As a means of gauging the change in the preservation marketplace as a way of ascertaining the most economic strategies for sustainability, it would be useful to drill down into the stated 7.2% net NRHS membership drop that occurred between 2012 and 2013.

How many new members signed up in that timeframe?

Of the members that did not renew, how many failed to do so because of disability or death?

NRHS does not track the age or the health of its members (what organization does?), but there are some graphs showing the long term trend membership in the annual report posted on the NRHS web site.

These graphs show the number of chapters has been relatively stable, but the number of regular members per chapter has been dropping significantly in recent years.

The number of member that hold at large status (i.e. those that do not belong to chapters) has also been stable, as has the number of family members that belong to NRHS.

One short term trend that is noticeable is people in a given geographic area will join as members if a convention is held in their area and then drop out a year or two later.

Bob H

Thanks for the info.

Several organizations (both non-profit and for-profit) that I've dealt with over the years have sent me a postcard or email of the "Wondering what happened to you" variety. This type of marketing follow up is actually considered sound business practice for any organization hoping to remain relevant in its market. Of course, it does not help much if the recipient does not reply, no matter what the reason.

For members who are active through local chapters, the national has a solid conduit of marketing follow up information through the local membership coordinator at each chapter. A simple annual survey to each membership coordinator containing a list of anyone who did not re-up that includes a request for follow up and a report back to the national would be of great value in closing the marketing loop.

Having people who can provide this type of marketing information to the national is one of the great advantages of a local chapter membership organizational structure.

"it would be useful to drill down into the stated 7.2% net NRHS membership drop that occurred between 2012 and 2013."

viewtopic.php?f=1&t=35218


Indeed. I find it interesting how this membership drop is cited like it's some exogeneous social phenomenon, but the effect of the dues increase has to be figured in, as well.

There is a concept of price administration known as "elasticity of demand", that indicates that a price increase (in this case -dues), ordinarily results in a decrease in the quantity (in this case memberships) demanded.

Price increases tend to work to generate revenue increases when the demand is "inelastic", that is the percentage loss in quanity demanded is less than percentage increase in price. Inelastic demand is usually demonstrated by products that are necessities or that have few or poor substitutes.

Elastic demand is the opposite. A given percentage increase in price results in a larger percentage decrease in demand, so the effect is REDUCED revenue.

The final alternative is "unit elasticity" where the percent increase in price results in an equal or near equal decrease in demand quantity. A price increase results in no change in revenue.

Although these things are difficult to measure (other things change over time that influence revenue), one can use this concept to make judgments and inferences about whatever product is being sold.

Based upon an as of yet unfinished comparison and analysis between the Statement of Activities for 2012 and 2013 that appear in the 2013 audit report, it appears that the demand for memberships is roughly unit elastic (I would have guessed elastic, it's not a necessity and there are alternatives, but membership tenure awards and socialization opportunities may reduce the number of dropped memberships) and the increase in dues did not result in appreciably increased revenues.

Of course, this isn't quite so simple. There's "cross-elasticity" of demand which is changes in demand based on competitor prices, and assymetric elasticities, where for example, people reduce their demand more based on an increase in price, but demand does not increase the same way in response to a price drop.

Without turning this into a term paper for a Econ 101 class (or maybe even 401???), the NRHS dues structure has roughly 170 components -one for each chapter and one for at large members.

The data in the annual report shows at large memberships to be relatively constant, so for that subset of NRHS members, to use your term, it's "elastic."

At the chapter level it's much more complicated to analyze because each chapter has a separate dues rate (which excludes National dues), and of course activities and all of that can change from year to year.

Bob H

On the membership data issue, I think that has been one of the weaknesses of the current NRHS. The organization has some data on its members, but probably not nearly enough. Part of this is the unique nature of its members where the local chapter collects the money, forwards it and any member data on, and the national gets what it gets (at least for members through chapters). This creates a real issue for getting information out to members in a timely manner (not all chapters have been willing to provide member e-mails, for example), and getting information back such as address changes (I once lost about a year of NRHS mail when a chapter failed several times to forward my new address). In the past few years, the NRHS has been spending more than $60,000 a year in just dues renewal mailings, some wasted as the dues have already been handed to the chapters but the chapters waiting to turn all dues in at once. At the same time, in my opinion, The NRHS has not been making enough effort to track down and determine the whys of those leaving. Deaths are often collected and are announced in various listings, so some of that data is available.

