|
Home > Archive > Chess politics > March 2005 > Chess & The USCF - What is the Potential Market?
You are viewing an archived Text-only version of the thread.
To view this thread in it's original format and/or if you want to reply to
this thread please [click here]
| Author |
Chess & The USCF - What is the Potential Market?
|
|
| George John 2005-03-15, 5:54 pm |
| All,
I thought it might be worth revisiting part of a posting I made in
2002. It compared 2000 US Census data with a snapshot of the USCF
membership as of March 2001. I was interested in learning what
percentage we had 'captured' of the total possible. Here are the
results I posted in 2002:
Age Total USCF Ratio
5 to 9 years . 20,549,505 12088 1700
10 to 14 years 20,528,072 22320 920
15 to 19 years 20,219,890 9302 2174
20 to 24 years 18,964,001 1978 9587
25 to 34 years 39,891,724 5170 7716
35 to 44 years 45,148,527 9321 4844
45 to 54 years 37,677,952 10879 3463
55 to 59 years 13,469,237 3313 4066
60 to 64 years 10,805,447 2163 4996
65 to 74 years 18,390,986 3149 5840
75 to 84 years 12,361,180 1350 9156
85 years ..... 4,239,587 245 17304
Our best result was children age 10-14 with one member for every 920
possible (1:920). The worst was age 85+ with 1:17304. Second worst
was 20-24 with 1:9587.
None of these numbers strike me as particularly good. In some ways I
am most disappointed by the age 65+ results. Overall, the result is
1:7368 or one member out of every 7368 possible.
Chess strikes me as an ideal activity for those who are older and/or
retired. It keeps the mind sharp (the Houston Chronicle once reported
that those who regularly engage in activities like chess were 2-1/2
times less likely to have Alzheimer's Disease). It is not
particularly physically demanding and is, relatively speaking, low
cost.
What I would like the USCF to do (SFAIK it has never done this), is
seriously explore low cost, high value ways to evaluate what is the
market potential for chess and the USCF. While it is possible we have
already captured a high percentage of those who would be interested in
what the USCF has to offer, I very much doubt that. The key questions
are how many out there are prospects, and what will it take to reach
them and cause them to join the USCF?
In principle I very much favor doing a professional market analysis and
conducting scientific surveys, especially of our current and recently
lapsed members. The key is to do it at reasonable cost and have
sufficient assurances that this will yield a much better understanding
of what the true potential is for the USCF -- one which will result
in substantially more members and more satisfied members.
If I'm elected to the Board, I will strongly advocate seriously
exploring these possibilities. Right now the organization feels like
it is flying blind.
Any who have professional backgrounds in marketing and surveying are
especially welcomed to add their comments. My bet is we have some
chess enthusiasts who have significant expertise in these areas, and
will be willing to volunteer their time to help the USCF get some
answers. I think doing so may greatly benefit the organization and
chess in the United States.
Best regards,
George John
| |
| Mike Murray 2005-03-15, 5:54 pm |
| On 15 Mar 2005 12:06:31 -0800, "George John" <george@neosoft.com>
wrote:
quote:
>Chess strikes me as an ideal activity for those who are older and/or
>retired. It keeps the mind sharp (the Houston Chronicle once reported
>that those who regularly engage in activities like chess were 2-1/2
>times less likely to have Alzheimer's Disease).
But whether it *prevents* Alzheimer's, or it's just that Alzheimer's
patients don't play much chess is still an open question, AFAIK.
quote:
>It is not
>particularly physically demanding and is, relatively speaking, low
>cost.
Are you kidding? Weekend tournament chess -- five or six rounds in a
couple of days -- is exhausting. And the game-a-day type events are
quite expensive if you factor in (1) travel, (2) entry fees, (3)
required memberships, (4) accommodations, and (5) value of one's
vacation time, if that's required.
quote:
>What I would like the USCF to do (SFAIK it has never done this), is
>seriously explore low cost, high value ways to evaluate what is the
>market potential for chess and the USCF. While it is possible we have
>already captured a high percentage of those who would be interested in
>what the USCF has to offer, I very much doubt that. The key questions
>are how many out there are prospects, and what will it take to reach
>them and cause them to join the USCF?
The Fischer boom already showed us what it takes. Unfortunately for
the USCF, there's no Evil Empire to overcome now. And Yassir was the
last guy with the charisma to draw people in this country into serious
chess. Maybe woman's chess can draw people in, but you gotta show me.
