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