ODV, I've received a few comments recently about whether we need a structured plan for electronic delivery of QST. Essentially the suggestion is, "It's really very simple--we just make it available to everyone." I want to challenge that view. And this sort of suggestion is exactly why I made the motion I did in January (Minute 41), requiring a full plan before we roll out an electronic version. I'll begin with a simple statement--Some reduced versions of QST can actually be worth more than receiving the whole cover-to-cover version. Why do I say "less is more"? I was approached by a member of my Division in the last few weeks saying that he would like to get a version of QST that didn't have "all that emComm stuff" in it. A version of QST tailored to his interests would be valuable to him. When I tell you that this fellow is in his 80's, you will understand that some topics just don't seem relevant to him anymore. Then came the final surprise--he said, "I'd even be willing to pay more to get this." Now, this ham is about the tightest guy I know, in a hobby where being cheap is a badge of honor. And he's previously complained about the high cost of ARRL membership. So, if he tells me he is willing to pay more, I am paying attention. I'm sure a number of you have had some similar conversations. The point is--electronic versions of our publications represent a huge opportunity, and I am concerned that we're going to let it slip away. So, everyone reading this on ODV should take it as a personal challenge to define versions of QST that add value. Here are some examples, some of which are nearly in place for existing content-- • Delivering customized versions of QST that have less but more pertinent content, customizable by the individual member. • Live-linked, expanded versions of QST content (like expanded equipment reviews or PC board layouts on construction articles). • As a paper journal, QST is necessarily delivered only 12 times a year. Would more frequent delivery be a benefit? We're getting close to our newsletters in delivery terms, but we have all the flexibility we could want in defining alternate delivery methods. • Cross references to other League publications, as hypertext. • Alternate feed methods--RSS, podcasts, etc. "Push" delivery vs. "pull" delivery. • Support for electronic archiving--on the members' computers. At a hamfest yesterday, one guy proudly told me that he has 50 years of QST in his "archive," and he was talking about paper copies. There are still electronic services we can bring such folks, like search on ARRL.org that links easily with his hard copy library. And people do want to be able to save information, just as they save old copies of QST. • An "ARRL VHF Journal" that incorporates content from QST, QEX, NCJ and arrl.org, brought together into a single, all-in-one-place "issue." It is easy to generalize this to a "DX Journal", "emComm Journal" and perhaps others. I'm sure there are better examples than these, but they illustrate the kind of flexibility we can have if we only choose to exercise it. Beyond thinking creatively about selective content in QST, we are also faced with a fundamental question--can and/or should we attach nominal charges to any value-added services? I used to think that was out of the question. When my cheap member told me he was prepared to pay, I tossed that limitation out the window. At this point, I don't think we should be trying to gain significant income via this method, but we should start the process to establish that value is being added, and that we can't add unlimited service increases without charge. A lot of these questions simply mirror what we've all heard over the years about what QST and other publications should include. The difference today is that electronics and the web now make possible the "mass customization" by which we can deliver added value for essentially the one-time cost of setting up the capability. What other innovative customizations or delivery methods can we define? -- 73, Greg, KØGW Director, Dakota Division

All, I can assure you that staff will follow Minute 41 of the January meeting scrupulously. This is a rapidly changing field. For example, the One Pass subscription recently announced by Google is something we will take a close look at. Dave K1ZZ From: arrl-odv-bounces@reflector.arrl.org [mailto:arrl-odv-bounces@reflector.arrl.org] On Behalf Of Jim Weaver K8JE Sent: Monday, February 21, 2011 12:07 AM To: Widin, Gregory, (Dir, DK); arrl-odv Subject: [arrl-odv:19713] Re: Plan for electronic QST Greg, I just returned from a trip to a hamfest west of Detroit. Believe it or not, I received your initial transmission. Incidentally, I am on A&F again this year and it is my understanding that HQ will make no final arrangements relative to an e-QST without getting our explicit approval. Personally, I don't see this happening without first sharing the details with the rest of the Board. I am not A&F Chairman, but I know I would vote negative on a proposed final approval without first letting you and the rest of the directors, especially, get a good look at the proposal. I'd also want a good beta test to include the Board if/when we get this far. Just my personal position. 