[SBU Board] Clubs competing with Sectionals (and vice versa) - was Re: Thoughts about Kent sectional

[JC Chupack]

Branching this thread off as I think this is a good topic to discuss (and I
have thoughts on it) but I don't want to derail general thoughts about Kent.

Clubs having to compete (and competing with) sectionals, regionals, etc.
isn't limited to us. Most areas have some form of this issue.  I think it'd
be great for us to voice this up to the national level and do what we can
as a unit to lend support to proposals to address it across the org. (And I
don't know what those things are, admittedly!) The unfortunate nature of
the ACBL is that clubs compete with events (sectionals, regionals, and
nationals) and vice versa.  And yet, members would not be as encouraged to
keep playing bridge without both clubs and events.

If a club can sustain a game profitably during a sectional, I'd rather they
do that than not, because I want them to stay in business, and I want them
to keep people interested in Bridge.  It's our job to make the sectionals
appealing enough to have members come to a sectional, and I'm actually
really impressed EBC tried and succeeded at running a simultaneous game.
That means there's that much interest in playing in our area, and that's a
good thing for the game.

I'm generally not a fan of the model where clubs get a kickback from a
sectional based on size of club, because there remains little reason for a
club to send members to the sectional.  Also, the clubs that feel the most
pain from a sectional aren't necessarily getting the most from the
incentive.  Even when you tie sectional attendance by a member to a club
directly somehow (which is hard to do conclusively) or specifically
compensate for cancelled games, the incentive has to be pretty high to be
such that the club actually profits more from sending their members to the
sectional than by running a competing game (if such a game can run), and
I'm not sure whether it's in our members' interest to increase costs in
that way.

That having been said, what if we took the Saturday "grass roots" dollar
and for one or more sectionals, we gave people a token when they buy their
entry, and they can deposit that token in a club's jar to have their dollar
go to a club (with jars for each club present), or in a jar for our youth
groups if they prefer that, or in the D19 fund (the normal beneficiary) if
they prefer that?  We'd get an idea of what "allegiance" the attendees
have/feel, and we'd be encouraging clubs to send members on that day at
least.  Also, I know there's some anecdata we've gotten about people being
annoyed with that dollar, but maybe they'd be happier if they felt like
they got a choice about how it was used?

Just my two cents.  I certainly think it's an interesting challenge, and
I'm interested in others' thoughts, too.

JC



--
JC Chupack
* Find me on Facebook, LinkedIn, Google+, or Twitter: jcchupack

On Tue, Sep 20, 2016 at 4:26 PM, Tim White <trkwhite at gmail.com> wrote:

