USFA Election 2008 Debate Question #4: Role of Technology and Implementation

[peet]

Wufoo might work fine but it costs $200/mo (twice the price that ActiveNet costs). I don't really think that $100/mo is a major investment - even if it is a solution that may be incorporated into another permanent solution later as the budget permits.

Ah, I guess I was thinking of the $10,000 up-front fee that I saw on your website rather than the monthly charge. That said, I'll bet that wufoo's $69/month solution would do ok for the USFA, at least as an interim solution.

But I haven't looked deeply into wufoo, so that's just a guess.

As interim solutions go, there are also online forms and payments plugins that work with the current USFA website software (mambo). I haven't investigated any of them deeply, but if the USFA were to consider implementing a non-integrated interim solution, they'd want to at least look into those.

-P

[T]

Ah, I guess I was thinking of the $10,000 up-front fee that I saw on your website rather than the monthly charge.
-P

The $10,000 upfront fee is for all of the bells and whistles that come with the full ActiveNet solution. They specifically stated that the software developers would work with whatever tournament management software (FencingTime, Xseed, etc.) that we have (as well as the software developer) so that they could coordinate the data (that is actually what a big portion of the $10k is for). The monthly fee for the full ActiveNet solution is $250/mo. I am not advocating that solution at this point at all!

The Thriva software system is a scaled down set of solutions and requires no upfront fee and costs $100/mo. The price could actually be cheaper and could start at $70/mo. The difference in the $70/mo and $100/mo version will depend on the level of training required and may not necessarily be needed.

[peet]

The $10,000 upfront fee is for all of the bells and whistles that come with the full ActiveNet solution. They specifically stated that the software developers would work with whatever tournament management software (FencingTime, Xseed, etc.) that we have (as well as the software developer) so that they could coordinate the data (that is actually what a big portion of the $10k is for). The monthly fee for the full ActiveNet solution is $250/mo. I am not advocating that solution at this point at all!

The Thriva software system is a scaled down set of solutions and requires no upfront fee and costs $100/mo. The price could actually be cheaper and could start at $70/mo. The difference in the $70/mo and $100/mo version will depend on the level of training required and may not necessarily be needed.

Okeedokee, Thanks for the additional info!

-P

[DJ Apostrophe]

As someone who has used active.com to register for fencing tournaments (Pomme de Terre used it for a few years) I would like to register my opinion that it sucks.

I got to experience it from two sides: Fencer and Bout Committee member.

Disclaimer: I haven't used it in a few years so it may be better now.

As a fencer, the interface was horribly awkward, and they are constantly pushing magazine subscriptions. An example of the awkward interface: I registered myself for an individual event. Later on, I decided I wanted to fence a Team event. Active.com charged me the registration fee again when I went to add the additional event. To this day I have not seen the $45 from the New England division that they promised they'd refund me. I've given up on it and moved on. (I do enough volunteer work in the division that $45 is a drop in the bucket compared to what I've donated in time).

As a bout committee user, we had fencers who had registered (and wisely printed out the payment receipt from the website) who had totally disappeared from active's list of people who had paid, We had a kludgy solution to get from active's downloadable excel sheets into an Engarde fencers table (I imagine XSeed would be even worse), and it was overall an experience that left a bad taste in MANY people's mouths and we ended up switching to FRED because it was much better all around.

Many people who used the system complained about the active.com fees as well as they are mostly born by the card holder who is registering for an event. This is mainly a customer service appearance of things, but it was a complaint I felt you should be aware of. When we moved to FRED, the customers only see a $.50 fee that they pay, the rest comes out of the back end.

I am hesitant to use active.com again as a fencer, and would probably continue to mail / fax my entry in if active.com was the online registration option, and I'm sure I'm not the only one.

-w

[T]

As someone who has used active.com to register for fencing tournaments (Pomme de Terre used it for a few years) I would like to register my opinion that it sucks.

I got to experience it from two sides: Fencer and Bout Committee member.

Disclaimer: I haven't used it in a few years so it may be better now.

As a fencer, the interface was horribly awkward, and they are constantly pushing magazine subscriptions. An example of the awkward interface: I registered myself for an individual event. Later on, I decided I wanted to fence a Team event. Active.com charged me the registration fee again when I went to add the additional event. To this day I have not seen the $45 from the New England division that they promised they'd refund me. I've given up on it and moved on. (I do enough volunteer work in the division that $45 is a drop in the bucket compared to what I've donated in time).

As a bout committee user, we had fencers who had registered (and wisely printed out the payment receipt from the website) who had totally disappeared from active's list of people who had paid, We had a kludgy solution to get from active's downloadable excel sheets into an Engarde fencers table (I imagine XSeed would be even worse), and it was overall an experience that left a bad taste in MANY people's mouths and we ended up switching to FRED because it was much better all around.

