Everyone -
Like Carl, I agree with Jim's argument below. In both my dealings with hams
in my community, around my section and division, I get the very real sense
that members are becoming skeptical in ARRL as far as its actions and the
perception (don't shoot the messenger here) that there is a growing gap
between the League and its dues-paying membership. Of course I jump right
in and speak to these concerns with these folks with what the League has
been up to on their behalf, and ham radio's behalf. But the existence of
their concerns says something that we might take a good, hard look at.
I will acknowledge that there are those in the ham community and even some
members who will never be pleased. They (description of a female dog in
heat) and moan but don't offer solutions or volunteer their time. I'm not
concerned with them one bit.
On the other hand, the above concerns come from hams who are active in the
community and on the air. That strikes me.
There is also the group of hams who are impressionable and hear (or read on
forums) nothing but negative comments, rumors or misinformation about the
League from negative folks. That strikes me, even if those impressionable
people can't do their own research or think for themselves, because they
then might depart with a negative view on the League no matter how misguided
it is. That hurts us, and ends up hurting potential members, and feeds the
skepticism about the League.
I believe we need to counter this by, as Jim mentioned below, marketing not
only ourselves more but especially marketing our product which not only
affects League members, but the larger group of Hams in the community who
are NOT League members as well. We've done our best up till now, but I'm
thinking something needs to be done better. What exactly, I'm still not
sure, but I submit to you that the topic should be discussed especially
since we appear to be in the midst of retracting a very controversial FCC
proposal (after a controversial addendum) in order to resubmit a better
product to the same jury that makes up our ham community and ultimately the
FCC.
I also believe that somehow - again, I don't have the exact solution in mind
yet - an effort be spent countering the misinformation that proliferates so
easily on certain forums. While QST and the ARRL website is significant, it
shouldn't stop there given the popularity of other forums - and especially
since non-members who have the right to comment to FCC about our proposals
probably don't read QST or the League website. Again, we won't please some
people and we shouldn't spend too much time and resources on these other
forums, but our complete absence (essentially) basically cedes the
discussion to those who are bent on twisting our good intentions and our
reputation.
Doing better with the above, in my opinion, will counter the seeming
perception that the League is - to some degree - losing touch with our
membership and the ham community we speak for. Or, at the minimum, a sense
of renewed pride which seems to need a shot in the arm as Jim mentioned.
Just food for thought. Jim and Carl raise very valid concerns and ideas.
We should take a good look at these things, especially in light of the
beating we seem to have taken from the latest proposal, especially before we
face a new wave of opinion/rumor/judgment when said proposal is withdrawn
after the mild controversy caused from amending it a few weeks ago. And
especially, especially as the proposal is revised (again) and re-released to
that same jury and ultimately the FCC.
My two cents based on my members' candid thoughts and my observation.
73,
Brian, N5ZGT
_____
From: Jim Weaver [mailto:k8je@arrl.org]
Sent: Monday, April 16, 2007 6:22 PM
To: arrl-odv
Subject: [arrl-odv:15436] HOW WE CAN AVOID LETRING OUR MEMBERS DOWN -- AGAIN
Ladies & Gents,
RE: RM-11306 etc.
PROPOSAL: I suggest ARRL develop and staff an effective Intellectual
Marketing operation for our main product which is the petitions for
rulemaking we submit to the FCC. To my knowledge, we do not have one or two
skill sets on staff at this time to operate this department. I do not
believe we need to break the piggy bank to obtain these skill sets. Please
note that the skills needed in an Intellectual Marketing operation are
different from the skills needs to market existing ARRL product categories.
Discussion:
While deciding to vote my support for the EC reco to withdraw RM-11306, I
became quite depressed over the damage that was caused not only to what
remained of our effort to obtain Regulation by Bandwidth, but to the
reputation of ARRL and Amateur Radio, and the future ability of ARRL to
advocate effectively for the well-being of Amateur Radio. To say this as
plainly as I can, it is my opinion that we, the Board and Management of
ARRL, unintentionally abandoned our members through our mismanagement of
RM-11306 and other petitions we have submitted to the FCC in recent years.
