At 02:16 PM 01/12/02 , you wrote:
>
>Matt,
>
>This option of NCJ vs QST has been discussed from time-to-time by the BoD
>but makes no sense for the following reasons:
>
>1) advertising $$$ for the ARRL is driven by the number of copies of QST
>being mailed each month.? You split the membership between two rags and the
>ad $$$ would drop like a rock.
>
Actually it is 3 rags, don't forget QEX/CQ Communication Quarterly !!!? I
think
the League could stand to dump both publications, recoup the publishing costs,
and gain advertising $$$ by increasing QST circulation.? This would mean
having
to increase the content QST to keep the readership from NCJ & QEX.
>2) QST costs the ARRL nothing.? Not one single dime.? Why?? The ad revenues
>cover the costs (plus or minus some pocket change according to Director
>Bellows--see a previous post).
>
That has always been my understanding thru the years !!!
>3) 100% of the subscription price is used for member services--the lab,
>contest admin, QSL bureau, legislative actions, FCC support, etc.
>
Increase circulation and there are more $$$ for the needed work.? If the
readership becomes alienated and we lose membership we start to implode.
>4) NCJ is actually a loss for the ARRL.? The league supports the NCJ out of
>general funds (QST subscriptions/membership dues.? Giving away more copies
>is an expensive option.
>
Then just get rid of it and use the funds to expand QST. The same for QEX/CQ
Communication Quarterly
>
73 Bob, K1VU
>
>
>----- Original Message -----
>From: "Matt & Carrie Trott" <aa7bg@3rivers.net>
>To: "Lee Hiers" <lee@dixieliner.com>; <k1zz@arrl.org>; <k1ro@arrl.org>
>Cc: <w4rh@arrl.org>; "Sandy Donahue" <w4ru@yahoo.com>; <w5jbp@arrl.org>;
><cq-contest@contesting.com>
>Sent: January 12, 2002 2:21 AM
>Subject: RE: [CQ-Contest] QST vs. NCJ
>
>
>>
>> Great idea. I'll take a lifetime sub to NCJ.
>>
>> Matt--K7BG
>>
>> -----Original Message-----
>> From: owner-cq-contest@contesting.com
>>
[<mailto:owner-cq-contest@contesting.com%5DOn>mailto:owner-cq-contest@contes
ting.com]On Behalf Of Lee Hiers
>> Sent: Friday, January 11, 2002 7:54 AM
>> To: k1zz@arrl.org; k1ro@arrl.org
>> Cc: w4rh@arrl.org; Sandy Donahue; w5jbp@arrl.org;
>> cq-contest@contesting.com
>> Subject: [CQ-Contest] QST vs. NCJ
>>
>>
>>
>> You guys may not have seen this mentioned on the contest reflector,
>> or may not have given it serious consideration, but I think you
>> should.
>>
>> Should contest coverage be effectively removed from QST, as I feel it
>> will be, why not offer the members the choice of which periodical
>> they receive?
>>
>> I know other membership organizations do this (such as the NRA).
>>
>> At this point, I think I would choose NCJ over QST, as there is
>> generally little in QST of interest to me other than contest
>> coverage.
>>
>> Would this not represent additional cost savings to the League?
>>
>> 73 de Lee
>>
>>
>> --
>> Lee Hiers, AA4GA
>> Cornelia, GA
>>
>> lee@dixieliner.com
>>
>>
>> --
>> CQ-Contest on WWW:
<http://lists.contesting.com/_cq-contest/>http://lists.contesting.com/_cq-co
ntest/
>> Administrative requests: cq-contest-REQUEST@contesting.com
>>
>>
>> ---
>> Incoming mail is certified Virus Free.
>> Checked by AVG anti-virus system
(<http://www.grisoft.com/>http://www.grisoft.com).
To: <vhfcontesting@contesting.com>
>> Version: 6.0.313 / Virus Database: 174 - Release Date: 01/02/2002
>>
>> ---
>> Outgoing mail is certified Virus Free.
>> Checked by AVG anti-virus system
(<http://www.grisoft.com/>http://www.grisoft.com).
To: <vhfcontesting@contesting.com>
>> Version: 6.0.313 / Virus Database: 174 - Release Date: 01/02/2002
>>
>>
>> --
>> CQ-Contest on WWW:
<http://lists.contesting.com/_cq-contest/>http://lists.contesting.com/_cq-co
ntest/
>> Administrative requests: cq-contest-REQUEST@contesting.com
>>
>>
>>
>
>
>--
>CQ-Contest on WWW:
<http://lists.contesting.com/_cq-contest/>http://lists.contesting.com/_cq-co
ntest/
>Administrative requests: cq-contest-REQUEST@contesting.com
>
|