> Thanks Kim,
>
> It was known that EBC was running their usual games on the weekend.  Jeff
> directs there and sees their director scheduling calendar.  BTW, EBC ran a
> poll of their customers over the weekend and reports those players
> (largely?) would NOT have gone to the sectional had there not been the EBC
> games (too far) -- though of course the respondents self-selected by their
> actions.  Cannibalization isn't helpful in any event.
>
> Don't know about clubs' inclinations to share in P&L of our sectionals.
> Most clubs run on a shoestring and/or tight margins and might likely be
> averse to the risks of sectionals' P&L outcomes.
>
> The comment about more club support (better relations with clubs) is on
> the mark -- as this presently ranges from very positive to
> counterproductive.  This would be a worthwhile topic for a future board
> meeting.  Surely there are opportunities to consider toward more mutually
> beneficial strategies/actions and outcomes.
>
> Tim
>
>
>
> On Sep 20, 2016, at 10:21 AM, "Eng, Kim" <Keng at forestridge.org> wrote:
>
> One additional comment that I shared with Mike this weekend was that for
> the first time I could remember, one of our local clubs (EBC) was open
> during a sectional weekend. They had 8 tables. That is 32 people in our
> unit that chose to play at a club instead of our tournament for whatever
> reason. Looking at the results page, I highlighted people who usually play
> in our tourneys. Not sure about the others.
>
> <image010.png><image012.png><image014.png><image016.png><image018.png>
> <image020.png><image021.jpg>
>
> Are we okay with this? Do we have any right not to be? I mean, EBC is a
> business and if they think it is profitable for them to be open during a
> sectional (which clearly it was), isn’t it their choice?
>
> Looking ahead, I think it would be in the unit’s best interest to try to
> get more club support. I know in Portland, clubs are required to be closed
> during local sectionals, but clubs profit from the local tournaments. 50%
> of the net goes back to the clubs and the amount they receive is a % based
> on their annual table count.
>
> Not only would this help sectional attendance, but clubs would certainly
> start promoting the hell out of our tournaments because they would reap the
> benefits. I can only speak for Mercercrest as a partial club owner, but we
> make announcements before every game and we promote all unit events 1-2
> weeks in advance up until the event. I don’t know what other clubs do. My
> guess is that EBC wasn’t encouraging people to play in the sectional on
> Saturday, but probably promoting that they would be open if people didn’t
> want to make the long drive down south.
>
> Looking forward to the demographic data as we look to see if we should
> continue going to Kent for future tournaments. Perhaps instead of every
> year, we could do every other year.
>
> On the bright side…no “real” fires to put out. J
>
> Kim
>
> *From:* Sbuboard [mailto:sbuboard-bounces+keng=forestridge.org at mailman.
> celestial.com] *On Behalf Of *Michael J Ring
> *Sent:* Monday, September 19, 2016 6:08 PM
> *To:* Seattle ACBL Unit Board <sbuboard at mailman.celestial.com>
> *Subject:* [SBU Board] Thoughts about Kent sectional
>
> Hi all,
>
> I wanted to send the Board a few thoughts and notes about this weekend's
> sectional while they are fresh in my mind.
>
> As you are by now aware, attendance was disappointing. Total table count
> was as follows below. I've included the attendance from the 2015 fall
> sectional in parentheses. It's not a perfect apples to apples comparison
> given the site (Bothell) and date (3rd weekend in October) were different
> but it will give an idea about the drop off in attendance:
>
> Friday
>  Afternoon
>   Open game 30 tables (Bothell October 2015: 36 tables)
>   0-200 game 11 tables (16 tables)
>   Afternoon total 41 tables (52 tables)
>
>  Evening
>   Open game 26 tables (28 tables)
>   0-200 game 4 tables (4.5 tables)
>   Evening total 30 tables (32.5 tables)
>
>  Daily total 71 tables (84.5 tables)
>
> Saturday
>  Afternoon
>   Open pairs Qualifying  24.5 tables (30 tables)
>   0-750 game 12 tables (18 tables)
>   0-200 game 9 tables (12 tables)
>   Afternoon total 45.5 tables (60 tables)
>
>   Evening
>   Qualifying final 13 tables (13 tables)
>   Consolation 12 tables (14 tables)
>   0-750 game 9 tables (14 tables)
>   0-200 game N/A (6 tables)
>   Evening total 34 tables (47 tables)
>
>  Daily total 79.5 tables (107 tables)
>
> Sunday
>  A/X Swiss 16 tables (19 tables)
>  B/C/D Swiss 17 tables (24 tables)
>  Total for day 66 tables (86 tables)
>
> Grand total 216.5 tables (277.5 tables)
>
> Bottom line is attendance was down over 20% compared to Bothell last year.
> One possible problem is the proximity of this weekend on the calendar to
> other tournaments, whereas the October dates have fewer overlap.
> Unfortunately Kent Commons has limited availabilty in the fall. If I recall
> correctly, this was the only weekend in this time of year that we were able
> to hold a sectional when Kent Commons was free.
>
> It will be interesting to see the demographic data by city to see if the
> attendance dropoff was more the result of local players not showing up or
> North Enders/Eastsiders not coming down.
>
> Other observations:
> -As was the case last year, Kent Commons staff were extremely responsive
> to our needs.
> -Personally, I received one positive comment and no negative comments
> regarding the quality of the venue.
> -I received a few negative comments regarding distance from
> Seattle/Eastside and traffic.
> -The day of tournament phone came in handy. I received two calls - one
> call from a player stuck in traffic and one general inquiry about schedule.
> -Lunch break was slightly more than 1 hour (start time was 2:40 and my
> slow 3rd match ended at 1:30). My team went to the Ram (sit down brew pub)
> and it was just enough time for us.
> -There was a little confusion regarding the number of boards for Sunday.
> The directing staff was initially setting up for 7 board rounds. I asked
> for 7 rounds of 8 boards as is the usual procedure for A/X. Since we all
> needed to break for lunch, I also asked for 7 rounds of 8 in B/C/D so we
> would be breaking at the same time. However, is this something we should
> generally leave to the directing staff? Given we were breaking for lunch
> one movement I definitely did not want was 8 rounds of 7 - I don't know if
> Jeff's plan was 7x7 or 8x7. One recommendation Jeff had was to run 6 rounds
> of 9 boards, which is becoming popular in District 20, especially if the
> flights are fairly small. With 16 & 17 in the flights yesterday that
> probably would have been a good format but we didn't want to change it on
> the fly. However it's something to consider for the future.
> Thanks, Mike
> _______________________________________________
> Sbuboard mailing list
> Sbuboard at mailman.celestial.com
> http://mailman.celestial.com/mailman/listinfo/sbuboard
>
>
>
> _______________________________________________
> Sbuboard mailing list
> Sbuboard at mailman.celestial.com
> http://mailman.celestial.com/mailman/listinfo/sbuboard
>
>
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://mailman.celestial.com/pipermail/sbuboard/attachments/20160923/ddd540cb/attachment-0003.html>