Many people who used the system complained about the active.com fees as well as they are mostly born by the card holder who is registering for an event. This is mainly a customer service appearance of things, but it was a complaint I felt you should be aware of. When we moved to FRED, the customers only see a $.50 fee that they pay, the rest comes out of the back end.

I am hesitant to use active.com again as a fencer, and would probably continue to mail / fax my entry in if active.com was the online registration option, and I'm sure I'm not the only one.

-w

These may be legitimate concerns although my understanding is that they have improved their product substantially over the last couple of years. With that said, they are one possible solution to a significant problem that we have at the moment. There are other companies out there that do the same type of thing. We can use a trial/demo version to try it out to see if it will suit our needs. I'm not an ActiveNet salesman so I have no vested interest in this ONE particular product. But these types of solutions are worth investigating and figuring out how to solve the problem in a way that lends itself to adapting to future needs and expansion.

[oiuyt]

Just for reference, the discussion held here last April comparing Active and FRED. Note both the poll results and the content of the comments posted.

-B

[DJ Apostrophe]

These may be legitimate concerns although my understanding is that they have improved their product substantially over the last couple of years. With that said, they are one possible solution to a significant problem that we have at the moment. There are other companies out there that do the same type of thing. We can use a trial/demo version to try it out to see if it will suit our needs. I'm not an ActiveNet salesman so I have no vested interest in this ONE particular product. But these types of solutions are worth investigating and figuring out how to solve the problem in a way that lends itself to adapting to future needs and expansion.

I totally agree, and while I think an integrated solution is best (new membership database with new web portal that talks directly to the membership database and a system to input / extract tournament information from that database), I think something like Active.com / woofu / others is a good interim step.

I just thought you'd appreciate the opinion of someone who has 'been there, done that' with this particular product.

-w

[epeemike81]

As someone who has used active.com to register for fencing tournaments (Pomme de Terre used it for a few years) I would like to register my opinion that it sucks.

I got to experience it from two sides: Fencer and Bout Committee member.

Disclaimer: I haven't used it in a few years so it may be better now.

As a fencer, the interface was horribly awkward, and they are constantly pushing magazine subscriptions. An example of the awkward interface: I registered myself for an individual event. Later on, I decided I wanted to fence a Team event. Active.com charged me the registration fee again when I went to add the additional event. To this day I have not seen the $45 from the New England division that they promised they'd refund me. I've given up on it and moved on. (I do enough volunteer work in the division that $45 is a drop in the bucket compared to what I've donated in time).

As a bout committee user, we had fencers who had registered (and wisely printed out the payment receipt from the website) who had totally disappeared from active's list of people who had paid, We had a kludgy solution to get from active's downloadable excel sheets into an Engarde fencers table (I imagine XSeed would be even worse), and it was overall an experience that left a bad taste in MANY people's mouths and we ended up switching to FRED because it was much better all around.

Many people who used the system complained about the active.com fees as well as they are mostly born by the card holder who is registering for an event. This is mainly a customer service appearance of things, but it was a complaint I felt you should be aware of. When we moved to FRED, the customers only see a $.50 fee that they pay, the rest comes out of the back end.

I am hesitant to use active.com again as a fencer, and would probably continue to mail / fax my entry in if active.com was the online registration option, and I'm sure I'm not the only one.

-w

QFT.

Active is also notorious for selling their email lists. The minor issues with active were product issues, but the major issues have to do with how they view their "customers." They are not a good data steward. I do not (and will not) trust them with my info.

-m

[T]

Just for reference, the discussion held here last April comparing Active and FRED. Note both the poll results and the content of the comments posted.

-B

In all honesty, the name brand recognition of askFRED is going to win people over in the polls alone. I am not arguing that askFRED doesn't do a good part of what we need right now. IF we gave askFRED the privileges to share the USFA data (with proper security precautions, etc.) COULD we implement it quickly (i.e, this season)?

So, this question is for PEET...
What do you need to make askFRED available for NAC registration now? and has anyone ever asked you? I know you gave a proposal a few years ago which included a much more comprehensive system (which you never received a response about) but what about this one component for NAC registration alone?

[KShan5[PrFC]]

Can I just ask why online registration is such an "important" issue? Of course I find it absurd that we don't have it yet, it makes very little sense. However, aren't there issues that are vastly more important than the ability to regiser for a NAC online? Is it really that hard to stick a stamp on an envelope and mail it to CO once a month (at most)? I dunno, I just don't see how this is such a pressing issue.

[keith]

Can I just ask why online registration is such an "important" issue?

