[CQ-Contest] QST content

[Ford Peterson]

To the honorable Jay Bellows, Dakota Division Director

There has been considerable amounts of chatter about contesting results in
QST.  Many respondents to the internet threads are furious over the notion
of not seeing their name in print.

You were elected to your post for one reason "represent your constituents."
You have available to you one clear mandate "connect your brain before you
act."  There are issues on your desk to be evaluated.  I can only speak for
myself when I say -- act in whatever way you deem responsible after
evaluating the facts and circumstances.  I for one will only hold you to
your mandate.  I must offer my thoughts for you to consider...

When it comes to QST, I spend about 60% of my time looking at the general
interest stuff--you know, the pictures and captions--seeing other hams in
action, finding out what the hobby means to them, marvel at the depth and
breadth of the sport.  About 10%-15% is spent on the ads.  About 25% is
looking at the technical stuff.  I almost never look at contest results
unless I was a participant, and then it is just to look up my score and
compare my results to others.  If I was NOT a participant in the contest, I
rarely read a single word of the results.  When I do participate, seeing my
score tallied with the rest is VERY important to me.

The contesting culture is tuned into the scores.  I believe contesting is a
significant growth area for ham radio--"sport radio."  The folks that
participate in contests (and I am included in that group) want to develop
that culture and its traditions.  However, if contesters are successful in
generating growth, what would happen to QST if instead of 960 logs for a
contest, there are 9600!  Now triple the number of contests!  The culture is
going to need to adapt.  QST cannot possibly bear the load.

I am very sensitive to the following notions: 1) all scores, no matter how
insignificant, must be published (somewhere); 2) all entries must be scored
and tallied--whether ARRL member or not; 3) giving the results to the masses
without membership requirements will reduce ARRL memberships from the
contesting segment of the population; 4) results should be available to
non-internet connected participants (consider selling results--member or
not--separately for a nominal fee); 5) consider manufacturer sponsorship of
contests (how does this sound "The ICOM/ARRL International DX CW
Invitational" and have them put up about $200,000 (or whatever) in
administrative costs and prizes--let them pay for a few full page Ads in QST
to shamelessly promote themselves and our beloved DX contest); 6) consider
alternative ways of funding an EXPANSION of QST (I have several ideas that
could add millions to the ARRL membership causes--more on that later) rather
than a contraction; 7) listen to your membership, not your QST readership,
make sure you understand who your constituents are, provide for their needs
(which they may not even understand--e.g. spectrum protection) 8) ARRL
membership should be every ham's obligation.  Consider separating membership
from the notion of subscription QST is a $18/yr magazine, if they don't want
it, don't make them take it.  At all costs let them participate in defending
our spectrum (e.g. membership $24, membership with QST $40)

You are a good man Jay Bellows.  These are tough choices.  Remember your
mandate.

Thanks for the bandwidth

Ford-N0FP
ford at cmgate.com


--
CQ-Contest on WWW: http://lists.contesting.com/_cq-contest/
Administrative requests: cq-contest-REQUEST at contesting.com