 Poster: A snowHead
|
You could have blown me over with a bite-sized death cookie ...
... I turned to page 85 of this month's Ski and Board (which is the SCGB's magazine, also sold on some newstands) and there's a full-page ad offering a year's membership for £18 including 'free Salomon S-Tab Z rucksack worth £45' ... so long as you're under 24.
I'm not under 24, so I pay £51, for which I receive identical membership services to anyone under 24, except that I get no free rucksack.
I'm all for my Club increasing its youth membership with relevant loyalty-inducing services, but this would appear to be subsidy on a huge scale. Am I paying the subsidy?
Let's make an assumption that 1,000 under-24s join the Club as a result of this offer (in Marlon Brando speak "an offer they cannot refuse"). That's £18,000 in turnover. What's the cost to the Club of the £45 backpacks? £10 a piece? £8 a piece? I guess they come in cheap from Salomon as a promotional item.
So that's £8000 to £10,000 out of the window (unless I'm completely wrong). Then there's the cost of posting the packs - presumably about £2 a hit. So that's another £2000, plus the administration and setting up the memberships.
Then there's the cost of servicing the memberships over the year. Since my Club is run on a non-profit basis, I assume that my £51 membership costs about £51 to service. So maybe the £18 memberships cost about the same to service (without adding in the free backpacks).
A comparable club, which is marketing memberships to under 18s as a category (not under 24s), and a 'lite' membership at £15 to any age boarder, is snowboardclub.co.uk:
http://www.snowboardclub.co.uk/module-htmlpages-display-pid-48.html
I'd be interested in people's views on the comparisons. Any under-18s or under-24s care to comment?
|
|
|
|
|
|
Obviously A snowHead isn't a real person
Obviously A snowHead isn't a real person
|
I'd have thought yoof membership is very low so in order to grow/maintain your membership/ future freshtracks customers etc. anything is fair play. £24 ceratinly seems a fairer pricing level given my perception of what SCGB actually priovides that I might use.
Duncan's SCUK was built on the back of a non commercial website (admin?) and has done very well I understand because membership is priced at at level where it is almost a no brianer given the freebies.
|
|
|
|
|
|
Well, the person's real but it's just a made up name, see?
Well, the person's real but it's just a made up name, see?
|
|
Free flights anyone?
|
|
|
|
|
|
You need to Login to know who's really who.
You need to Login to know who's really who.
|
| Is Tamworth the Val d'Isere of the future? wrote: |
| Free flights anyone? |
Not to Tamworth, thank you.
| fatbob wrote: |
| I'd have thought ... anything is fair play. |
Well, this is where it gets interesting. SnowboardClubUK (SCUK) is a privately-owned business, as I understand it. The SCGB isn't. It's owned by me and about 33,000 other members. So anything that costs us money, or involves a cross-subsidy on our part, is an issue.
As to whether snowHeads should charge a membership fee, SCUK effectively doesn't - in terms of using its forum (which, of course, also used to be the case for public use of the SCGB forum before Feb 2002)
|
|
|
|
|
|
Anyway, snowHeads is much more fun if you do.
Anyway, snowHeads is much more fun if you do.
|
David Goldsmith, Now you have spoilt things! Having decided to pay for Daughters membership in resort and get two years for the price of one. You now offer us a £45.00 back pack instead 
|
|
|
|
|
|
You'll need to Register first of course.
You'll need to Register first of course.
|
David Goldsmith, Could you pm me the promo code from page 85, thanks 
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
David Goldsmith, Do not forget that the Ski Club definition of a 'child' used to include anybody up to the age of 37.
I think you were the last person to raise that issue as well.
You would not want to take the bite from baby's mouth surely ?
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
You'll get to see more forums and be part of the best ski club on the net.
You'll get to see more forums and be part of the best ski club on the net.
|
boredsurfin,
Sorry, I'm going to take a Scrooge-like stance on this. The promo code cost me £51 and now I'm being invited to give it away ... with the result (I suspect) that every 'promo membership' provided by the SCGB will cost me membership benefits.
Would you settle for a bag of jellybabies or something I found in a Christmas cracker recently?
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
David Goldsmith,
| Quote: |
ad offering a year's membership for £18 including 'free Salomon S-Tab Z rucksack worth £45' ... so long as you're under 24.
|
The page 85 that I'm looking at is for any membership. The only criteria I can see is that it needs to be Direct Debit and expires 30 April
|
|
|
|
|
|
snowHeads are a friendly bunch.
snowHeads are a friendly bunch.
|
|
|
|
And love to help out and answer questions and of course, read each other's snow reports.
