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
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
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
E-mail: k8je@arrl.org;
Tel.: 513-459-0142
ARRL -
The Reason Amateur Radio Is!
Members -
The Reason ARRL Is!