On the vote about the new business organization, there was certainly a great deal of discomfort and confusion about what was being proposed and the speed it was being done at. I laughed several times about some of the confusion when some of the changes that were greatly rejected were suggested in response to member and chapter requests. For example, many chapters asked to be allowed to have non-NRHS members join their local organizations (some are doing it now in violation of their chapter agreements with NRHS), thus the idea of affiliates where the local chapter just gets some services and NRHS membership isn't required of all of its members. I think if things like this were better explained and discussed, the vote might have been different. However, after years (decades?) of discussing these issues, I think there was simply so much frustration, that some felt that there was finally a need to at least force a vote to bring the problems more into the open. Again, my opinion, but with knowledge of those on both sides of the issues.

As can be seen by the discussion here, there is a great deal of difference in opinion about what the role of NRHS is, and even if it is necessary. This discussion is certainly healthy, but it also shows the major challenges facing the organization in the future. Some seem to think that any change is throwing the old members out while no change means that younger members, and people with just a passing interest in railroading, are not wanted. The real goal should be to establish a system where both can survive in their local groups, but join together for a national focus on rail history and preservation.

I have followed this issue with enough interest that I finally registered for the site. I was a onetime NRHS member, affiliated with a large "flagship" chapter with a notable past. Sadly, like their aging member base, the glory days are past. I'm not interested in a group that sells off its rail equipment, operates bus tours to old home tours, or meets at a senior center. I'm probably pushing the limits of a young person, but I have been observing this chapter in action for at least a decade, and I am not impressed with what I see. It has become a caricature of everything wrong with "mainline" railroad social institutions.

I am somewhat mystified with the outcome of the recent NRHS elections. To me, the timeline reads like this; Long time president Malloy recognizes that there are structural problems and convenes the "New Business Model" committee to advance the NRHS in a new direction. Membership reacts badly to the idea of changing The Way Things Are Done, and votes in Weber. Malloy attempts a hasty vote on adopting suggestions made by the New Business Model committee; it is voted down. While the timing is interesting, both votes seem to be harsh reactions to the idea of change, something the NRHS clearly needs. Additionally, the board of directors hasn't changed much, which makes me wonder what their agenda is in all of this.

I read the online candidate profiles and I sincerely hope that wasn't what members used in deciding how to cast their votes. Both stuck me as very thin on actual platform. They boiled down to "I've been here forever, vote for me!" and "I've been here a long time too, and I know how things work!" What sort of choice is that, especially with a carryover board.

Four things:

1) There have been a number of veiled references to some sort of ongoing lawsuit. No one seems to be willing to comment on this, but it appears to allegedly involve an automobile mishap, all on the way to or from an NRHS-sanctioned function. Shouldn't the members be entitled to updates on a serious matter like this, or is this typical of the NRHS "Just Trust Us" way of doing business that is clearly working so well?

2) The new business model seemed to change the focus of the NRHS from one oriented around social gatherings and published explorations of railroad history to one that funnels money into museum and preservation activities. What role and authority does a bankrupt and declining organization have in deciding to spend money that they do not have? What success can they exploit here?

3) Is it possible that the White Knight, who has been so gracious to provide thousands and thousands of words of analysis on the current situation, is actually hoping that the NRHS will fail? It seems that he is waiting to clear the wreckage from the tracks and build a new and different organization (based suspiciously on the New Business Model) and with a name that is already registered to another heritage organization?

4) There already seems to be a parallel nationwide historical society that serves many of the same functions, including incorporating local chapters. It also appears to be financially solvent. Would this be a logical successor to the NRHS, which seems to lack the leadership necessary to move in any direction other than bankruptcy?

I hope that the R&LHS can continue to successfully maintain the same focus and balance they currently have, as a polite and professional organization dedicated to the study and preservation of railroad history, regardless of what may eventually become of the NRHS national organization.