And love to help out and answer questions and of course, read each other's snow reports.
|
|
Lou, thanks for clarifying that. The backpack is given away with any membership. If you're over 24 you pay £51 or £75 for a family membership. The ad doesn't specify whether the membership has to be new.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
| Latchigo wrote: |
David Goldsmith, Do not forget that the Ski Club definition of a 'child' used to include anybody up to the age of 37.
I think you were the last person to raise that issue as well.
|
Very satirical. I think there was a case of a 37-year-old walking into the clubhouse in school uniform and asking for a child membership, but that person was arrested.
For the benefit of the studio audience Latchigo is referring to the decision (about 3 years ago) to raise the threshold child/adult age from 18 to 24 for SCGB membership.
|
|
|
|
|
|
You know it makes sense.
|
|
Is the back pack big enough to take my boots as hand luggage?
|
|
|
|
|
|
Otherwise you'll just go on seeing the one name:
Otherwise you'll just go on seeing the one name:
|
|
I don't know. Is there any particular reason you don't want to take them as foot luggage?
|
|
|
|
|
|
Poster: A snowHead
|
The thing that intrigues me greatly about this offer is that it seems to be an open invitation to existing members to cancel-renew (perhaps prematurely) which would have to involve re-starting a direct debit to compy with the terms, and claim a backpack. The circulation of Ski+Board is approximately 90% members, 10% newstand.
I'm puzzled that the ad is targeted this way, and isn't worded to specify that it's for 'new members only' (if that discrimination is allowed legally).
|
|
|
|
|
|
Obviously A snowHead isn't a real person
Obviously A snowHead isn't a real person
|
|
Presumably the marginal cost of signing up and, ahem, servicing a new member is small, and it may be that at the price offered, the SCGB can cover the marginal cost of new under 24 members. Some of these may become over 24 members taking their place alongside David Goldsmith at £51 pa. I suppose it could be regarded as using older, wiser and, most importantly, richer members to subsidise new young blood in attempt to secure the future of the club. I doubt that the club would be able to cut David Goldsmith's sub by ceasing to take on under 24s at £18 pa, with or without a backpack.
Last edited by Obviously A snowHead isn't a real person on Wed 6-02-08 18:11; edited 1 time in total
|
|
|
|
|
|
Well, the person's real but it's just a made up name, see?
Well, the person's real but it's just a made up name, see?
|
|
|
|
You need to Login to know who's really who.
You need to Login to know who's really who.
|
richmond, the 'marginal cost of new member' argument is one that many fully-commercial clubs can advance to promote 'loss-leader' membership rates, because they are answerable to shareholders who may not even be members of the organisation. The SCGB, as a member-owned organisation, is answerable to its members (the vast majority of whom cover the running costs by paying £51 or £75 annual fees)
If the £18 rate (with free backpack) isn't simply taken up by people who later cancel, but who ultimately convert to the £51 rate, then your argument might hold water for a fully-commercial club. But the 'promise' is still full of uncertainties.
My concern is that under-24s are virtually being paid to join the Club. Furthermore, the primary membership benefit promoted in the ad is the repping service, which has c. £225,000 costs to cater for c.6000 skiers (including non-members) each winter.
So, overall, the cost to the SCGB of signing up a new under-24 member - if one discounts the marginal cost argument - could be over £80, including the backpack.
The SCUK strategy (see link above) seems to be targeted, costed and marketed with a youth market in mind.
I don't know their paid membership numbers? Are there any stats on this?
|
|
|
|
|
|
Anyway, snowHeads is much more fun if you do.
Anyway, snowHeads is much more fun if you do.
|
|
David Goldsmith, it was just a thought. I don't see that it matters who owns the club; if the tactic is successful in increasing membership in the long run without increasing costs in the short run (by charging new, young members only the marginal cost of their membership), it's presumably a good thing. Being a members' club, SCGB may need to convince it's members, rather than shareholders, of the wisdom of the schme, but the arguments would be the same for and against.
|
|
|
|
|
|
You'll need to Register first of course.
You'll need to Register first of course.
|
|
Someone please give David Goldsmith, a backpack!!
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Here's some relative (not very comparable) data, based on the latest claims I can find:
SCGB
'Paying members (units)': 19,139
Total members: 33,566
'the edge' newsletter subscribers: 145,000
SCUK
'Membership': 1200+
'User accounts': 17,595
'Newsletter subscribers': 28,000
snowHeads
'Registered snowHeads': 10,269
I imagine that user accounts, registered users of websites/forums and newsletter subscribers would include duplicate users/multiple email addresses etc.
There's not much published data on age demographics. The SCGB claims 26.9% of members are under 24 (which would include children in family subscriptions, plus independent under-24 subscriptions)
Are there any other national clubs or 'clubs' going at the moment?
Last edited by Then you can post your own questions or snow reports... on Wed 6-02-08 20:04; edited 1 time in total
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
You'll get to see more forums and be part of the best ski club on the net.
