Folks, I want to go on record as agreeing totally with Jim's post. This last proposal has kept us on defense, and you don't win a game on defense only. This is not at all an indictment of current leadership, because I've seen this as a problem for years (anybody remember "Incentive Licensing"??? Yep, I mentioned the 'I' word). In today's world, where any yoohoo can post a bunch of garbage to a blog, it is even more incumbent on us to make sure the reasons, benefits, and considered alternatives are clearly explained to the Membership, and disinformation is corrected. Maybe a full-blown QST article, including FAQ's, followed by "error corrections" in the ARRL Letter? Whatever is decided, any proposal with any possibility of controversy should be accompanied by a sufficient marketing campaign. 73, Karl, WA5TMC Jim Weaver wrote:

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@arrl.org <mailto:k8je@arrl.org>; Tel.: 513-459-0142

/*/ARRL - The Reason Amateur Radio Is!/*/

/*/Members - The Reason ARRL Is!/*/