Yes, I blame no one for the despicable showings ARRL initiatives have made
than us who lead ARRL. This clearly includes me should, among everyone else
on the Board and in Management, should have known better because of my
experience.
Based upon the philosophy that correcting a situation late is better than
never, I ask that you follow my thinking. Evaluate it however you will, but
please give it consideration. I realize there will be an initial thought
that I am suggesting the Board "micro manage" staff, but I would hope it
does not become necessary for us to do this.
Where I believe we all have failed our members and the entire US Amateur
Radio community is very basic. We have taken splendid regulatory concepts
and dropped them into the laps of the FCC and our members without following
the extremely basic principles of market planning, market development and
market introduction. If we were a consumer product company, we would be out
of business by now. We would have developed products and introduced them
into consumer sales without determining either whether the consumer wants
them or whether we can educate the consumer to learn he/she wants them. We
further have not determined what roadblocks we are likely to face in our
market introduction, and how to manage or avoid these roadblocks. For
example, we did not anticipate the significance Mr. Teller would have on our
"bandwidth" effort. Therefore, we did not take the critical steps necessary
to negate his arguments before he sold these to unsuspecting, gullible,
well-meaning members. We did not even have a plan to defuse Mr. Teller's
slanted and often-false allegations once these were made. Please make no
mistake about this. It is not Teller's fault he was successful, it is ours.
Any quality, consumer marketing company would have developed and employed
preventative tactics to nullify readily-anticipated attack. In addition,
the company would have anticipated a variety of attacks on the product after
its introduction, and would have prepared tools for the immediate management
of these attacks upon their being made. We have not done this, at least
during recent years.
How does the consumer product company analogy fit the situation with ARRL?
A cosmetic, cleaning product, food product, tool, etc. are the company's
product. RM-11306 and other of our petitions to FCC are the Board's
products.
Just as no successful major consumer product company would attempt to market
a product without first having done effective basic research, product
research, consumer research, market research and development, and consumer
relations damage control preparation, I suggest the Board needs to adopt
equivalent planning and execution in our effort to develop effect petitions
to obtain FCC rulemaking.
The Board has done each of the necessary steps toward developing and
promoting its recent petitions except that we have essentially ignored
consumer research, market research and consumer relations damage control
preparation. It is well known in the consumer industry that many products
succeed or fail because of inadequate management of consumer affairs . . .
not because the product is faulty.
On Saturday, I spoke at a quarterly luncheon meeting of QCWA Chapter 1 in
Cleveland. During this meeting, one of the members asked me if the ARRL has
any clout with the FCC and if ARRL has enough of a following with its
members to get anything done. This was telling!
I suggest that if we are to enjoy a sense of respect for ARRL within the
FCC, and are to redevelop (yes, redevelop) a sense of pride and true
allegiance in ARRL membership among the majority of our members, we need to
become successful in obtaining adoption of our petitions. Without such
success, it seems to me that we relegate ourselves to being little more than
an awards factory. Too, without success in Washington, why should we expect
non-members to want to join us?
Major consumer product companies spend major portions of their budgets on
product development-marketing operations such as I've discussed. On the
other hand, ARRL is graced with a wide variety of skills and experiences
among its members. Properly identified and managed by staff or the Board, I
suggest we could tap into the marketing experience of select members who
would gladly volunteer their services to provide much of the skill and
experience needed to develop a top notch Intellectual Marketing Department.
Although the idea of using volunteers in such a position may seem foreign to
ARRL, I would like to point out that the US FDA and other agencies have used
the services of volunteers effectively on critical advisory boards for many
years. This is not without cost, but greatly minimizes the cost as compared
with direct hires to the agencies.
Finally and rather obviously, I do not believe we can afford not to learn
how to operate much more smartly than we have demonstrated recently.
I will appreciate any discussion on this topic. What do you think?
73,
Jim
Jim Weaver, K8JE, Director
ARRL Great Lakes Division
5065 Bethany Rd.
Mason, OH 45040
E-mail: k8je(a)arrl.org; Tel.: 513-459-0142
ARRL - The Reason Amateur Radio Is!
Members - The Reason ARRL Is!
