This has certainly been a lively discussion. Lots of very interesting
points on both sides of an undefined issue. Some are shooting from
the hip and giving knee jerk reactions to a proposal that has not been
articulated. I think the real issue should be the process. This is an
important enough issue that it should be given broader exposure.
What is the proposal and what is it's intended purpose? In all of the
rhetoric and smooth talkin, I have not been able to pin down any=20
specifics.
Lee has proffered that members be given a choice between QST and=20
NCJ citing that this would save ARRL money. From my perspective,
that would reduce high end ad revenue from QST and subscription
revenue from NCJ. Where is the savings?
I also agree with Dale that we should not under estimate the buying=20
power of the so called "shack on a belt" hams. I would have reduced
the analysis to the 160K non contest members vs the 3K contesting
members. I also think the the annual purchasing of both groups is
significantly lower than Dale's estimates, but even at that, contesters
control about 8 to 10 percent of the advertising market. I believe that
is a significant proportion for roughly 2 percent of the membership.
This is still a membership organization. Let's first try to work from
within and participate in the process.
73 Dallas W3PP
-
--
CQ-Contest on WWW: http://lists.contesting.com/_cq-contest/
Administrative requests: cq-contest-REQUEST@contesting.com
|