In addition, there are many more gaming alternatives available to
people who, forty years ago, might have been drawn into board games.
| |
| George John 2005-03-15, 5:54 pm |
| Mike Murray wrote:
Mike,
[SNIP]
quote:
> But whether it *prevents* Alzheimer's, or it's just that Alzheimer's
> patients don't play much chess is still an open question, AFAIK.
SFAIK, you are correct. There is no known causal link between playing
chess and helping prevent Alzheimer's.
The same was said by some about smoking. Those who didn't smoke had a
much lower rate of lung cancer, but there was no proven causal link.
Only recently was the causal mechanism found.
The point is a lack of a known causal mechanism does not disprove a
potential benefit for playing chess and helping prevent Alzheimer's. We
don't want to mislead anyone of course. But, if chess is fun, and
*might* help prevent Alzheimer's, might it make sense to use that in a
marketing campaign targeted to seniors?
quote:
>
>
> Are you kidding? Weekend tournament chess -- five or six rounds in a
> couple of days -- is exhausting. And the game-a-day type events are
> quite expensive if you factor in (1) travel, (2) entry fees, (3)
> required memberships, (4) accommodations, and (5) value of one's
> vacation time, if that's required.
Yes, tournament play can be very exhausting. I have experienced it
myself. But, the point is not *all* tournament play is exhausting. An
assisted living center or retirement home could have a monthly four
round tournament with a single game of say G/60 each Wednesday night
(or whatever).
Furthermore, I would like the USCF to promote more than just OTB play.
By doing so, I think it will eventually stimulate more OTB play.
Online chess is an obvious area, but I think there may be others, too,
including what is done, or might be done via "Chess Life" and/or
the members area of the USCF Website.
[SNIP]
quote:
>
> The Fischer boom already showed us what it takes.
That was one path, which may not be repeatable. I think the chances of
the US having a World Champion in the near future is low, unless we
import someone which is also unlikely, because the US is not the best
area of the world necessary to keep chess skills sharpened to the level
that is needed.
quote:
> Unfortunately for
> the USCF, there's no Evil Empire to overcome now.
I agree. The interest in the US having a World Champion would not be
so high as it was in the early 70's when cold war tensions were high.
quote:
> And Yassir was the
> last guy with the charisma to draw people in this country into
serious
quote:
> chess.
GM Seirawan is pretty amazing, but I think GM Ashley is just as
charismatic if not more so. I attended eight out of nine of his
analysis sessions at the 1998 US Open in Kona, Hawaii, and was simply
amazed at how interesting and fun he made the analysis of the games.
His sense of humor is simply amazing, and his skills at analysis, and
understanding his audience is just as amazing.
quote:
> Maybe woman's chess can draw people in, but you gotta show me.
I think this is a promising area which could lead to something very
positive. We are having very good results with our girl's chess in
Texas, so much so that the Polgar has two official slots for Texas, the
only state with a single USCF affiliate that has that distinction.
quote:
> In addition, there are many more gaming alternatives available to
> people who, forty years ago, might have been drawn into board games.
You are correct, but chess remains a wonderful game. I remain
convinced the potential is high. We just need to understand much
better how to tap this potential.
Best regards,
George John
| |
| Bill Smythe 2005-03-15, 9:50 pm |
| "George John" wrote:
quote:
> .... Chess ....
> .... keeps the mind sharp (the Houston Chronicle once reported
> that those who regularly engage in activities like chess were 2-1/2
> times less likely to have Alzheimer's Disease). ....
Just a minor quibble here.
It could be that playing chess (and similar activities) does NOT result in
increased resistance to Alzheimer's. It could be that, instead, both are
the result of a common, third cause, such as genetic makeup or something.
If so, it would be fruitless to try to fend off Alzheimer's by taking up
chess at an advanced age.
Bill Smythe
| |
| George John 2005-03-15, 9:50 pm |
| Bill,
I agree this is possible. While there appears to be a correlation
between a significantly lower incidence of Alzheimer's and regularly
engaging in activities like chess, there is no proven causal link.
Eventually one may be found, or it may be proven the correlation was
due to factors that had nothing to do with chess. At this time we just
don't know.
