Author Topic: Organisers online  (Read 8610 times)

Martin

Re: Organisers online
« Reply #25 on: October 24, 2010, 11:47:09 pm »
My own online entry forms for my calendar events do allow non-members to enter.

That's excellent. It just needs a bit of simple rejigging of the wording contained on the paper entry form to be acceptable to members and non-members alike;

Presumably Ian a lot of non-members find out about (and enter) your events through your own website (which is a great bit of kit) it would be very nice if they could do the same nationally through aukweb

Re: Organisers online
« Reply #26 on: October 25, 2010, 08:54:52 am »
My own online entry forms for my calendar events do allow non-members to enter.

That's excellent. It just needs a bit of simple rejigging of the wording contained on the paper entry form to be acceptable to members and non-members alike;

Presumably Ian a lot of non-members find out about (and enter) your events through your own website (which is a great bit of kit) it would be very nice if they could do the same nationally through aukweb

Early days yet. I only put the  forms up after this year's events. One major concern was to make sure entrants were made aware of all the AUK regs and advice (esp for the more arduous events), hence the links and text at the top.

frankly frankie

  • I kid you not
    • Fuchsiaphile
Re: Organisers online
« Reply #27 on: October 25, 2010, 09:38:30 am »
Although other event management websites seem to publish Entry Lists, I've always assumed it would just be more trouble than it's worth - seems to me, for every 20 people listed, you're going to get at least one emailing you and asking for his/her name to be removed for security/privacy reasons.

Non-members, obviously it would be preferable if they were included in the online entry routines - I don't think it's a question of them being 'restricted' out, it's just extra hassle to include them in.  Where a club provides a service, it has to prioritise its paid-up members.  (CTC apparently don't agree.) 
If Ian's new forms work so well, let's hope eventually he can extend his services to cover the whole AUK calendar!

AUK makes nothing out of non-members DNS - but by the same token puts nothing in either.
Non-member validations however are the single biggest 'profit' item that AUK can get (ie the temp member fee).
I believe some Organisers have a kind of split system at their finish, handing cards straight back to anyone who does not want their ride validated by AUK.  These Orgs are (maybe unwittingly) cheating AUK of a significant source of income.
It's not dark yet but it's getting there.

Re: Organisers online
« Reply #28 on: October 25, 2010, 11:28:05 am »
A bit off-topic, but follows on from Francis's last post - I have for some time been pondering why we don't levy the "non member" fee to all non-members.  At present there is no price differential between a non-AUK member who is a member of CTC (or BCC) and an AUK member.  This does not seem right to me - there is no incentive for such an entrant to join AUK (yes, I know members get the mag, but the occasional brevet rider may not find that compelling!)

I would prefer to see ALL non-members charged the additional £2.

Manotea

  • Where there is doubt...
Re: Organisers online
« Reply #29 on: October 25, 2010, 11:32:39 am »
 which strikes
A bit off-topic, but follows on from Francis's last post - I have for some time been pondering why we don't levy the "non member" fee to all non-members.  At present there is no price differential between a non-AUK member who is a member of CTC (or BCC) and an AUK member.  This does not seem right to me - there is no incentive for such an entrant to join AUK (yes, I know members get the mag, but the occasional brevet rider may not find that compelling!)

I would prefer to see ALL non-members charged the additional £2.

That would seem reaonable. At the moment the levy is tagged as Insurance. Why not just call it a non member levy and have done with it?

mattc

  • n.b. have grown beard since photo taken
    • Didcot Audaxes
Re: Organisers online
« Reply #30 on: October 25, 2010, 11:35:14 am »
This is all a bit off-topic - but important, which is why it was discussed quite recently:

If audax isn't competitive, then why bother with validation at all?

Could I suggest we move back there? Helps keep the thread titles relevant.
Has never ridden RAAM
---------
No.11  Because of the great host of those who dislike the least appearance of "swank " when they travel the roads and lanes. - From Kuklos' 39 Articles

mikewigley

Re: Organisers online
« Reply #31 on: October 25, 2010, 09:46:18 pm »
I have for some time been pondering why we don't levy the "non member" fee to all non-members.

As membership secretary I can only agree, as an incentive for CTC and BCF members to also join AUK!

One possible answer might be that AUK doesn't put on events, but local clubs (usually CTC or BCF) often do.  It would be hard to insist that non-AUKs should pay the non-member fee for their own event.

Martin

Re: Organisers online
« Reply #32 on: October 25, 2010, 10:25:08 pm »
A bit off-topic, but follows on from Francis's last post - I have for some time been pondering why we don't levy the "non member" fee to all non-members.  

I would prefer to see ALL non-members charged the additional £2.

I don't agree with this; AUK prides itself on its rides (unlike most competitive events) being open to all cyclists; if an AUK member's entry fee ends up with a few pence going to AUK why should insured non members have to put £2 towards it? it's not as if AUK members pay a lot for membership anyway and the membership is more than covered by the access to the website and Arrivee IMO;

If AUK needs extra dosh a modest increase in the brevet card fee (which means they get it even if the riders doesn't start or finish) seems the ticket, nobody is going to sweat that being added to the entry fee. Alternatively increase the fees slightly and offer AUK's a discount on the RRP once they've logged in to print the entry form or enter by Paypal to make the price differential less obvious?

Re: Organisers online
« Reply #33 on: October 25, 2010, 10:33:22 pm »
I don't think a £2 fee would put anyone off doing a ride they want to do, regardless of whether it is for insurance or a non-member levy. In fact it probably isn't high enough to convince someone to join AUK, as you would need to do 10 events a year before you would save anything. I joined because I would rather be a member and supporter of the thing I am taking part in, as a CTC member there was no financial reason to do so.

Manotea

  • Where there is doubt...
Re: Organisers online
« Reply #34 on: October 25, 2010, 11:46:03 pm »
One possible answer might be that AUK doesn't put on events, but local clubs (usually CTC or BCF) often do.  It would be hard to insist that non-AUKs should pay the non-member fee for their own event.

A fair point. Should Orgs be authorised to waive non-AUK fees for local club members?

The other side of the coin is that Orgs cannot easily police/verify rider CTC/BC membership.

jogler

  • mojo operandi
Re: Organisers online
« Reply #35 on: October 26, 2010, 03:52:31 am »
I don't think a £2 fee would put anyone off doing a ride they want to do, regardless of whether it is for insurance or a non-member levy. In fact it probably isn't high enough to convince someone to join AUK, as you would need to do 10 events a year before you would save anything. I joined because I would rather be a member and supporter of the thing I am taking part in, as a CTC member there was no financial reason to do so.

That is/was exactly my thinking