Re: Re: New, with a View

[Stivers Bros <rich@stivers-bros.com>]

Bill Owen wrote:

> Subject: Re: new, with a veiw
> Date: Sun, 04 Oct 1998 23:48:20 PDT
> From: "Bill Owen" <wowen@hotmail.com>
> To: speeders@lists.cirr.com, M19SOORKB@prodigy.net

> Mike,
> Let me add some quasi "scientific data" to the discussion.  Earlier this
> year, MOW sent out a survey covering several topics.  One of the
> questions was "How did you learn about MOW?".  The response was 34% from
> friends, 25% from seeing us on excursions, 14% from exhibits (operation
> lifesaver, railfair, local RR hobby events, etc).  24% other (founders,
> etc.).  Based on this survey, it doesn't look like the MOW brochure had
> much effect regarding "attracting" members to the hobby.  Rather, it
> appears that the brochure simply provided some basic information about
> how to join MOW for people who are friends of members, or who see us on
> a run or at some public event and become interested in joining.

What is the value in quasi "scientific data"?  None, as I see it.  

I don't see how any valid conclusions about the effect of the brochure
on 
MOW membership can be drawn from these survey results, for the following
reasons:

    o   Learning about a club and deciding to join are two 
        completely different matters.  I find out about a lot 
        of clubs and magazines I don't join or subscribe to. 

    o   The survey spends no time inquiring on how much 
        influence the brochure had on a member's decision to 
        join the club, and the brochure's "influence to join" 
        is what we are interested in.

    o   Only about half of the MOW-licensed members responded 
        to the survey.


> I would not characterize these results as "mixed".  They speak rather
> clearly for themselves.  

Surveys rarely speak for themselves . . . they most always need a proper 
context. Part of the science of Sociology is making surveys and 
interpreting survey results.


> Perhaps not having a brochure or any written information about the club that 
> can be given to people who see us in public would make it a little harder 
> for people to find out how to join.

The enthusiastic and determined person will find out just what they need
to
know about any organization they are interested in.  Anyone who asks me 
about the hobby and wants to know more, I ask them to give me their
address
and/or phone number and I talk to them about facts, or send them basic 
literature.  I do not recruit members.


> But I very much doubt that this lack of information would guarantee that
> only the "right kind" of people (whatever that means) join us in this
> great hobby.  

No one is looking for any guarantee for the "right people".  My opinion 
about the "right people" is that are internally motivated by an intense 
interest and appreciation . . . not motivated by some marketing BS in a 
brochure.


> Especially with all the information so easily available on the web nowadays 
> (like this speeders list for example!!)

Not all worthwhile people have web access.


> Its safe, its fun, its legal - so lets go do it and enjoy it while it
> lasts!!!
> Whats left to debate?
> Bill

Since you are a MOW Board member, I'm rather alarmed about your
seemingly 
flippant and juvenile remarks above. It's only "safe, fun, and legal" if 
serious-minded and mature people keep it that way.  

What's left to debate is the entire future of the hobby, which mostly 
depends on the attitudes and actions of its leaders and participants.  
With attitudes like your fatalistic "lets-all-party-till-we-run-out" and 
"don't debate", this hobby won't last very long.

Rich Stivers