CQ-Contest
[Top] [All Lists]

[CQ-Contest] QST vs. NCJ

To: "CQ-Contest" <cq-contest@contesting.com>
Subject: [CQ-Contest] QST vs. NCJ
From: "Warren C. Stankiewicz" <nf1j@earthlink.net>
Date: Mon, 18 Jun 2007 09:06:22 -0700
List-post: <mailto:cq-contest@contesting.com>
Once again, the suggestion has surfaced that ARRL membership move to a boutique 
model, perhaps something more analagous to IEEE membership.

Which is a nice idea in theory, but a hard one to put into practice. It also 
flies in the face of what those who are titularly in charge of guiding the ARRL 
believe--that it is a membership services organization. How then to adapt it to 
a "consumer" model, where you only get what you're interested in? You may 
clearly want to read more about contests, but those responsible for QST would 
much rather inform you about other things they feel are more important (and of 
more interest to more people).

The other true issue of such division of content is clearly the advertising 
dollar. There probably isn't sufficient advertising in NCJ to warrant what 
would be a rather large expansion of its page count. Equally, I rather doubt 
the ARRL would be willing to risk a possible flight of advertisers from 
lucrative four color advertising in the flagship magazine solely to run their 
ads in targeted segments. 

"Consumerizing" the ARRL business model would be an incredibly bold move, which 
is why we're not likely to see it any time soon. The fear that "balkanization" 
of content would spread limited resources too thinly to be effective is 
probably legitimate. As attractive as the idea may be, I fear we will have what 
we have already; and need to find ways to productively work within this 
framework to further our ends, if they are to be furthered at all.

With malice towards none,

Warren, NF1J/6

_______________________________________________
CQ-Contest mailing list
CQ-Contest@contesting.com
http://lists.contesting.com/mailman/listinfo/cq-contest

<Prev in Thread] Current Thread [Next in Thread>