed has no clothes for the uninitiated. With a different product, however, great things are possible. In particular, rogaine (an international sport, with an established set of rules and a Federation, a format no less legitimate than orienteering) has grown in California by at least a factor of 10 in the past 3 years, thanks to efforts by both the local club and the non-clubs. The "regular public" doesn't have the same hangups as orienteers (who are so fond of touting their exceptionality) when it comes to pricing a beginner-accessible, fun, legitimate outdoor athletic product.

Rogaining is in a long decline here. This was its birthplace. My opinion is that it is somewhat resistant to change. Others may challenge that. Perhaps we are just talking about a shared cycle of growth and senescence with the same sport at different points in different locales.

To support T/D point of view

"In some Euro countries the product is as obscure as it is in North America"

By my observation this is not because of lack of volunteers, money, infrastructure but because most of the people want to stay as it is. Changing this means that whole O community should decide what are common goals: More participants, better competitive system, better promotional actions, people who have professional interest in the sport and have interest beyond his/her own family recreational aspect.

1) Government support
We get a small support for national youth team (~$2K) and some local clubs get support for youth (to pay coach). Clubs and federation have no sponsors but sometimes they get small support for the events and projects.

2) Participants
As small country with ~2,1M of people we have around 330 registered athletes in all categories. 20 years ago we had 200. Growth or potential is huge but to make it happen you need money and growth mean professionalization of federation and dedicated voluntary force to run the system. To come to 0,3%-0,8% of population which is somehow the limit in Scandi countries this would mean for us to have 6k-16k registered athletes. We would probably be sustainable already with 2K.

3) Events
We have already today too big system (40 local races per year, 10 national events, training camps, Trail-O, MTB-O and SKI-O events) so people who works are really fans and have steady jobs to spent more time than you would expect form normal volunteer. As we have awesome terrains some organizers shift towards multiday events which are now on very high level (Lipica Open, OO.cup) which are not part of the club or federation infrastructure. These events are what T/D says: a variation of pro companies. These events have some impact on O community (maps, good image for the sport) but without levy policy this is almost unimportant for the o-development. Maybe one day.

4) Levy policy
Federation has failed to force Levy policy on O events. This is the only source of money which could be generate over time but people behind the mayor events rejected the policy. This is in my opinion very important agreement otherwise you can't make a fair distribution or compensate the work of people who work on other stuff beside events.

Roughly we have 12K starts per year on all events (national, local) and only 2-2.5K starts come from events which are organized by clubs and the rest comes from events organized by professionals (OO.cup, Lipica Open).

5) Event Fees
National events normally cost around 10 EUR, local 3-5 EUR. I noticed that NOR have 30% levy on Event fees and my proposal 7 years ago was 10%. I suppose that ~7-10K EUR would mean a good chance to finance this growth. I hope TOP 8 countries which are willing to support sport in undeveloped countries will produce a document on how development process should be run and gather important data to support local leaders. In my opinion Levy policy is one of them. IOF should probably insist and have rules how competitive system should work in IOF member countries to some extent. If we look in professional sports (football, basketball, athletics) International federations have some influence. If we really want to grow as a sport worldwide we need this support and these rules otherwise the majority will keep the recreational aspect of the sport. Commercial interest is too low and will stay low compare to other sports so we can't rely on market to solve this out. We must act as a community in favor of sport. This would mean that orienteers would have a strong believe that community should be before their individuals needs. A chain is only as strong as its weakest link so to put in perspective individuals or at least registered orienteers should know if event support the sport or not. If not they should decide to not participate even terrains are awesome so federation has some instrument to negotiate with organizers to make an agreement and that they need to pay some kind of levy to the national federation. It is easier to say than do but I see this as the only chance for sport to survive and not loose volunteers on the long run.

6) Professionals
Most of the people have no desire to run competitive system. All they want is to regular participate in orienteering no matter if this is local, national or multiday event. On the other hand voluntary people have no interest to run even bigger system. To go beyond this you need money to pay at least (part-time) a small team of volunteers to run the national system in their free time. Government doesn't give support for that and organizers are not willing to pay any levy out of their events as they are skeptical that this money will results in growth of participants. But on the long term more events could be profitable with wider base. Voluntary people who cares about the sport don't want to work for free even more to develop market for private organizers and organizers are not willing to contribute to the system because they are still able to attract many foreigners to come to the event and to finance the event growth. So we have to stay with organic growth with enthusiastic individuals.

