PPA Member Survey Results

[DonkeyQuixote]

Originally Posted by Skallagrim

Members come in all shapes and sizes.

Perhaps several hundred are active and committed enough to participate in the daily action plan every day.

Perhaps several thousand are active and committed enough to participate in the ongoing email and letter campaigns.

Perhaps several tens of thousands are active and committed enough to participate at important times and in reaction to important events.

And perhaps several hundreds of thousands are active and committed enough to participate in major "this is it" actions, as the situation warrants.

And perhaps a fair number of the 1,000,000 members are happy to have simply signed up and publicly indicated their support for our goals and wish us well in our efforts.

Of course if DQ were running the show he would probably purge the members who have not donated money or failed to write their legislators more than once in the past year. He seems to believe such purges help the effort by whittling away the general supporters and re-enforcing the connection of the remaining, but pure and active, few.

DQ's tactics worked well in Czarist Russia, but I think our situation is a little different.

Skallagrim

I did not realize that my question was seen as anything other than a question.

If it is true that ""The majority of PPA members are between the ages of 30 and 69 years old and earn an annual income of at least $50,000",

why can't the PPA Board raise sustainable self-funding from

(1.) a "fair number" of its 1,000,000+ members, or

(2.) its "several hundreds of thousands" of members who are "active and committed", or

(3.) its "several tens of thousands" of members who are "active and committed".

At least one PPA Board member apparently believes that asking members for funds to support their collective representation is somehow invoking Czarist Russia. Typical strawman nonsense with a personal smear, sorry to say. Plenty of organizations in the US raise funds from members, from the NRA to the RNC to the Tea Party to the Chamber of Commerce to the DNC to the UAW to the AARP to the Boy Scouts of America; that doesn't make them un-American Senator McCarthy.

$50,000 per member remains a pretty hefty base to solicit donations from, whether it is 1,000,000+ or even just tens of thousands. If the facts we have been given by the PPA are true, there is little excuse for not raising sustainable funds from the membership, except ...... who knows , maybe one PPA Board member really doesn't understand the question?

[Skallagrim]

DQ's suggestion of setting minimum dues and getting rid of members who don't pay dues was, admittedly, in another thread so perhaps I should have referenced that: http://forumserver.twoplustwo.com/15...sible-1140094/

What I find problematic about DQ's position is that it 1) asks the PPA to stop a source of funding at a time of dire need, and 2) has inferred that people who do not give money to the PPA should not be allowed to be "members" of the PPA.

The PPA actively seeks paying members and actively seeks donations (from players and other sources), but the PPA does not actively remove people from membership roles because they have not given money.

In sum, as has been explained dozens of times before, what the PPA cannot do from player money alone is continue to fund the DC lobbyists. And I want those lobbyists working for us this year at least. Some people want the DC lobbyists gone and will support any action that helps that happen. Even if later is the time to adopt such a strategy, now is not.

Skallagrim

[DonkeyQuixote]

Originally Posted by Skallagrim

DQ's suggestion of setting minimum dues and getting rid of members who don't pay dues was, admittedly, in another thread so perhaps I should have referenced that: http://forumserver.twoplustwo.com/15...sible-1140094/

What I find problematic about DQ's position is that it 1) asks the PPA to stop a source of funding at a time of dire need, and 2) has inferred that people who do not give money to the PPA should not be allowed to be "members" of the PPA.

The PPA actively seeks paying members and actively seeks donations (from players and other sources), but the PPA does not actively remove people from membership roles because they have not given money.

In sum, as has been explained dozens of times before, what the PPA cannot do from player money alone is continue to fund the DC lobbyists. And I want those lobbyists working for us this year at least. Some people want the DC lobbyists gone and will support any action that helps that happen. Even if later is the time to adopt such a strategy, now is not.

Skallagrim

Do the math,

$120 per year X whatever number of members = a lot more money than the PPA has ever raised from members before:

Say 2.5% of the claimed PPA "members" are willing to kick in $10/per month,

Well, 25,000 X $120 = $3,000,000 annually.

With 50 State Directors and years of successful representation of player interests, why are folks afraid to reach for a 2.5% response rate among members ?

Reward those members who reach into their pockets to support the cause. Reward those folks, like SDs who raise funds. Why is some incentive system so hard to understand ?

"Members" SHOULD support their cause financially, even pay dues. It is now empty puffery to pretend that 1,000,000 poker players "belong" to the PPA membership if less than 2% of that number will help fund the cause. I think the 1,000,000+ member march began playing with ex-Senator D'Amato, a well-paid lobbyist at the time. Was that nimber EVER reflected in dues payments or broken down by State levels for real local actions to lobby for poker ?