73, Jim Jim Weaver, K8JE, Director ARRL Great Lakes Division 5065 Bethany Rd. Mason, OH 45040; Tel. 513-459-1661 ARRL, The national association for Amateur Radio ________________________________ From: arrl-odv-bounces@reflector.arrl.org [mailto:arrl-odv-bounces@reflector.arrl.org] On Behalf Of G.P. Widin Sent: Sunday, February 20, 2011 12:29 PM To: ODV Subject: [arrl-odv:19710] Plan for electronic QST ODV, I've received a few comments recently about whether we need a structured plan for electronic delivery of QST. Essentially the suggestion is, "It's really very simple--we just make it available to everyone." I want to challenge that view. And this sort of suggestion is exactly why I made the motion I did in January (Minute 41), requiring a full plan before we roll out an electronic version. I'll begin with a simple statement--Some reduced versions of QST can actually be worth more than receiving the whole cover-to-cover version. Why do I say "less is more"? I was approached by a member of my Division in the last few weeks saying that he would like to get a version of QST that didn't have "all that emComm stuff" in it. A version of QST tailored to his interests would be valuable to him. When I tell you that this fellow is in his 80's, you will understand that some topics just don't seem relevant to him anymore. Then came the final surprise--he said, "I'd even be willing to pay more to get this." Now, this ham is about the tightest guy I know, in a hobby where being cheap is a badge of honor. And he's previously complained about the high cost of ARRL membership. So, if he tells me he is willing to pay more, I am paying attention. I'm sure a number of you have had some similar conversations. The point is--electronic versions of our publications represent a huge opportunity, and I am concerned that we're going to let it slip away. So, everyone reading this on ODV should take it as a personal challenge to define versions of QST that add value. Here are some examples, some of which are nearly in place for existing content-- * Delivering customized versions of QST that have less but more pertinent content, customizable by the individual member. * Live-linked, expanded versions of QST content (like expanded equipment reviews or PC board layouts on construction articles). * As a paper journal, QST is necessarily delivered only 12 times a year. Would more frequent delivery be a benefit? We're getting close to our newsletters in delivery terms, but we have all the flexibility we could want in defining alternate delivery methods. * Cross references to other League publications, as hypertext. * Alternate feed methods--RSS, podcasts, etc. "Push" delivery vs. "pull" delivery. * Support for electronic archiving--on the members' computers. At a hamfest yesterday, one guy proudly told me that he has 50 years of QST in his "archive," and he was talking about paper copies. There are still electronic services we can bring such folks, like search on ARRL.org that links easily with his hard copy library. And people do want to be able to save information, just as they save old copies of QST. * An "ARRL VHF Journal" that incorporates content from QST, QEX, NCJ and arrl.org, brought together into a single, all-in-one-place "issue." It is easy to generalize this to a "DX Journal", "emComm Journal" and perhaps others. I'm sure there are better examples than these, but they illustrate the kind of flexibility we can have if we only choose to exercise it. Beyond thinking creatively about selective content in QST, we are also faced with a fundamental question--can and/or should we attach nominal charges to any value-added services? I used to think that was out of the question. When my cheap member told me he was prepared to pay, I tossed that limitation out the window. At this point, I don't think we should be trying to gain significant income via this method, but we should start the process to establish that value is being added, and that we can't add unlimited service increases without charge. A lot of these questions simply mirror what we've all heard over the years about what QST and other publications should include. The difference today is that electronics and the web now make possible the "mass customization" by which we can deliver added value for essentially the one-time cost of setting up the capability. What other innovative customizations or delivery methods can we define? -- 73, Greg, KØGW Director, Dakota Division ________________________________ No virus found in this message. Checked by AVG - www.avg.com Version: 10.0.1204 / Virus Database: 1435/3453 - Release Date: 02/19/11