You'll get to see more forums and be part of the best ski club on the net.
|
|
Yes, you're in error
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
snowHeads are a friendly bunch.
snowHeads are a friendly bunch.
|
|
David Goldsmith, Do explain how I was in error. It is very close to to my recollection of the SCGB forum thread discussion on the matter - but as you know, search is a bit of a pain over there, and I was hoping not to have to dig it out - and I don't have the time to do it anyway, now.
|
|
|
|
|
|
And love to help out and answer questions and of course, read each other's snow reports.
And love to help out and answer questions and of course, read each other's snow reports.
|
|
David Goldsmith, I read originally as you posting something positive about the Ski Club for a change. Many under 24's are now struggling with student loans and the resulting debt, so I am afraid the Ski Club will have to work hard to get any money out of this age group. Incentives are needed, and they probably got the backpacks for next to nothing, if in fact they paid anything for them at all. Despite being owned by the membership, it has to be run as a business, and bring in money. And, just what has this got to do with SnowHeads, and the Piste, other than to complain to other SKi Club members who it appears aren't really bothered.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Helen, you're being rather harsh. Any publicity is good publicity, and boredsurfin is already after a membership and free backpack.
This is an objective discussion about marketing clubs to young skiers and boarders. No need to tick me off like a headmistress!
achilles, by all means check the facts for a change. You've a tendency to spin like a ballerina.
|
|
|
|
|
|
You know it makes sense.
|
| David Goldsmith wrote: |
| .........achilles, by all means check the facts for a change. You've a tendency to spin like a ballerina. |
You posted here (sorry that link is only viewable by SCGB members, but David seems to need a memory jog)
| David Goldsmith wrote: |
| There was no claim. There was no court. There wasn't even a lawyer. A sum, determined by the Ski Club, was paid to charity. |
Unless the club wanted spontaneously to donate members' money to charity of your choice, I think that my interpretation of events was reasonable.
PS: I am not too happy about quoting SCGB poster's names here, even in a quote - but as you use your name is consistent in both forums I trust you are happy about that. I have very good reasons - which I have explained to admin, for not using my SCGB name here.
|
|
|
|
|
|
Otherwise you'll just go on seeing the one name:
Otherwise you'll just go on seeing the one name:
|
David, you're stirring it again.
Can someone bump this off to never never land? 
|
|
|
|
|
|
Poster: A snowHead
|
halfhand, I did ask a mod - who thought it should stay here. 
|
|
|
|
|
|
Obviously A snowHead isn't a real person
Obviously A snowHead isn't a real person
|
|
achilles, that is not what I said.
|
|
|
|
|
|
Well, the person's real but it's just a made up name, see?
Well, the person's real but it's just a made up name, see?
|
Scroll back and form your own judgements, friends.
Megamum made a perfectly charming comment, and then look what happened.
I think there are perfectly genuine issues here: three clubs or 'clubs', all trying to attract similar supporters/members, carrots being dangled etc.
It's possible to talk about these very interesting things, without the personal schtick.
|
|
|
|
|
|
You need to Login to know who's really who.
You need to Login to know who's really who.
|
Helen Beaumont, sorry, no intention to misrepresent you.
| Helen Beaumont wrote: |
| ......... SCGB section is now archived, so not really the place for an active thread. .......... |
I kinda thought that you meant the thread should remain here - particularly since that is where it has stayed. If that is not what you meant, my apologies.
|
|
|
|
|
|
Anyway, snowHeads is much more fun if you do.
Anyway, snowHeads is much more fun if you do.
|
|
This is of no interest whatsoever to non-members of the SCGB - and limited interest for them! Young people should be given every incentive to join - they ain't going to do it any other way! And I should think the backpacks were a free promo. This thread should be moved to the SCGB section in the archives where it belongs.
|
|
|
|
|
|
brian
brian
Guest
|
cathy, this thread should be moved to the SCGB forum, it doesn't belong on  s at all.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
brian, Interesting Take. Mine is that the posters who persist in conducting SCGB 'business' here don't belong on s at all.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
brian, ah, but the OP can't start a thread there - and I doubt anyone else is going to complain at youngsters being given a free backpack - but yes, I agree!
|
|
|
|
|
|
You'll get to see more forums and be part of the best ski club on the net.
You'll get to see more forums and be part of the best ski club on the net.
|
|
Agenterre, thank you. Problem is that David does post about the SCGB here - maybe because he cannot post in the SCGB forum itself. It seemed to me that the best solution was for this thread tod be moved to the SCGB section. Helen did not agree.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
David Goldsmith, Just to really p!ss you off.
If you set up a direct debit, and then move banks not only do you get a free backpack, but the SCGB fail to realise you are no longer paying membership and still keep sending you membership stuff for ever and a day. (acording to my friend)
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
FAQ
