A friend told me that there are about 762,000 FCC-licensed US amateurs, while the ARRL has about 147,000 US members i.e. less than 20% of US licensed amateurs belong to the ARRL. Those license statistics can be
misleading, however, since hams who lose interest in and drift away from the hobby would understandably be reluctant to stump up their ARRL membership dues, even if they choose to continue paying the license fees (partly to avoid having to re-take the exams).
I
wonder what proportion of active hams are members? I appreciate that's a 'How long is a piece of
string' issue ... but I'd be willing to bet it's more than 20% in the US for any reasonable definition of "active".
"The FCC issues 30,000 new licenses a year. 3,000 join the ARRL (10%). Of those 3,000, 600 will renew their membership after the first year (2%). Hardly a sustainable business model. I'm not here to question the financial viability of the ARRL, I simply want to point out they are flogging a dead horse. To an overwhelming majority of US Amateurs (myself included) they offer nothing that is worth $49/year. There's a reason for that ... They are totally out of touch with reality."
If true, those new licensee numbers
are concerning. If I were in charge,
I'd be asking why and digging deeper into the root causes.
I'll assert that in most countries, as far as I can tell, the national societies
represent "a good proportion" of the active hams, considerably more
than 20% I'd guess and likely to vary by country for all sorts of reasons e.g.:
- One of the main attractions, for some, is the ability to use their national QSL bureau: that's in decline as card use falls away in favor of electronic confirmations by various means;
- Another attraction is the society magazine, again becoming less relevant by the day due to the Interweb and social media, plus the shortage of engaging, worthwhile magazine content written by competent authors (in part due to the rise of 'appliance operators' with their black boxes - all the gear but no idea!). Personally, I find QST consistently good. YMMV;
- Some societies offer [potentially] valuable member benefits such as discounts on radio-related goods and services;
- Arguably one of the most important but least recognized membership benefits is advocacy - the society representing members to the licensing authorities, negotiating license terms and conditions, gaining concessions for new bands and modes, resisting commercial pressures to buy spectrum, that sort of stuff - and low membership levels would obviously be a concern there;
- There are other peripheral or incidental benefits I guess - wanting to 'belong' to a tribe, plus social/peer pressure, ethical concerns, and access to tech specialists (e.g. for planning assistance) etc.
On the other hand, what are the reasons not to belong to the society, aside from those losing interest and leaving
the hobby?
- Lack of available funds or 'better things to do with my money' is presumably #1, with a subsidiary issue of real and/or perceived lack of value (=poor marketing). Not belonging is the do-nothing spend-nothing default position, a natural bias and inertia that radio society marketing needs to overcome just to get off the starting blocks;
- Lack of awareness (= terrible marketing);
- Social pressure, again, only this time it's the more insidious pressure from those who not only don't support the society but actively discourage others for some reason;
- Philosophical/ethical objections. Is there a genuine basis for claiming that ARRL is 'totally out of touch with reality'? And anyway, if so, is not belonging the only/best way to address that? Arguably, non-members are the ones 'totally out of touch'!;
- Carelessness/laziness/procrastination;
- Others - it is after all a personal choice.
This is all guesswork and presumption on my part. One appropriate way to address this would be a suitable market survey. I wonder how many
societies have the wherewithal (inclination, finance, guts) to design and run surveys? I wonder how few would seek and consider the
views of non-members, rather than simply surveying members and confirming the existing bias? I wonder if any have gathered the data but then failed to act accordingly, perhaps wrongly analyzing the information or drawing invalid conclusions? I wonder if weak leadership and/or poor governance might lead to a lack of initiative and strategy - including limited understanding and support for the marketing aspects I've mentioned throughout this piece? After all, radio societies rely heavily on volunteers, making direction and control inherently difficult. On top of that, ours is a broad hobby with many different interests that attracts strong personalities, so aligning us is like herding cats. I don't pretend to have easy answers.
73
Gary ZL2iFB