Rather than examine the reasons why past PPA fundraising efforts failed miserably, it is safer, and likely a bit easier, for a natural legalistic reactionary to decry State level fundraising/organizing efforts as too burdensome, ignore causes for past failures to draw financial support from a meaningful percentage of members, instead try to re-define "member" away from any real meaningful standard of support, and ultimately deny there are any real democratic benefits of true member funding and resultant direction of policy.

Simply put, there is no will to raise sustainable funding from PPA members because it isn't seen a necessary to sustain meaningful member representation.

[sajeffe]

Originally Posted by sajeffe

Interesting.

I'm ignorant in the area of surveys, so forgive me if these are stupid questions.

Is this survey and survey company relevant enough to use in making our arguments both, via social media and (most importantly) in the hearings? Will the survey be published in a trade magazine or newsletter?

Thanks.

^^^^ Anybody?

(As a side note, I find it interesting that the majority of PPA members are between the ages of 30 and 69. Where are all of the 20-somethings?)

[TheEngineer]

Originally Posted by sajeffe

Interesting.

I'm ignorant in the area of surveys, so forgive me if these are stupid questions.

Is this survey and survey company relevant enough to use in making our arguments both, via social media and (most importantly) in the hearings? Will the survey be published in a trade magazine or newsletter?

Thanks.

I'm more interested in the results to ensure the organization reflects the opinions of the membership, but there may be some potential to use the results externally for advocacy efforts as well.

[TheEngineer]

Originally Posted by DonkeyQuixote

Do the math,

$120 per year X whatever number of members = a lot more money than the PPA has ever raised from members before:

Say 2.5% of the claimed PPA "members" are willing to kick in $10/per month,

Well, 25,000 X $120 = $3,000,000 annually.

With 50 State Directors and years of successful representation of player interests, why are folks afraid to reach for a 2.5% response rate among members ?

I've spent five years begging people to be active. I still get lots of people here who very proud not to participate in anything and even to post in an effort to talk others out of helping. Check out the NVG poll: Will you participate in the Daily Action Plan?

Keep in mind that the action plan is not a PPA action plan. It's community-driven and everyone can post suggestions on what they'd like to see. Even with that, lots of people are thrilled to state that they will not pitch in.

Lots of people do participate and I appreciate that, but I don't see any data to support your contention that the numbers you posted are what should be expected of PPA.

Reward those members who reach into their pockets to support the cause. Reward those folks, like SDs who raise funds. Why is some incentive system so hard to understand ?

I'd say I'm pretty motivated about this. I'd say Skall is too, as is PX (as SD and in his current role) and many others. It's not like these states have tens of thousands of members.

"Members" SHOULD support their cause financially, even pay dues. It is now empty puffery to pretend that 1,000,000 poker players "belong" to the PPA membership if less than 2% of that number will help fund the cause. I think the 1,000,000+ member march began playing with ex-Senator D'Amato, a well-paid lobbyist at the time. Was that nimber EVER reflected in dues payments or broken down by State levels for real local actions to lobby for poker ?

So, you want us to assess the membership numbers differently? Should we move less active people off the rolls? What would that get us?

Simply put, there is no will to raise sustainable funding from PPA members because it isn't seen a necessary to sustain meaningful member representation.

No...it's absolutely necessary for PPA to establish sustainable funding from the membership. That's why I do all these webcasts, put requests for donations in weekly updates, and all sorts of other stuff. We're doing our part.

[Gin 'n Tonic]

Originally Posted by sajeffe

(As a side note, I find it interesting that the majority of PPA members are between the ages of 30 and 69. Where are all of the 20-somethings?)

Given that the minimum US age for playing poker is 21, and that your membership is going to start dying off substantially over age ~70, surely it's almost inevitable that the majority of the membership would be in this age bracket.

Frankly I'm surprised that the PPA even bothered quoting it as a statistic.

Also would the PPA care to post the questions that were actually asked in the survey itt?

[TheEngineer]

Thanks for your comments. I actually think it's of good value to show lawmakers that this is something enjoyed by adults, and that the age range is well away from 18.

[repulse]

Originally Posted by Gin 'n Tonic

Given that the minimum US age for playing poker is 21, and that your membership is going to start dying off substantially over age ~70, surely it's almost inevitable that the majority of the membership would be in this age bracket.

Frankly I'm surprised that the PPA even bothered quoting it as a statistic.

Also would the PPA care to post the questions that were actually asked in the survey itt?

The PPA presumably has plenty of members aged 18-20 who legally play poker online, in private games, and in the few US cardrooms with lower minimum ages. I, too, am surprised that the membership isn't mostly 20-somethings. But I agree with TE, it's a nice political fact that the membership data happens to work out that it's mostly non-young adults... though 30-69 is a pretty wide range if you stop and think about it... perhaps there are more 18-30s than, say, 30-50s?

[sajeffe]

My point with bringing up the age issue is that the young people didn't bother with the survey. And, yeah, that works out great for the PPA, who can claim an adult membership.

[repulse]

Ah, yes, that'd do it too.