The person who most improved my chess when I was young was 98 years old
when I first met him. He lived past 100. I was greatly impressed by
someone his age who was so mentally sharp. He regularly studied chess,
and I have often thought this made a major difference in his life.
(BTW, he was very proud of the fact his son became a master, something
I would eventually experience, too, and might be one reason why I
encouraged my son's chess as much as I did). Obviously, this isn't
strong evidence, but my intuition tells me that something may be at
work here.
In the meantime I see no harm in using this report to encourage our
seniors and others to play more chess provided we don't mislead them
into thinking that if they play chess they will definitely avoid
Alzheimer's. And, I do see definite benefits to the USCF, chess, and
our seniors should they play more chess as a result.
Best regards,
George John
| |
| George John 2005-03-15, 9:50 pm |
| Bill,
Another area the USCF might be able to help develop is getting seniors
(and of course others, too) more involved as chess volunteers. This
might include helping at tournaments, and teaching chess, especially to
children. I have been told we have a major shortage of qualified chess
teachers in the greater Houston area. Schools would like to start a
chess club, but do not because of this fact. Children miss out on
being taught important fundamentals of the game.
We might be able to help close this gap by connecting seniors who would
want to volunteer with those programs which are in need of volunteers.
Since the USCF is becoming more savvy in its use of information
technology, it might eventually assist with a call for volunteers and
help connect the dots.
Another thing that needs to be done is help stimulate the training of
more chess teachers, especially those who can teach beginners.
Consider this brainstorming. I like to do that on rgcp.
Best regards,
George John
| |
|
|
"George John" <george@neosoft.com> wrote in message
news:1110917191.708423.276390@z14g2000cwz.googlegroups.com...
quote:
> All,
>
> I thought it might be worth revisiting part of a posting I made in
> 2002. It compared 2000 US Census data with a snapshot of the USCF
> membership as of March 2001. I was interested in learning what
> percentage we had 'captured' of the total possible. Here are the
> results I posted in 2002:
>
> Age Total USCF Ratio
> 5 to 9 years . 20,549,505 12088 1700
> 10 to 14 years 20,528,072 22320 920
> 15 to 19 years 20,219,890 9302 2174
> 20 to 24 years 18,964,001 1978 9587
> 25 to 34 years 39,891,724 5170 7716
> 35 to 44 years 45,148,527 9321 4844
> 45 to 54 years 37,677,952 10879 3463
> 55 to 59 years 13,469,237 3313 4066
> 60 to 64 years 10,805,447 2163 4996
> 65 to 74 years 18,390,986 3149 5840
> 75 to 84 years 12,361,180 1350 9156
> 85 years ..... 4,239,587 245 17304
>
> Our best result was children age 10-14 with one member for every 920
> possible (1:920). The worst was age 85+ with 1:17304. Second worst
> was 20-24 with 1:9587.
Good post.
The thing that pops out of this for me is peak around the 45-54 crowd. This
is a point when folks generally have significant demands on the rest of
their lives, either through work or family. Yet, this is where the density
is greatest. Of course, this is the crowd that was 15-25 in 1971. They
caught the bug and stuck. Using my subscription analogy from a few years
ago, it looks like the membership converted to a repeat member. How many of
those are lifers? Are they on the rolls but are inactive? While the Fischer
bug is unlikely to recur any time soon, the mechanism can: Convert the new
member to a renewing member. Construct strategies around mentorships and
reduced barriers to retention (price, lack of skill, lack of playing
opportunity, whatever).
The other big discontinuity is the fall-off from 15-19 to 20-24. This is a
combination of price structure, lack of parental influence on the decision
to stay (which takes place in the earlier period), and the competition of
other social activies for young 20's. What would be interesting here is to
compare to earlier periods. Did those who picked up the game in the Fischer
era stay, or did they join up when other parts of their lives settled down?
Look at the data longitudinally and treat the group as a cohort. The
Fischer era generated a lot of players. The past ten years generated a lot
of scholastic players. Will the scholastic players return in their late
twenties and early thirties? Look to the Fischerite cohort for a model.
quote:
>
> None of these numbers strike me as particularly good. In some ways I
> am most disappointed by the age 65+ results. Overall, the result is
> 1:7368 or one member out of every 7368 possible.