Conclusion
So when the system grows first people who have benefits are: coaches, top athletes, mappers and organizers. But the real challenge is to finance small group of people who run the sport on administrative level, finance and promotional tasks.

@T/D Are these updates for non-501-c-3s posted on the OUSA website somewhere?

The Bylaws document that passed is referenced in the fifth message of this thread. It is indeed on the Orienteering USA website. At some point in the future guidance will be generated for potential applicants for Supporting Membership in Orienteering USA.

Please note that there is some key language that is variable and at times, plain wrong, in the text linked above that supports the Bylaws changes themselves. The workgroup agreed early on upon "Event Producer" language as opposed to "for-profit" or "Event Promoter". The latter is simply a misnomer. "For-profit" hides the fact that full Orienteering USA member clubs are required to be 501(c)3 nonprofits. There are various shades of nonprofits; most nonprofits are not 501(c)3 (neither are some clubs, in letter or in spirit, but that's for another thread). The Bylaws revision was in part to allow non-501(c)3 nonprofits to join Orienteering USA.

Thank you. What is linked is a proposal -- is there the final version somewhere?

What was proposed is what the membership at the AGM voted on and accepted, so consider that wording "final" until updated Bylaws are published.

And BTW, to counter the "government subsidy argument", which I saw promulgated earlier in this thread, trail running has no such subsidy in the US either, and is quite popular.

Funny, but a lot of the trail races around here make use of a lot of government-owned and maintained facilities. Of course, so do we but it's not enough for us that a park have parking, some trails and maybe some bathrooms. We also need a really expensive to produce map. I appreciate the recent proliferation of free or cheap government data useful for making good basemaps but I don't think government-provided infrasructure gets us quite as close as it does trail running to the point at which all that is needed for events to happen is the willingness of people to act as race director and in other organisational roles on either a paid or volunteer basis.

I also think running races are advantaged by government action in that as far as I can tell every public school system in the US provides competitive running programs with coaching (of variable quality). We as orienteers in the US can only dream of such universal government sponsored indoctrination into the idea that competitive orienteering is a worthy pursuit.

That said, being happy with what we're doing, keeping alive a niche sport that will likely always be a niche sport, is certainly good advice. But it's not incompatible with trying to grow - there are much bigger niche sports out there. And, regarding where we are relative to where we were a few years ago, despite my recollection that Randy was singing much the same tune three years ago, my club has much higher membership and attendance this past season than it did then. So I regard it as a good thing that we didn't listen to Randy and decide that there was no point even trying to interest anyone new in our clearly inferior orienteering product. I'll consider believing there's no one new out there who hasn't tried orienteering and might like it when I stop encountering people who don't even know orienteering exists.

But it's not incompatible with trying to grow - there are much bigger niche sports out there.

Exactly. I think often people don't think to consider that orienteering could be 10x as big as it is in the US and it would still be a niche sport, whose participants would very likely still be part of a very small and tight-knit community. It's just we'd maybe have to drive/fly a little less, maybe have a few more O-friends our own age, and probably slightly more depth in competitive classes. IOW, more fun all around!

my club has much higher membership and attendance this past season than it did then.

Exactly the same here; membership not up as much, but the combined attendance by BAOC and the several non-clubs is higher than at any point in the 2000s, maybe the highest ever (aided in part by a much higher variety of products being offered). There are many more events, perhaps fewer really blockbuster events like 300+ local events, but a much denser schedule. And that's what puts the stress on event directors: The need to constantly deliver this perfect, expected product that takes 100+ hours of work for each event.

Trail running successfully went through the transition to compensated EDs about 10 years ago, and that's part of what enabled it to accommodate 4× or more participants.

How flexible is the traditional 501c3 club structure with respect to accommodating MD compensation? Is it up to the club, or would something prevent the club from paying the meet director?

We are probably talking three figures here, may cover the gas though.

Nothing that I know precludes a 501(c)3 from employing people. Once you start paying a lot more than the prevailing wage for the occupation and industry, the IRS can and will question whether that is compatible with your charitable mission.

If, however, an organization officially employs someone, it should comply with the minimum wage laws and other labor laws for the jurisdiction.