When the RAC board and executive group meets in Ottawa in October to discuss the future of our national association, what will be the focus of the meeting?
How about if we focus on the member as a customer?
So what does that mean? It means that fixing problems is all well and good but does it actually serve the customer – RAC’s members?
For example, does the much discussed governance model serve RAC’s customers in Quebec? With approximately 25 per cent of the Amateur Radio population in Canada how does it serve VE2-land to have one representative on the board?
How about The Canadian Amateur Magazine? It costs the members over $6,000 an issue to publish (so with six issues per year times $6K = $36K divided by 5,000 members = $7.20 a year out of your $55 membership dues).
If it went online with a PDF version there still would be the editorial and layout costs. (Despite calls to end paying positions no one with professional editorial, sales and publishing experience has yet to commit to doing the job.)
Would an online TCA serve the members if the magazine was available free to everyone (thus eliminating fears that someone could freely post it online)? Would that attract more paying members thus creating a stronger national organization?
Does it make any sense when it comes to time and effort to sell $50 ads to a handful of small amateur radio retailers? Will major manufacturers spend their limited ad dollars inTCA? Or does the advertising model even apply to in-house magazines like TCA?
It comes down to whether or not TCA serves the members.
What about non-members? RAC claims to represent all Canadian licensed Amateur Radio operators. But does it? Does it serve the paying members to ignore the needs of the non-members? That’s the model most clubs run on and rightly so as the members get the benefits but does it serve RAC’s members to exclude non-members thus weakening our claims that RAC represents all Canadian hams?
What about the costs of running a bricks and mortar office? Does it serve the members or would a virtual office work better for the members? (One of the reasons an office was created was to better serve the member’s needs around reaching a “real person” as opposed to a telephone answering device or service. The virtual office had its issues.) Does that still serve?
So why are the board and executive members coming to Ottawa (at their own expense BTW)? If it’s just to fix the old leaky administrative plumbing then what’s the point? What we end up with is expensive new plumbing but we end up drinking the same old tainted water.
What do you think the board and executive should discuss in Ottawa in October? What is your future vision of RAC?