On what basis are these numbers not good? Seriously...what would constitute
success? Other data is needed to answer that. I propose, if the
qualifications about activity don't speak to the contrary, that the
Fischerite cohort be used as a metric of successful market penetration until
someone can demonstrate another metric that is a better measure of success.
quote:
>
> Chess strikes me as an ideal activity for those who are older and/or
> retired. It keeps the mind sharp (the Houston Chronicle once reported
> that those who regularly engage in activities like chess were 2-1/2
> times less likely to have Alzheimer's Disease). It is not
> particularly physically demanding and is, relatively speaking, low
> cost.
I disagree. The question isn't whether chess is an ideal activity. The
question is whether the organization is aligned with the needs of those
players. What motivation do older players have to be members? Older
players may enjoy the game at whatever skill level they play at. Chess
clubs are common at senior centers...they just aren't affiliated because
there is no reason to be members. People pick their niches. They stick
with things they do well. Someone picking up the game late in life has
different motivations toward learning the game, and differs in her ability
to ever play strongly due to the changes in the aged learning process. What
is the motivation for a player, picking up the game late in life, to play
tournament chess, where they are surrounded by non-peers and where they are
unlikely to perform competitively? Add the demand of travel, either at
night to club events or into large cities for large events...
quote:
>
> What I would like the USCF to do (SFAIK it has never done this), is
> seriously explore low cost, high value ways to evaluate what is the
> market potential for chess and the USCF. While it is possible we have
> already captured a high percentage of those who would be interested in
> what the USCF has to offer, I very much doubt that. The key questions
> are how many out there are prospects, and what will it take to reach
> them and cause them to join the USCF?
This was discussed somewhat three years ago. From what I recall, there have
been some isolated and incomplete research projects. The bigger issue, if
true, was that it was stated that the information was ignored.
quote:
>
> In principle I very much favor doing a professional market analysis and
> conducting scientific surveys, especially of our current and recently
> lapsed members. The key is to do it at reasonable cost and have
> sufficient assurances that this will yield a much better understanding
> of what the true potential is for the USCF -- one which will result
> in substantially more members and more satisfied members.
I think most would agree with this. To paraphrase: it's a good idea if the
benefit is favorable in relation to the cost.
quote:
>
> If I'm elected to the Board, I will strongly advocate seriously
> exploring these possibilities. Right now the organization feels like
> it is flying blind.
>
Good plan. How about a preliminary conversation with a market research firm
regarding cost? How about contacting other gaming organizations to see if
they would share data? I am in regular contact with one of the board
members at GAMA. I'll see if they have any relevant info.
David
quote:
> Any who have professional backgrounds in marketing and surveying are
> especially welcomed to add their comments. My bet is we have some
> chess enthusiasts who have significant expertise in these areas, and
> will be willing to volunteer their time to help the USCF get some
> answers. I think doing so may greatly benefit the organization and
> chess in the United States.
>
> Best regards,
>
> George John
>
--
CaissaWas__SPAMHater__INTP@adelphia__ANTIV__.net without the block
| |
| Cranky Chess 2005-03-16, 3:51 am |
|
George John wrote:
quote:
> Bill,
>
> Another area the USCF might be able to help develop is getting
seniors
quote:
> (and of course others, too) more involved as chess volunteers. This
> might include helping at tournaments, and teaching chess, especially
to
quote:
> children. I have been told we have a major shortage of qualified
chess
quote:
> teachers in the greater Houston area. Schools would like to start a
> chess club, but do not because of this fact. Children miss out on
> being taught important fundamentals of the game.
>
Thats all we need - a horde of blue-haired kiddie wranglers. That
ought to fix the USCF's problems righty-o.
Scholastic chess is a good thing of its own and I have spent a lot of
time and money supporting it over the last twenty years. However, the
number of unprepared, bratty kids and their douchbag parents who have
shown up at the "adult" tournaments around here in the last ten years
have had a direct relationship to the fact that the 4 experts living in
my zip code have quit playing.
My "adult" tournaments now have a restriction that players must be at
least 14 years old or have a 1400 USCF rating. I think that is why my
adult base is holding steady for the last three years. Less noise,
less garbage on the floor, fewer kids crying after being stomped, and
the parents aren't throwing a hissy fit if one of the adult players had
a beer at lunch.
If the USCF ever complains of those restrictions, then they can blow me
because there are no other directors in this area who will touch adult
tournaments anymore because of the potential monetary losses.
| |
|
| |
|
|