PC

I think you could just as easily read the timeline as this:

1. Longtime president and board preside over general decline in the membership and general mismanagement of organization's assets.

2. 3-4 months ago, some board members are put on New Business Model committee. Committee decides to throw together a plan, without input from membership, chapters and other "stakeholders" in the organization.

3. Membership finally wakes up to gross incompetence in management of national organization, elects new board, new president.

4. In a last ditch effort to nullify the election and hold on to power, NRHS board decides to push the New Business Model without adequate explanation, adequate time for chapters and membership to respond. National sends "salesmen" out to the various chapters to try to explain the NBM, to varying degrees of success. Because of the internet, it becomes clear that the explanations of what the NBM means and what it will do are different, depending on who does the talking.

5. NRHS board member on this forum only partially answers some questions about the NBM, without really allowing the discussion to get into nuts and bolts, then flees, claiming he has a magazine to finish putting together.

6. NBM rejected. One board member on Facebook blames the membership for failing to see the genius of their elected leadership.

I'm not saying that the NRHS needs to change, but you can't ask your membership to make a change so quickly. The then-leadership of the organization had been in power for some time. Why the urgency? Why the undertone of contempt from the NRHS board to the very membership they are elected to serve?

Also, I fail to see how rejection of the status quo, in unseating the then-president is an example of an aversion to change.

Does the NRHS need to change? Probably, but it will have to be done in such a way that is digestible for the membership. In the end, they hold the keys to the kingdom, and failing to get them on board, with both the NBM committee and then trying to ram the NBM down their throat was not the best way to do things.

Further, I fail to see how the current NRHS and the NBM were mutually exclusive. If the NRHS wanted to funnel "big donor" money to preservation, what is preventing them from doing it now? To me, it's not an all or nothing proposition.

All of this definitely makes the NRHS seem like the type of organization I (the exact type of person they need to attract to assure any future for organization) want to get involved with!

I don't know where people you're getting your information, but as often is the case on rypn (which is supposed to be fact based!) some of it just isn't correct

starting with the spelling of Greg Molloy's name!

Of greater importance, there was considerable feedback from the chapters to the National Board members-- within channels of course.

and more than one board member responded to comments in this thread (and others) and you should realize these board members are volunteers and are still young enough to have 'day' jobs and thus have other demands on their time.

Also. as I've mentioned before, half of the NRHS BOD is elected every other year for four year terms and only a few board positions changed this time around, plus of course a new President (who previously had a seat on the board), so the new

What hasn't been mentioned very often on rypn (if at all) is the changes would have required changes to the NRHS bylaws which would have had to have been ratified by the members in a written vote and the possibility thus exists that even if the BOD had approved the changes, the members still could have voted them down.

Bob H

I don't know where people you're getting your information, but as often is the case on rypn (which is supposed to be fact based!) some of it just isn't correct

starting with the spelling of Greg Molloy's name!

Of greater importance, there was considerable feedback from the chapters to the National Board members-- within channels of course.

and more than one board member responded to comments in this thread (and others) and you should realize these board members are volunteers and are still young enough to have 'day' jobs and thus have other demands on their time.

Also. as I've mentioned before, half of the NRHS BOD is elected every other year for four year terms and only a few board positions changed this time around, plus of course a new President (who previously had a seat on the board), so the new board isn't that different. Note that the staggered terms are designed to create continuity in board membership.

What hasn't been mentioned very often on rypn (if at all) is the changes would have required changes to the NRHS bylaws which would have had to have been ratified by the members in a written vote and the possibility thus exists that even if the BOD had approved the changes, the members still could have voted them down.

Bob H

For the record, members in long good standing (a 25-year member here) only received their membership cards from the National NRHS about 2-3 weeks ago.

That's all I'm saying on the matter publicly.

Are you sure YOUR group is in any position to cast stones on that matter?

Attending to boring unmatter administrivia is really hard for a lot of groups.

Have you asked NRHS about this?

There's an email contract form on the NRHS website.

Bob H