If you want to reorganise the national office staff you have to remove previous duties before giving them new ones.

Doing otherwise is a recipe for dissatisfaction and resignations.

[oiuyt]

In all honesty, the name brand recognition of askFRED is going to win people over in the polls alone.

Oh, no question. Which is part of why I suggested reading the comments as well as looking at the poll. Those comments match my sentiments with regards to Active. The past few times I've fenced the PdT I snailmailed my registration rather than use it.

When looking at people that have actually used both systems name recognition alone mostly goes away as a factor.

In any case, past experiences with Active in a moderately high-profile fencing setting should inform future decisions. I was looking to help remind people of the already-existing institutional knowledge on this specific topic.

-B

[DJ Apostrophe]

Can I just ask why online registration is such an "important" issue? Of course I find it absurd that we don't have it yet, it makes very little sense. However, aren't there issues that are vastly more important than the ability to regiser for a NAC online? Is it really that hard to stick a stamp on an envelope and mail it to CO once a month (at most)? I dunno, I just don't see how this is such a pressing issue.

I think it's gotten to be a 'pressing' issue because it touches a large part of the membership base and it has been promised for so long. People are just being fed up with being told "Almost there!" Waiting for online NAC registration has been almost as bad as waiting for Duke Nukem Forever to be released.

Also, getting it implemented would save the national office tons of resources as they wouldn't have to type by hand every NAC / Nationals entry that was received. Think about that if you go to San Jose. Every single person you see competing equals at least 2 or 3 pages of paper that someone at the national office has to do something with. It's a large manpower sink.

-w

[ivlobane]

Can I just ask why online registration is such an "important" issue? Of course I find it absurd that we don't have it yet, it makes very little sense. However, aren't there issues that are vastly more important than the ability to regiser for a NAC online? Is it really that hard to stick a stamp on an envelope and mail it to CO once a month (at most)? I dunno, I just don't see how this is such a pressing issue.

It's a huge issue that goes back to USFA office operations, not just the customer service side of things...

[ivlobane]

Just for reference, the discussion held here last April comparing Active and FRED. Note both the poll results and the content of the comments posted.

-B

That was 2006. Back then askFRED was kind of clunky too... Peet, what would it take to use today's FRED for NACs?

[KShan5[PrFC]]

I think it's gotten to be a 'pressing' issue because it touches a large part of the membership base and it has been promised for so long. People are just being fed up with being told "Almost there!" Waiting for online NAC registration has been almost as bad as waiting for Duke Nukem Forever to be released.

Also, getting it implemented would save the national office tons of resources as they wouldn't have to type by hand every NAC / Nationals entry that was received. Think about that if you go to San Jose. Every single person you see competing equals at least 2 or 3 pages of paper that someone at the national office has to do something with. It's a large manpower sink.

-w

OK. It makes more sense from a National Office perspective (one I was not considering). Thanks.

[T]

Disclaimer: I haven't used it in a few years so it may be better now.

-w

the poll was conducted in 2006

Active is also notorious for selling their email lists. The minor issues with active were product issues, but the major issues have to do with how they view their "customers." They are not a good data steward. I do not (and will not) trust them with my info.

-m

From their latest Privacy statement (Feb 2007), the appear to have an opt-in or opt-out program of sharing email addresses. You make that choice when you subscribe for a login/password and can always change your profile to reflect a different status of options.

Oh, no question. Which is part of why I suggested reading the comments as well as looking at the poll. Those comments match my sentiments with regards to Active. The past few times I've fenced the PdT I snailmailed my registration rather than use it.
-B

It seems that these comments are from using the software a few years ago (2006?). The product has changed significantly from then and major sports organizations are using it such as the US Tennis Assoc, Road Runners club, US Sailing, Ironman, US Triathlon Assoc, USA Hockey, Little League, etc.

[tdwg83]

I have used Active as recently as last November and my complaints match those of 2 years ago.

[tchwojko]

I get the impression that Active doesn't put the needs of the customer first. If there's any opt-out/opt-in thing for "offers" beyond being notified of fencing activities, then they're not looking out for the customer, they're trying to maximize their revenue by taking advantage of the customer.

[ivlobane]

I get the impression that Active doesn't put the needs of the customer first. If there's any opt-out/opt-in thing for "offers" beyond being notified of fencing activities, then they're not looking out for the customer, they're trying to maximize their revenue by taking advantage of the customer.

???

Privacy Policy and Internet Safeguards Will Keep your Registrants Safe
Active adheres to one of the most stringent privacy policies and will not share participant data or account information with third parties.

The Active system uses SSL encryption technology issued by VeriSign to protect all payment information.