USA: Regional Contest Entry w/ Drop Outs

On Aug 21, 7:52*pm, Chip Bearden wrote:
9B's and BB' comments point us in an interesting direction: i.e.,
thinking about glider contests in terms of marketing mix and pricing
policy. After all, organizers are selling a product in competition
with other uses for pilots' time and money. And pilots are no more
"entitled" to glider contests than they are to free gasoline at the
pump.

I can't help it. My father voted Republican his entire life. I'm a
free-market maven. If pilot behavior and organizers' responses drive
us towards 2 or 3 super regionals that only the top-ranked pilots can
gain entry to, so be it. If that should happen, however, I strongly
suspect we would see the advent of more local and regional contests,
perhaps with innovative pricing schemes, that would soon grow big
enough to qualify for (demand?) regional sanctioning.

In the business world, companies routinely study their successful
competitors to learn how to do it better. So what do regionals like
New Castle and Perry and Mifflin and Parowan--all of whom routinely
turn pilots away--do that make them so popular? Why does Region 6 N
(Ionia) draw decent crowds year after year in mid August in Michigan,
a time when this former midwesterner would normally not even bother
driving to the gliderport? Former operator Jerry Benz used to say he
always made money on this contest, so I guess he had it figured out.

A few years ago, Region 1 advertised a sliding-scale entry fee based
on the number of entrants: the more pilots who signed up, the lower
would be the entry fee. I don't know whether this had any effect but
it was an interesting idea. How about a discount for anyone who enters
ahead of time and pays the full, non-refundable fee, like an advance-
purchase airline ticket? Would anyone do that? I guess it depends on
the discount. Would SSA pass along a lower sanction fee in exchange
for being able to keep it regardless of whether the pilot showed up?
Or how about staggered deadlines with increasingly higher fees the
later you enter (yes, I realize this is another twist on the late-
entry surcharge I was complaining about, but I'm making trouble; I
don't have to be consistent).

Switching sports, most marathons in the U.S. offer a lower rate for
those who enter 3 to 6 months in advance, a higher rate for 60 days
out, and still higher for 30 days out or race-weekend registration,
etc. No refunds, ever. A few allow participants to transfer their
entry to another runner, for a fee. Or to defer entry to a subsequent
year, usually with another fee. I'm not saying any of this will work
for soaring contests but with marathons, each race director is free to
design what he/she feels is the optimal combination of race course,
organization, amenities, predicted weather, reputation, etc. And
there's no limit on what a marathon can charge. Some are in the $40
range. Others are over $100...and still close out early. The big ones
often reserve places for runners who raise money for specific
charities: how about "Guaranteed Entry to Perry 2010: Just Raise
$1,000 for the SSA--Sign up your club members and buddies to
contribute $0.10 per mile for every mile you fly, with a $20 bonus if
you win a day or place in the top 3 overall!". None of this may work
with soaring contests but perhaps it's worth looking at some new
concepts, as 9B has proposed. As I said earlier, pilots respond to
financial incentives/disincentives just like everyone else. The trick
is to design such incentives so they accomplish the desired objective,
not just to react in a knee-jerk fashion.

In addition to being free market, I'm also a cynic. Glider pilots are,
on average, a cut above your average consumer. But we have all kinds,
too. So moralizing about how unfair it is not to show up at the last
minute even though a pilot has complied with the rules and, in
addition, forfeits his deposit won't solve this "problem".

Beyond that, there are some thornier questions. If there are only 6 or
7 pilots who will show up for a given regional, should we be trying to
save that regional with new rules and/or fees...or to encourage the
sponsor to take steps to become more competitive? I've flown Region 3
numerous times, including when it's been held at Dansville, NY. It's a
great organization and a fine site where I and my family have had
wonderful times. But I recall two things: (1) August weather in
upstate NY is iffy; and (2) in recent years, the "late entry
surcharge" warning has often been very prominent and "in your face".
I'm sure it's not intended to be offensive but it's put me off.
Moreover, I wonder how many pilots (including yours truly) will put in
our vacation request and plan the kids' summer activities around a
week at Region 3 remembering 2009 when the party was cancelled on
short notice. That's the organizers' decision--and it may have been
the right one--but it has future implications. And those organizers
shouldn't complain next time around if advance registrations are even
lower. Region 3/Dansville was always risky because of the weather. It
just got riskier.

Contrast this with the relatively new and increasingly popular Region
4 North at Mid-Atlantic Soaring Assoc. (Fairfield, PA) in mid October,
a curious time for a contest with short days and in the middle of the
school year. At least in the past, the organizers have encouraged
pilots to show up without worrying about the late-entry surcharge. The
more the merrier. Yes, M-ASA is more flexible than many contest sites:
the club has its own fleet of towplanes, a large volunteer base, and a
facility that can handle a big crowd. Still, they've found a formula
that works, having tried Memorial Day and the 4th of July in prior
years with uneven success. It's even beginning to siphon pilots away
from New Castle, the traditional end-of-the-season get together a few
weeks earlier.

It's a Darwinian process. Our sport is small. If we try to prop up
weak contests with new fees, there will be fewer pilots at the other,
perhaps more deserving contests. Is that what we want?

I don't have the answers. It's much easier to ask questions. As
easy as it is to call for new fees and regulations to enforce
"responsible behavior."

Chip Bearden
ASW 24 "JB"
USA

I understand the concept of a free market. Simply said, it is a
condition in which a "supplier" offers goods or services for a price
and "customers" choose to partake or not.
Our situation is a bit different, in my view. We have
"providers"(organizers) and "beneficiaries" (contestants). We have to
ensure that needed conditions are met for both. Fees aren't the
answer, but we need to look at how to make sure organizers can
continue to provide us a field to play on.
True, Jerry Benz was heard to say he never lost money. I was also
there in '89 when we ended with the first no contest in many years and
contestants didn't get a dime back after only flying 3 days. Many
vowed never to return, and many haven't. Privately I have heard a
couple gripes about organizers taking advantage of contestants, but
mostly I see it as the opposite.
One possibility which comes to mind is to permit organizers to freeze
the size of the field at the end of preferential entry so they know
how many to accomodate. They could then accept, at their discression,
whatever number they choose to handle the usual dropouts, many of whom
do so for good and unexpected reasons.
Thhis has been a good discussion.
UH