[SBU Board] Newer Player Session Entry Fee Discounts

[Tim White]

Folks,

We will be taking up the matter of potential discounting of session entry fees for newcomers.  We have some data to support our discussions/consideration:

a)  Sharon Erwin acquired, from McKenzie, attendance figures for 0-5 and 0-20 masterpoint holders for 2016 U446 open sectionals.  I have aggregated and transcribed this data into a columnar MS Word file, see attachment.  (It appeared the 0-5 data for Sept was a repeat of other data so I entered "no data.")  The data provide, by name, the # of newcomer sessions played at each open sectional.

b)  Using the data from a) above, and applying a $10 per session entry, I constructed a table showing 2016 session entry fee revenues from 0-5 and 0-20 players at open sectionals, see attachment.  This offers a basis for projecting a range of annual revenue that might be foregone by giving discounted entry fees or free plays to newer players.  

I sent an inquiry to Matt K seeking his understanding of ACBL sanction fees effects and his overall views on the idea of offering reduced entry fees for newer players.  Excerpts from his response are provided in quotes and italics here:

"It is my impression that no sanction fee is due for these free plays. The DiC has to manually record the sanction free tables in the financial papers. The reg says that no sanction fee is due for free plays designed to introduce new players to the game. I have broadly understood that to mean it is not due for newcomer free plays. No sanction fee reduction applies if any entry fee is collected.  This means, for instance, that letting youth play for $1 is almost the same as letting them play free (no sanction fee). 

That being said: I think 0-5 free plays are a bad idea. They reward people who simply choose not to join Acbl. They are a little random in their effect, since some people stay under five for a long time, for a variety of reasons. Others start picking up points quickly. The unit's invention of free plays for U446 members who pass 20MP (which I still believe qualifies as a sanction-free instrument) is superb. It rewards members who have discovered tournaments with a hook to keep them coming. It also gives newer players who have built up points a risk-free way to try tournaments. Best of all, it is targeted. It gives a benefit to our own members, and it gives a benefit to people who actually appear to have been bitten by the bridge bug. Free plays for any player who is 0-5 just doesn't work as well. Lastly, the accounting is much easier for any free play handled via coupon. Whether it is 0-20 or unit board, it is much easier to balance each sale and the whole tournament when the organizer issues some sort of coupon which is presented at the sale. 

The attendance pattern in the 0-200 events closely tracks the production of new players in classes (mostly at clubs). The segment of attendance of the newest players tracks that even more closely. So it's cyclical. Some classes are offered all the time; other clubs find themselves ramping up the education as attendance appears to be declining in newer-player games."

Please review this information in preparation for our next board meeting.

Thanks,
Tim

-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://mailman.celestial.com/pipermail/sbuboard/attachments/20170314/5883e062/attachment-0003.html>
-------------- next part --------------
A non-text attachment was scrubbed...
Name: 2016 0to5 & 0to20 aggegrate.docx
Type: application/vnd.openxmlformats-officedocument.wordprocessingml.document
Size: 136357 bytes
Desc: not available
URL: <http://mailman.celestial.com/pipermail/sbuboard/attachments/20170314/5883e062/attachment-0002.bin>
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://mailman.celestial.com/pipermail/sbuboard/attachments/20170314/5883e062/attachment-0004.html>
-------------- next part --------------
A non-text attachment was scrubbed...
Name: 0-5_0-20_revenuedata.docx
Type: application/vnd.openxmlformats-officedocument.wordprocessingml.document
Size: 48852 bytes
Desc: not available
URL: <http://mailman.celestial.com/pipermail/sbuboard/attachments/20170314/5883e062/attachment-0003.bin>
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://mailman.celestial.com/pipermail/sbuboard/attachments/20170314/5883e062/attachment-0005.html>